Colorado conservative sanitizing history in the name of patriotism

Conservative politicians across the country have spent much of the past few years attempting to remake public education in their image. It can be seen in policies that turn teachers into free market independent contractors competing with their colleagues and counterparts at other schools because conservatives believe competition is better than collaboration in every situation. It can be seen in the multitude of efforts to integrate creationism in science classes even though this theological doctrine has zero scientific content. But most recently it can be seen in the work of Jefferson Country Colorado school board member Julie Williams.

Williams has offered a proposal that aims to sanitize the districts US History materials to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage."

This idea of presenting the US as infallible has long been a conservative talking point but the reality is that patriotism is just conservative code for political correctness.

For instance, if you look at Julie Williams Facebook page you will see that she is an aggressive opponent of Colorado using the Common Core Standards. Given that these standards have been approved of at the state level, her resistance and subsequent social media activism could certainly been seen as a general disregard for the law. Her Facebook posts also reveal that she believes vaccines are responsible for some cases of autism despite the CDC reports indicating the multiple studies find no such link. Is sharing this misinformation not a form of social strife?

Our history is also full of events that are held up as glorious victories for the country even though they would clearly be classified as civil disorder. The Boston Tea party, the Revolutionary War, ending Women's Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement are all events that a revered even though they also represent a citizenry struggling against government.

What Williams is really advocating for here is the power to manipulate public education to fit her naive idealized vision of America. There is no question that American's have accomplished many great things and those achievements should certainly be part of every students education however as the iconic saying goes "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Slavery is a shameful part of American history but glossing over slavery means ignoring the core cause of the Civil War. It means skipping over the Civil Rights movement. And it insults the memory of all the men and women that were abducted from their homes and sold like animals.

Removing Japanese American's from the homes and holding them in internment camps during WWII and the actions of Joe McCarthy during the Second Red Scare were both disgraceful actions by our government but understanding how fear can lead to terrible decisions is clearly a topic worth discussing as we face new enemies like the Islamic State and the Ebola virus.

The Great Depression is obviously a time in our history that many would prefer to forget but the massive wealth gap coupled with a severe lack of government regulations that precipitated this sudden economic crisis are lessons that if learned may have prevented the Great Recession of 2008.

The irony is that while many events in US history represent a less than perfect country taking personal responsibility is a conservative meme. Brushing all of our undesirable actions under the rug represents to polar opposite of this moral imperative.

Beyond this the idea that US History is some sort of marketable product to be promoted really misses the point of education. This is the type of narrow minded tripe commonly associated with Communist, Theocratic, and Dictatorial governments. Using the education system to indoctrinate the public with propaganda is far from our Democratic ideals.

Countless American success stories prove that the knowledge gained from failing is often paramount in achieving success. Instead of seeing every poor decision as a black eye we should view them as an opportunity to learn and grow because if education is supposed to prepare children for the real world seeing history through rose colored glasses does these kids a great disservice.

In the end the question that Julie Williams and her supporters need to ask themselves is would they still advocate for a special committee to review and sensor US history materials if that committee was appointed by liberals? If the answer to that question is no then it tells you all you need to know about the goals of this proposal.

Why are fast food workers being vilified?

The efforts of fast food workers around the country to bring attention to their low wages earlier this month have generated a lot of media attention. While having a conversation about getting a greater share of profits distributed to the average employee is a good thing there have also been quite a few arguments against this idea.

For example conservative writer Deborah Simmons puts voice to a common complaint among advocates of keeping wages low in her article titled "Fast-food jobs a good start, not a career". It should be noted that a few years ago, due to an exceedingly high turnover rate, McDonald's started a campaign trying to convince employees to turn their job into a career. Obviously not every employee can become a manager, but McDonald's certainly wouldn't be the first company to dangle the carrot of promotion to retain good staff at lower rates. Additionally, the fact that only 30% of McDonald's staff are teenagers suggests there is a need for fast food companies to have a certain percentage of their staff that makes "flipping burgers" at the very least a short term career, because as a pure cost consideration hiring teenagers who can work for as little as $4.25 makes far more sense.

The next question that Simmons asks is do these employees deserve $15 per hour for "slinging burgers or plopping a basket of fries into a deep fryer"? Unfortunately this flippant question completely misses the value of the average McDonald's employee. Imagine if someone did the same analysis of Mrs. Simmons job. She gets paid to have an opinion and write about it. Anyone can do that, so does she really "deserve" the wages she makes? The question isn't how many people can do the job but rather how many people can do the job well.

Yes, most anyone can take an order but how many people can take your order quickly, correctly, and provide a positive customer interaction? Do you have to have a degree from an Ivy League college to work the front of a McDonald's? Nope. But you can bet that nearly everyone currently working a McDonald's cash register can do it better than Deborah Simmons, despite her obvious educational advantage.

Having said that, neither what a McDonald's job is meant to be or how much someone deserves to sling burgers is the reason these employees are asking for a raise. They want a raise because they have helped McDonald's achieve staggering profits and they would like their fair share.

Another common concern regarding an increase in wages for fast food employees is that it would increase prices and put stores out of business. While this is certainly possible, McDonald's currently operates with a 20% profit margin. Perhaps rather than raise the cost of the Big Mac they can just cut into the nearly $1 per unit profit they make and share that with employees. It is also true that even with higher wages and only small price increases McDonald's manages to make more profit at their European locations.

Still others complain that increasing wages will result in fewer employees because these companies will automate. The reality is that companies are looking for ways to cut costs and almost none of them get panned by supporters of free market capitalism. Their sudden concern for the employment levels of low wage workers seems completely disingenuous. Farmers have eliminated vast numbers of jobs over the years due to advancements in equipment. Are there people clamoring for a return to using an ox to till the fields because it would create jobs? Think of all of increase in employment we could create if we just paid people to move products from the manufacturer to the seller using bicycles instead of those job killing semi-trucks. But even when automation does occur it doesn't necessarily lead to massive layoffs. For instance data shows the invention of ATM has not lead to the demise of bank tellers.

Rather than feigning concern about the number of people employed in the fast food industry, we should be outraged that these low wages cost taxpayers some $7 billion per year since 52% of families of fast food workers get at least one form of government assistance. The fight for $15 isn't about retaining a certain number of jobs. It is about providing a wage that a person can live on. If your starter job barely covers your basic needs how are you supposed to get that elusive college degree that proves you want to do something better with your life? If you have to work two jobs just to make ends meet when are you supposed to spend time with your family and make sure your kids have a better life? If you get low pay and little to no benefits how are you supposed to prevent an injury or illness from bankrupting you?

But perhaps the favorite talking point for those in support of low wages is the idea that raising wages would hurt the franchisees (small business owners) not the corporation. Apparently the corporation can't spare a dime of its $8.5 billion in profit to assist each store with possible wage hikes. Apparently increasing dividend payments for shareholders to $3.5 billion is better for business than rewarding employees with increased pay. Apparently McDonald's executive team feels no responsibility for a five year downward sales trend as they still managed to take home as much as $67 million in compensation.

Of course the irony is that employees aren't the only ones at McDonald's that feel they deserve a greater share of the profits. The very franchisees that talking heads claim to be so concerned about are upset with corporate for cutting into their margins with recent increases in franchise fees. Fees that are aimed at making McDonald's bottom line look better to investors at the expense of employees and franchisees. And while employees organizing to negotiate a better deal represents the worst of capitalism to some, it should be noted that franchisees are attempting to do the very same thing. Don't these franchise owners know that in the free market it is each man for himself? Don't they know that by getting together and demanding more money it will ultimately destroy McDonald's? Don't they get that McDonald's needs $8.5 billion in profit to survive? How can these small business owners be so naïve, and selfish?

In the end McDonald's, their franchisees, and their employees all want the same thing - more money. The problem is that unless they all work together to find a way to increase earnings the current model only provides so much profit and for one party to make more it means another party has to accept less. History shows that Henry Ford doubled wages and still managed to increase profits. Are we really supposed to believe McDonald's can't spend a single penny more on workers without going bankrupt or ruining the US economy?

What's wrong with fast food workers earning a living wage?

Last week fast food employees across the nation took to the streets to protest low wages. As one of the largest fast food chains in the world McDonalds is often the target of these protests. Of course given that the average McDonald's employee receives some of the lowest wages in the industry at around $7.73 per hour it should as no surprise that McDonalds often takes center stage in the “fight for 15” campaign.

As with any good protest the idea is to bring attention to issue and sway public opinion. If the protesters can generate enough bad press and consumer pressure the corporations may be compelled to change their habits.

The goal of $15 per hour is likely a pipedream but with around $8.5 billion in income, $3.5 billion in dividend payments, and another $67 million in executive compensation it seems McDonald’s can afford to increase wages some. Asking for more than you expect to receive is standard practice in any sort of negotiations so starting at $15 per hour makes sense as an initial offer.

The problem for workers is that unless management at McDonalds decides to raise wages or improve benefits they will need their own team of negotiators to represent them. They will also need a structure to approve any agreement. Without this, each employee will be left to fend for themselves – a situation that clearly has and will continue to favor the multi-billion dollar corporation.

Unfortunately as soon as employees retain the services of an organization that can help them negotiate better compensation they will also make enemies of those who believe such organizations are "evil".

My colleague Kathryn Hoekstra offers a couple examples of this mentality. Kathy sees the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) working with fast food employees and thinks their motives are anything but altruistic. To her they are nothing but a greedy, self-serving, power hungry organization.

But how is that different than McDonalds? If spending money trying to gain more members makes the SEIU power hungry then the $1 billion in advertising McDonalds spends each year should be a concern as well. If the SEIU executive compensation of around $3 per member shows how greedy unions bosses are then the $77 per employee being paid to McDonalds executives should be much more troubling. If the 6% profit margin average for the fast food industry is meant to illustrate that these companies commitment to their employees what does that say for the SEIU's 5.9% profit margin? More over what does that say about McDonald's with its 19.8% margin?

The reality is both of McDonald's and the SEIU are free market, capitalist entities. Their goals of increasing income and users of their product are the same. Suggesting that the one that benefits the average worker is nefarious and immoral while the one that benefits shareholders and the wealthy is the epitome of American ideals and should be revered is an odd double standard.

Another peculiar argument is that raising employee wages will mean a more expensive Big Mac. Given the current problem with obesity in this country making a Big Mac less affordable certainly doesn't seems like a national catastrophe but it should be noted that taxpayers already contribute around $1.2 billion each year in public assistance to McDonald's employees. It certainly doesn't seem very moral to ask taxpayers to subsidize McDonald's workforce while they shell out billions to shareholders and keep billions more in profit.

Of course even the scariest of predictions leaves McDonalds with around $400 million in profit without touching a single dime of shareholders earnings or raising the price of a single menu item. Clearly that would fall short of McDonald's typical earnings but how many billions of dollars does a company really need to be comfortable?

In the end the data shows that fast food workers would see a significant increase in wages and benefits with union membership and regardless of the doomsday rhetoric plenty of other countries do just as well if not better than the US with considerably higher unionization rate.

So while capitalist zealots will belittle fast food workers by pretending their low wages accurately reflect their "value" the reality is that if the SEIU gets involved these employees are likely to see a sudden and dramatic increase in their "value". This reality seems to be very troubling for some people but the question is why? When did the public become more protective of corporate profits than the general welfare of working Americans?

Blacks and Whites aren't having the same conversation on race

In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting and the subsequent protests, there has been a lot of talk on the airwaves about keeping the conversation going because whether you believe the incident was racially motivated it is clear that a frank discussion about race in America is needed.

Of course since the racial tension makes for good television the issue here isn't keeping the conversation going - it's getting the two sides of this coin to have the same conversation.

On one side of this discussion are those who are holding up the shooting of Michael Brown as an example of the racial inequality in this country and in the justice system in particular. To them the death of Michael Brown is just another instance of cops treating African Americans differently than their white counterparts.

They are protesting a system that saw blacks make up 92.7% of the 521 arrests in Ferguson, MO last year while whites comprise only 6.9%. Additionally 92% of the vehicle searches were that of black individuals while the few whites who were stopped and searched actually had higher rates contraband possession.

They are protesting a system where white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.

They are protesting a system in which Black youth were twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.

They are protesting a system where at the peak of New York city's stop and frisk program saw blacks make up 54% of those stopped while whites accounted for only 9%.

They are protesting a system that results in blacks representing 37% of the drug arrests while only 14% of African American's were drug users.

They are protesting a system in which blacks convicted of a crime receive sentences that are 10% longer than their white counterparts. Those longer sentences and higher arrest rates lead to blacks accounting for 56% of those in prison for drug offenses.

On the other side of this discussion are those who see racism as a hoax to be disproved. To them the protests and media attention prove that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a racist race baiter, who attempts to make everything about race in order to profit from the fallacy of racism.

They comment that instead of showing up to Ferguson Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be in Chicago fixing the real problem of "black on black crime". Even though both men and the president are already addressing the situation in Chicago. Even though black on black crime occurs at nearly the same rate as white on white crime. Even though data shows that socioeconomic status not skin color is the most prominent factor in crime and murder rates.

They comment, like Bill O'Reilly did, we should be waiting for all the facts to come out because the reporting on Michael Brown's shooting have been awful as the "liberal" media looks for ways to portray the white guy as a murder. Even though in the same breath Bill O'Reilly managed to report complete speculation that "We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket" which turns out to be false. Even though Bill tried to set a Fox News friendly narrative that cops killing citizens is rare while ignoring that blacks comprised an inordinately high 32% of those shot and killed. Even though Bill's employer made a video of a person who may or may not have been a witness to the shooting a core part of their coverage.

But perhaps the best example of how far apart the two sides are on this topic is when they comment that the killing of a white kid (Dillon Taylor) by a black cop deserves the same response and coverage. If those protesting in Ferguson were simply protesting the death of an unarmed teen by a cop to show that cops are too quick to shoot and kill then this would be a reasonable talking point. But the reality is that Michael Brown's death represents the systemic racism present in the US judicial system while Dillon Taylor is just a prop for people who have convinced themselves their fake "white oppression" meme is the biggest problem this country faces.

If people like Bill O'Reilly are furious about the coverage of Michael Brown's death and the protests that followed one can only imagine they would be absolutely beside themselves they would be if they were forced to endure the litany of inequality, injustice, and indignity the African American community deals with on a daily basis.

In the end if these people want to put an end to this perceived reporting double standard they can easily fix the issue. All they have to do is acknowledge that the deck is in fact stack against blacks in the US and quit enabling the deniers of this reality. As soon as that happens the conversation can be about how to rectify this issue instead of how these events are covered.

Republican grasping at straws in same sex marriage debate

In a number of cases across the country, including Michigan, Republicans are fighting progress and asking that their states be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual preference by allowing same sex marriage bans approved by voters and state legislatures to remain legal.

This is being done in spite of rulings that these bans are unconstitutional.

One of the arguments used by lawyers in support of their state's same sex marriage ban asserts that there isn't enough data on how children of same sex couples fare in life. Since when did we decided that the constitution only applies to those who can provide a child with an arbitrarily measured "good life"? Children from poor families are less likely to "fare well" than children for wealthy families. Does that mean we get to refuse to recognize the marriage of two individuals until their combined earnings reach a congressionally sanctioned level?

Perhaps what these people really mean is same sex couples may raise their kids to believe that everyone is created equal and to avoid prejudging people based on a certain characteristic. Don't these gay couples realize that such tolerance only applies to people who love guns, Jesus, and Duck Dynasty? Because these groups are the ones that are truly ostracized in this country.

Perhaps what these people really mean is that being gay is a disease that can spread like the "great cooties outbreak of 52". If same sex couples are giving access to children they will turn them all gay and soon take over the nation like the zombie apocalypse.

Regardless of their motives the idea that how children fare with same sex parents despite the counterfactuals suggests this argument is perhaps the pinnacle of stupidity.

The other argument these lawyers appear to be making is that decisions on same sex marriage should come “not through the courts, but through the people.”

Clearly the idea that each state should be allowed carte blanche to determine which parts of the constitution they will follow and which parts they won't is universally considered an awful idea. But having the Republican legal delegation from Michigan make such a contention is very odd.

Where was this concern for the people when Michigan residents voted to remove the emergency manager law from the books only to see the legislature replace it a few months later?

Where is the concern for the Raise Michigan petition that was going to give voters the opportunity to voice their opinion on setting the minimum wage for Michigan businesses before the legislature killed the law and replaced it - rendering the petition null and void without a single Michigan voter’s stamp of approval?

Where is the concern for Michigan residents that want a voice in whether we as a state allow wolf hunting or not? Even with multiple ballot initiatives on the topic ready for November the legislature stepped in and agreed to allow wolf hunting regardless of how the majority of Michiganders feel.

Where is the concern for the Michigan legislature’s abuse of power in shielding laws like these and others from voter referendums? By including small and unnecessary budgetary stipulations the legislature has decided to unapologetically silence the people they claim should hold all of the power when it comes to a decision on the legality of same sex marriage.

But if these Republicans are serious about giving people a voice on the fate of Michigan's constitutional ban on same sex marriage, then they should pull a few strings and put the question on this year’s ballot and see if the attorney general is really fighting for what voters want or if this is just an excuse to use the bigotry of a bygone era as justification to propagate an uneducated phobia.

In the end no matter how much work the legislature, the governor, or the attorney general do to circumnavigate, hinder, or quash the will of the people their jobs will always be in the hands of the voters. November affords all voters the perfect opportunity to voice their opinion. It's possible that these lawyers and legislators really do speak for the citizens they represent, but just to be on the safe side they might want to give their resume a quick once over because polls and recent court decisions suggest these bastions of democracy are on the wrong side of history when it comes to same sex marriage.

Conservative media coverage of Michael Brown is embarrassing

Over the past couple weeks there has been a considerable amount of attention paid to the events of August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. Unfortunately the color of your skin or your political affiliation plays a big part in how you view this case. If you are white or Republican you are likely to think the racial component of the shooting of Michael Brown is getting far too much attention. If you are black or a Democrat you are likely to feel the opposite is true.

This divide suggests we don't live in a post racial America like many would have you believe. The problem is that the typical white experience with law enforcement is completely different than the typical black experience and as a result each group has a drastically different view of the events in Ferguson.

Compounding this issue is how the media covers such events. As Bill O'Reilly suggested “Decent people step back and allow the facts to emerge,”

While O'Reilly was directing his comments at "liberal media" if jumping to conclusions is an issue O'Reilly might want to take a quick look at conservative media outlets first. Pat Roberts suggested Michael Brown might have been on drugs. Is that an example of letting all the facts come out before drawing a conclusion? Pat Dollard wrote and article claiming Michael Brown was part of a violent gang. Is that an example of responsible reporting? Charles Johnson and others reported that Michael Brown might have a criminal record. Is that an example unbiased coverage?

Of course even Bill's employer couldn't help themselves. After allowing any number of talking heads air time to chastise liberals for making a white cop killing a black teen a racial thing they still managed to fall all over themselves to report the slightest modicum of evidence that supports the white guys story. Making the YouTube video statements of someone who hasn't even been confirmed as a witness the headline of your 4 o'clock newsfeed doesn't suggest that conservatives are exhibiting the sort of reasoned impartiality they keep preaching for others to practice.

These attacks by conservative media go beyond simple speculation. Rather than covering the facts surrounding the shooting of an unarmed teen these organizations pivot quickly to assert a new narrative. For example even though the front page of the Fox News website is inundated with stories related to Ferguson Missouri they still manage to have on correspondents who claim supposed liberal news outlets have turned white on black crime into a cottage industry to boost ratings. Beyond the blatant hypocrisy of such a statement this attempt to belittle the legitimate concerns of how the Ferguson police interact with black residents is shameful.

The old "liberal media" claim is just one of many slick tactics the conservative media uses to legitimize their viewers prejudices. One look at the Fox News coverage and you will see the standard attack on Reverend Al Sharpton. It should be noted that by showing up Al Sharpton is hoping to draw attention to the situation. If you think he doesn't deserve the attention then why comment on his presence every time? Just once it would be nice to see Fox News not make Al Sharpton a core part of their coverage and use his presence as an excuse to dismiss a culture of abuse with repugnant uninformed topics like "black on black crime" and "black leaders’ role".

Having said that do conservatives complain when the NRA makes a statement after every mass shooting? Do they lament when Dick Cheney makes the rounds every time Iraq or torture is in the news? Do they whine every time Dr. Ben Carson speaks out during racially charged events?

Perhaps the worst narrative to come out of the conservative media recently was from Kimberly Guilfoyle who offered this word of advice when discussing the events that occurred in Ferguson "don't commit crimes". This is possibly the biggest lie that conservatives tell themselves. The protests in Ferguson are not about defending those that have committed a crime but rather how police treat every black citizen as a criminal. The senseless shooting of Michael Brown is the catalyst for their response but they are a result of years of abuse.

So while everyone from Barack Obama on down can urge the residents of Ferguson to refrain from looting and vandalizing because it doesn't help the situation, few have set the same expectation for those in charge of keeping the peace. Does anyone think that a police office antagonizing protesters with the statement "Bring it! All you f*#king animals." helps? Does anyone think a St. Louis County Police Lieutenant urging his offices with the phrases like "Let's have a black day," and "Let's make the jail cells more colorful." helps? Does anyone think that police threatening to shoot and mace reporters helps?

Maybe instead of castigating the few bad apples masquerading as protesters we should start by requiring the abusers, racists and bullies masquerading as police officers be held accountable.

In the end the reality is that the conservative media needs this to be about race far more than any of the "liberal media" sources because in the conservative bubble racism against blacks doesn't exist anymore. But if you’re one of those racist blacks or people with "white guilt" and can't see the forest for the trees feel free to check out any of the altruistic conservative media sites so you can get a thorough education in how the white guy is always justified in beating, mistreating and murdering the savage black criminal. If you're not convinced then clearly you are the worst kind of racist - a racist against the poor oppressed white majority.

Republican's offer ironically awful attacks on Mark Schauer

Polls show that over the past few months Mark Schauer has closed the gap in the Michigan governor's race with Rick Snyder. It comes as no surprise that this has put Republicans on the attack. In the last week alone three of my conservative colleagues wrote columns attempting to attenuate the Schauer campaign. While most political campaigns employee selective data analysis to cast aspersions on a candidate the talking points being offered seem to indicate a level of desperation from Michigan's Right.

First to take a swing at Mark Schauer was Director of Communications for the Michigan Republican Party, Darren Littell. His complaints are two-fold. One being that Mark Schauer voted in the Republican primary of the 2012 election cycle to which he asks the question "where are the Democratic officials who condemn this type of behavior and why aren’t they admonishing Mark Schauer for his antics?" The second complaint is that he misses too many votes and lost a seat on the coveted Campaign & Election Oversight Committee for missing meetings.

Perhaps cross voting is a problem however it seems hypocritical for the MRP to chastise Mark Schauer for his single vote when the guy they support for governor, Rick Snyder, appealed to Democrats to vote for him in the 2010 primary election.

As far as the missed meetings are concerned reports show that Schauer attended every meeting that was held in Lansing but missed the four that the Republican controlled committee held elsewhere. Of course Schauer wasn't unique in missing meetings either. In fact while one Republican also missed four meetings but didn't lose his seat, the chairman was the only member to show up to all 9 meetings.

But if Republicans are really serious about Mark Schauer's record on voting attendance they would acknowledge that as a member of the US House of Representatives his 0.8% missed vote rate is much better than his successor Republican Tim Walberg's rate of 2.2% and superior to that of Michigan worst voting representative Mike Rogers at 5.8%.

As a Michigan State Senator his 2.4% rate compares favorably to the rest of the Senate and falls short of the number of votes missed by 10 of his Republican colleagues.

If Republican's believe missing votes shows a politician doesn't deserve their job then they might want to do some house cleaning before pointing a finger at Mark Schauer.

Next up in the bash-a-Schauer sweepstakes was editor at HermanCain.com, Dan Calabrese who while appreciative of the effort found Mark Schauer's jobs plan to be boilerplate liberal policies. Ironically Dan goes point by point using boilerplate conservative logic to prove these ideas wrong. The problem is this doesn't make one side right and the other side wrong. Part of the reason an idea becomes standard fair for political parties is because the parties believe these ideas work. How boilerplate they are doesn't address their effectiveness.

Of course if just being boilerplate is an issue it should be noted that Rick Snyder's revolutionary ideas to create jobs are cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and busting unions. Are there Republican circles where these concepts qualify as avant-garde?

The last applicant to attempt a take down of Mark Schauer is Republican activist Brandon Helderop who attempts to draw a parallel between President Obama and Mark Schauer suggesting that the presidents current approval rating of 39 percent speaks to his results as president. Of course if this low approval rating reflects poorly on the presidents abilities then it should be noted that Rick Snyder's approval rating stands a touch lower at 37 percent.

Brandon also has concerns that over his 12 years in the Michigan legislature Mark Schauer voted to increase taxes over 40 times. It should be noted however that in just four years Rick Snyder has supported or signed into law a tax on pensions, a tax on gas, an increased taxes on homeowners, an increase in taxes for low income Michiganders, an increase in taxes for families with children, as well as eliminating tax credits for food banks, homeless shelters, college tuition, adoptions, and donations to universities, and public radio stations. All told around half of Michigan tax payers have seen a tax increase under Rick Snyder.

If the average Michigan family is worried about their tax rate going up they should probably be less worried about the nebulous tax increases Mark Shauer may have supported fifteen years ago and more interested in the increases that Rick Snyder offered to pay for his big corporate tax give away.

To end his article Brandon states that "Schauer has run a campaign based on rhetoric and little substance." While this seems like a claim that could be made against nearly every candidate for public office over the past century or more one wonders if Republicans were inspired by the specifics of Rick Snyder's first campaign when talking about the number of jobs his corporate tax cut would create "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen." Now that's substance.

And if vapid rhetoric is a major problem shouldn't Republicans be concerned that as a candidate Rick Snyder was against taxing pensions, against increasing gas taxes, and against picking winners and loser yet suddenly supported them as governor.

It's fine to believe the Mark Schauer isn't the right man for the job but if these attacks are meant to prove that point Rick Snyder should be very concerned since these Republican metrics indicate he is even less qualified to be governor than Mark Schauer.

Campbell Brown's education reform isn't good for children

When it comes to fear mongering vocal Republicans have no equal. Even though the only legislation passed during the Obama administration regarding gun rights actually expanded those rights, that doesn't stop the NRA from claiming the president is trying to take guns away. Even though the Affordable Care Act has never been responsible for euthanizing a single grandparent as part of the "death panel" provision that doesn't stop nearly 50% of Republicans from believing it is does. Even though renewable energy is adding jobs faster than coal is losing them and the jobs lost in the coal industry are due to competition from other energy sources many still believe Democratic energy policies are killing jobs.

Of course if there is one thing Republicans hate more than anything else it is a successful government program. So it comes as no surprise that Republicans are leading the charge in the manufactured "crisis in education". The latest vocal Republican to pick up the "broken education" pitch fork is former CNN and NBC news anchor Campbell Brown.

According to Campbell Brown when determining which education improvements to support we should always ask "is this good for a child"?

With that in mind what revolutionary ideas are Campbell Brown and her organization offering? More charter schools, eliminate unions and kill teacher tenure.

Perhaps Campbell would be interested in knowing that charter schools, non union schools and schools without tenure protections don't outperform their counterparts. If the goal is to improve the educational outcomes for children and these "solutions" don't do that then it starts to look like reformers have ulterior motives.

Imagine if a salesman walked into the corporate office at Ford Motor Company and told them he had a solution to fix their lagging sales which would result in no additional sales. Does anyone think a multimillion dollar corporation would make wholesales changes for zero improvements? Absolutely not. So why would these people who worship at the altar of the free market make these decades old failed ideas the crux of their education utopia? Follow the money and you will see it has nothing to do with what's good for the children.

Take tenure for example. The complaint is that firing a bad teacher is costly and takes a long time. So how will ending tenure change this and improve education? It will give administrators the opportunity to remove underperforming teachers without the hassle of proper documentation and due process. But will that really save money and end protracted legal battles? Probably not.

Without such a system teachers will be forced to sue school districts for wrongful termination. For one New York teacher that meant an award of $3.5 million on top of the standard court costs. Given that the estimates for firing a tenured teacher come in at about $220,000, districts could afford to fire around 16 tenured teachers for every instance of wrongful termination.

Since when did Republicans support making changes that would lead to more lawsuits? When it comes to health care, Republicans are adamant that the threat of legal action causes doctors to practice defensive medicine which increases costs. After one big loss administrators and school boards would become gun shy when it comes to removing teachers. No matter how legitimate the defense, many believe our court system to be rife with frivolous lawsuits that supposedly cost millions. If the reason for removing tenure protects is to limit the costs and time involved, our health care system suggests such a change would do neither and may actually make matter worse.

It should also be noted that less than a third of teachers in the US have tenure protections while top performing countries such as Finland, Korea, and Singapore have much higher rates. Perhaps the answer to the fictitious crisis in education is more tenure not less.

Perhaps more astonishing than the fallacy of her attacks on tenure is Campbell's inadvertent support of these protections. In a recent interview with Stephen Colbert in which she was asked to reveal who is funding her organization, Campbell Brown said she would not expose these people to the public for fear of retribution? The irony of this statement is astounding.

Let's say a teacher has a personality conflict with an administrator, vocally supported a losing school board candidate, or fails a prominent citizen’s child - shouldn't that teacher have some sort of protection that prevents a retaliatory dismissal - A system that forces those in power to be accountable for their actions? Apparently only those who agree with Campbell Brown deserve a shield from reprisal.

While tenure may not be a perfect system when did we become a country that simply discards everything that has a minor flaw? Congress is clearly more broken than our education system yet few rational people would consider scrapping our Democratic Republic. Corporations have lied, cheated and stolen money harming millions of people over the years yet hardly anyone suggests we should abandon our free market principles. The US is one of the world leaders in gun deaths per year yet only a small fraction of the people argue for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Suggesting that the only way to fix the perceived issues with tenure is a complete elimination represents a childish and uneducated position.

The reality is that reformers like Campbell Brown aren't serious about improving education. If they were they we admit that even if every reform idea they supported were adopted and as wildly successful as their echo chamber reports they would still fall woefully short of the improvements in educational outcomes of reducing poverty.

For all of the attention the achievement gap gets the gap between poor and well off students is far more pronounced. A study by Harvard University found that small boost in income for a family living in poverty raised a child's score to that of a child whose family makes twice as much. Data also shows in the US and across the world the more impoverish students a school has the lower the scores. Other statics show that when adjusted for poverty the US already has the best education system in the world.

All of the attention that improving education has received recently is a good thing. Now what we need is for Campbell Brown and others like her to take her advice and ask "is this good for a child" because the real answer to that question would lead them in a completely different direction.

Invest in Detroit: An opportunity for cerditors

Sometime in the next month Detroit pensioners, creditors and the DIA should have some clarification as to how they fair in Detroit's bankruptcy. While all groups involved can expect to receive a reduced level of compensation the current agreement protects the DIA and limits the loses for pensioners. Bond holders stand to see the biggest drop which explains why they are also the most vocal opposition to the current plan that many are calling the grand bargain.

As with any bankruptcy the goal is to restructure debt in a way that allows the entity - the city of Detroit in this case - a chance to recover and become a functioning entity again. For this reason protecting the DIA from a fire sale makes a lot of sense. The DIA hosted over a half million visitors last year and has seen in increase in attendance for each of the past four years. It brings people to Detroit and gives the community a world class cultural facility.

It should be noted that the DIA while perhaps the most valuable asset in Detroit is far from the only asset in Detroit. If Michigan officials are serious about rebuilding Detroit then they should consider taking some of the 50,000 or so government owned properties and offer them to the creditors. This could be a win/win for both parties since it offers creditors a chance to recoup some of their lost profit by constructing commercial properties, parking structures, grocery stores, apartment buildings, shopping malls, or entertainment complexes.

Imagine if the motor city were to have a new complex that hosted NASCAR or Indy car races that also served as a state of the art facility that the big three could use to show off new products. Imagine if the Detroit casinos were flanked by a number of Las Vegas style theaters that hosted acts like Cirque du Soleil, the Blue Man Group or top Michigan music acts. Imagine if Detroit had the facilities to host a top golf, tennis, boxing or horse racing event.

The more attractions Detroit can provide the more people will visit and these visitors will create jobs that Detroit and Michigan can obviously use.

Of course free blighted properties aren't necessarily a prize for these investment companies however if the state also offered tax abatements to these groups as well they might be more motivated to develop the property or partner with a company that will.

No one should feel bad for some of Detroit's biggest creditors since they knew full well going in that they could lose their investment and they would receive a good return based on this risk. But in the end when it came to finding a solution that avoided devastating financial damage to the hard working men and women of this city while also protecting a valuable asset and iconic Michigan institution these groups were able to find creative options, there is no reason this can't be done with other creditors as well with an eye towards expediting the transformation of Detroit.

Tony Dungy's comments on Michael Sam a disappointing reflection on gay rights

In an interview from earlier this month Tony Dungy was asked a question about Michael Sam, who is most widely known for being the first openly gay player in any major sport. The quote attributed to Dungy refers to the NFL draft in which Sam was selected by the St. Louis Rams in the 7th and final round - “I wouldn’t have taken him, not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”

By in large comments like this from athletes and others in the sporting world should be taken with a grain of salt since for most socio political topics are not their area of expertise. Tony Dungy however has proven to a astute advocate for acceptance in a way that makes these comments seem out of step. This stature along with the perceived hypocrisy of his statement has caused a greater interest from sports writer than most sports figures would typically elicit.

A good example of the analysis of Tony Dungy's comments comes from cover32.com writer Jeremy Mackinder who covers the Detroit Lions and discusses how out of character these remarks are while also addressing the importance of Michael Sam. The article also includes a link to a statement released by Dungy attempting to clarify his original words.

While there seems to be no ill intent there is an inherent issue with Dungy's position that is pervasive in politics and political commentary today. Given that Tony Dungy is not gay and doesn't appear to have any connection to the LGBT community his comments suggest he doesn't fully appreciate their fight or the gravity of Michael Sam's situation.

It seems unlikely that Tony Dungy would have had such a casual response were the question "should the Brooklyn Dodgers sign Jackie Robinson". Was Jackie Robinson a distraction to the team? Absolutely. Did he deserve a chance to play for a MLB team? Absolutely. Tony Dungy also indicated that he would draft Tim Tebow with a top 10 pick in the NFL draft. Apparently media attention and the distraction the comes with it wasn't a concern when it came to Tim Tebow.

As Dungy's own clarification comments state "playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit." Most publications had Michael Sam as a solid mid round prospect before his announcement which suggests regardless of the potential distraction Sam was worth drafting or at the very least getting shot to make a team.

It is also possible that Tony Dungy's faith played a small part in his thought process since the religious community have been laggards when it comes to gay rights. Unfortunately Dungy's position, intentional or not, is one that we have seen multiple times in the political arena. History shows that, as a party, Republicans have been far less accepting on issues like same sex marriage however top Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman were some of the first Republican political advocates for increased equality for the LGBT community. Not surprisingly both men also happen to have gay children.

The problem is that for many people it is easy to believe the worst about a group of people you don't know or understand. However once faced with the reality that being gay doesn't make a person any less human, it doesn't make a person a deviant, it doesn't make a person a sinner, and it doesn't make a person less deserving of love most people recognize the error of their previously uninformed position.

In the end being gay is just another part of who Michael Sam is and in the grand scheme of things it is only relevant in a small portion of the decisions he makes on a daily basis. The fact that our society is at a place in time where a seemingly accepting man like Tony Dungy would consider who one of his players chooses to love based on how the media would react to it says a lot about how much further we have to go.

Education reform is awful and supporters know it.

With the 2014 election cycle fast approaching, politicians hoping to win re-elected are going to be spending a considerable amount of time defending legislation they have supported over the past few years. For many Republican legislators this includes discussion about expanded government involvement in public education which runs counter to their "small government" and "local control" arguments they claim are part of their core ideology. Of course when it comes to education reform, the double standards don't stop there.

For example consider the case of two historically conservative Michigan public school districts - Grosse Pointe and Birmingham. Both public school districts have schools that rank in the top 1% of performance based on the Michigan "top-to-bottom list" that ranks schools according to "student performance in mathematics, reading, writing, science and social studies and graduation rate data".

At the top of many education reformers wish list is expanding charter schools to give students a choice. The total number of charter schools currently competing with Grosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools - zero.

Of course charter schools aren't the only way to provide students a choice. Michigan also offers "school of choice" which allows students from failing schools the opportunity to attend a top rated school. Grosse Pointe currently does not participate in school of choice while Birmingham only recently opted in to the program by offering six, 11th grade slots for a school system with over 8,000 students. This move netted Birmingham public schools an additional $430,000 in state funding.

Another education reform idea that has been sweeping the nation is the belief that more money for education doesn't improve results and that teachers are overpaid. Recent data shows that both Gosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools have some of the highest per pupil spending rates in the state while ranking number 4 and 1 respectively when it comes to teacher pay in Michigan.

Some reformers blame the lagging US test scores on teachers unions yet teachers in both Grosse Pointe and Birmingham have union representation. The same is also true of some of the world leaders in education like Korea, Finland and Singapore where the vast majority of teachers are unionized.

So the question for these conservative communities that have some of the highest per capita income in Michigan, some of the lowest poverty rates and at 93% white have just enough minorities to feel good about their community's ethnic diversity while still being white enough to "feel safe" is if the Republican education reform efforts are such an improvement why do these communities not take advantage of them?

The new Educational Achievement Authority (EAA) which took control of 15 Detroit public schools and handed them over to a privately owned Charter school operator is not far from either community. Have any Grosse Pointe or Birmingham parents chosen to move their students out of the "broken" public education system into an EAA charter school? Do these cities hold rallies asking the school district to consider accepting underprivileged students outside of their borders? Are parents from these communities arguing for sweeping cuts to teacher pay and education spending?

The answer to these is a resounding no. As with many politically motivated ideas these "solutions" really only apply to the poor because the rich already purchase and restrict access to the best education money can buy.

Data shows that while most countries spend more on the most needy students the US is the worst of a small handful of countries that actually commit less funds to poor schools than to rich schools. The US also values teachers less than most other OECD nations. Relative to the wages for full time employees with a college degree the US ranks 22 out of 27 countries for teacher pay. In many nations they attempt to attract their best and brightest to a career in education by making teachers one of the highest paid professions. The US however ranks near the bottom of the list in terms of pay as a percentage of a country's GDP per capita. This means a US teacher has a lower local purchasing power than teachers in most other countries.

When you consider the fact that US teachers also work more hours per year than every other OECD country it makes this already dismal pay seem worse.

While not solely to blame, low wages is one of the reason often given by the nearly 50% of US teachers who leave the profession in the first five years. This higher than average turn over rate costs the US over $2 billion a year. Rather than constantly cycling through new teachers - a pattern which has been shown to be detrimental to educational outcomes - countries like Korea, Finland, and Singapore, who have turn over rates of 1%, 2% and 3% respectively, all invest more on the front end which not only saves money in the long run but also improves educational outcomes.

Of course even if you throw out all of the data showing how other successful countries run their educational system the biggest problem with the so called solutions conservatives offer for education is the fact that none of these are good enough for their own kids. It's not like there are zero successful public schools that can act as a model for struggling schools.

If rich communities are paying teachers more than any other school district and getting good results perhaps low performing schools should do the same.

If rich communities succeed without the aid of charter schools perhaps poor districts don't need them either.

If rich communities get results with union teachers perhaps eliminating unions in impoverished areas won't be the panacea some believe it to be.

If rich communities use higher per pupil funding than most to provide a complete education perhaps underprivileged districts could use more not less funds.

If rich communities achieve high scores with few students living in poverty perhaps addressing the massive poverty rate for the most indigent areas should be the top concern.

Cynics say that conservatives push for these changes because they are well aware that they don't work and keeping poor people trapped in failing schools removes competition for their children down the road. This may or may not be true but one thing is for certain, if any of these reform ideas worked the rich communities would be the first places to implement these changes. The fact that they go out of their way to keep such modifications out of their school districts tells you all you need to know about the real value of Republican education reform efforts.

Republican's minimum wage class warfare

Over the past year there has been a lot of public discourse and media coverage regarding potential changes in the federal and state minimum wage rates. Advocates for an increase argue that this will pull millions of American out of poverty and give them more purchasing power. Opponents insist an increase will cost jobs.

A CBO report on the topic gave credence to both sides of the debate. Unfortunately rather than having any meaningful discussions about what rate would maximize earnings for low income workers while limiting job losses, we are stuck with highly rhetorical political talking points designed to manipulate low information voters.

For instance my colleagues at the Detroit News have written multiple articles over the past few months implying that those who support a increase in the minimum wage would live to regret their decision. The examples cited most often suggests that were it not for minimum wage increases over the years millions more Americans would have been gainfully employed as gas station attendants and bank tellers.

The problem is that while this may sound true there is no evidence that the minimum wage was responsible for the demise of these professions.

The first self service gas station in the US began operating in 1947 - a full 9 years after the first minimum wage. It then took another thirty years for self service gas stations to take over the majority of the market. The loss of full service fuel stations correlates far more with the sharp rise in fuel prices in the 70's than any of the 11 increases in minimum wage over these three decades.

Thirty years after the first Automatic teller machine (ATM) there are still over half a million bank tellers with the number expected to increase over the next decade. Additionally the trend doesn't show ATM's cutting into teller employment in any meaningful fashion.

These attempts to scare low wage earners into supporting a policy that is against their own best interests in nothing new. The main rallying cry for the pretend "War on Coal" is that it will cost jobs. Never mind that the real threat to coal jobs comes from other energy sources and not government regulations - this is a meme coal corporations and conservative media sources continue to push.

This also requires that people believe that there is a finite number of jobs - an idea which has been proven a fallacy. The automobile may have put horse carriage makers out of work but it created a litany of new jobs. Portable GPS units may have put many map makers out of business but that doesn't mean their was a net loss of jobs. The internet certainly has had a negative impact on traditional newspapers however few would argue that in the end the internet means fewer US jobs.

The rise of the US was very much tied to innovation and creation. This conservative propensity of arguing for antiquated occupations to save menial jobs instead of embracing the sort of change that made the US the world power it is today is a dangerous precedent.

Our infatuation with coal jobs has put us a distant second behind China when it comes renewable energy products. Data shows that from 2012 to 2013 renewable energy added nearly 1 million jobs while coal only employs around 80,000 workers and saw a drop of 8.3%.

Of course innovation in renewables isn't the only area where the US is falling behind the rest of the world. The US has the worlds 8th fastest internet speeds behind countries like South Korea, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. The US also trails more than 20 other countries when it comes to the percentage of the population with internet access. This mediocre performance is detrimental to American companies and costs jobs.

It is also true that over the past 60 years the number of patents awarded to foreign inventors rose from 10% to over 50%. Unfortunately pressure to reduce government spending forced a drop in federal funding for research and development which has pushed the development of these job creating innovations overseas.

One imagines most Americans would prefer to lead the world in the jobs of the future instead of the jobs of the past.

But the real issue here is that discussing job losses completely misses the goal of those who advocate for an increase. The idea is to make sure that everyone that has a job can survive on what they make so replacing low wage, low skill jobs with a technology and the higher skill, higher wage jobs required to manufacturer and maintain that technology is a good thing.

Corporate profits are at an all time high as are the wages of the top 1%. All advocates are asking is that the employees who are producing at record levels get a share of the additional profits they are creating. If companies are too greedy to spread the wealth they shouldn't be surprised when employees use the power of the people to force a change.

Ironically the tax cuts which Republicans have championed for years are based on the same principle as increases in the minimum wage. The idea behind both of these policies is to put more money in the hands of the people who earn it because they will spend it - creating economic activity and more jobs. Republicans certainly had no qualms with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of their tax cuts so their sudden concern over the potential outcome of any minimum wage increase seems disingenuous.

The reality is that opponents of minimum wage are not looking to give poor Americans an opportunity to work their way up the corporate ladder. They are trying to protect the per share earnings of stockholders and the greed of the Supreme Court sanctioned corporate "people" by locking less privileged Americans in to dead end jobs. Because that is the best way to win elections and turn the US into the conservative Utopia that the founding father clearly envisioned.

Good education policy is more than just total spending

If you're the kind of person that likes to read Michigan based conservative media sources, which being on the Detroit News website suggests you do, you have seen a trend recently of these sites claiming that under Rick Snyder education spending is on the rise. Some like my colleague Darren Littell, the MIGOP Communications Director, do so because they have skin the game and need Governor Rick Snyder to look like a champion of the people. Other sources like Michigan Capital Confidential and the Mackinac Center make this argument because they realize the public believes education spending is important and they want Republicans in as many positions of power as possible.

The problem in reading these slanted opinions on Michigan's education spending is that these people really don't believe in education spending. For example one author has an article touting that under Rick Snyder "Funding has indisputably increased" only to turn around two days later and publish an article titled 'States Spending Less Money On K-12 Education Get Better Results'.

If more funding for education is a bad thing then why argue that Rick Snyder, the Republican in the governor’s race, has increased spending? Shouldn't conservatives stick to their core beliefs regardless of the party designation of the guy doing the spending? One doubts that if the roles were reversed these conservatives would write this many glowing articles defending a Democratic governor that increased education spending.

Having said that, it is tough to understand who these authors are trying to convince with these articles. Republicans really don't want to spend more on education and the number gymnastics necessary to claim that funding has indisputably increased are completely lost on Democrats who are well aware of the reality that since the turn of the century inflation adjusted state education spending in Michigan has fallen by 24%. While these authors are more than happy to ignore inflation to manipulate low information voters it seems unlikely they would have such a positive view of nominal value if it were their wages that had experienced a real 24% drop.

Most people also understand that in order to make the numbers work for Rick Snyder's supposed per pupil increase you have to include the additional money going into the pension system for educators. A fact that many conservatives latch on to in order to advocate for cutting teachers wages even further.

Yet this too is a completely disingenuous position considering that a portion of the money the governor claims as "new spending" comes from an increase in pension contributions by teachers. This robbing Peter to pay Paul situation hardly qualifies as the concerted devotion to improving education by the governor that many conservatives pretend it does.

Of course the governor and his Republican cohorts are partly to blame for this sudden need for pension funding since their putative cost cutting reform measures like charter schools and early retirement have increased the number of retiree’s collection pensions while simultaneously decreasing the number of educators contributing to the fund.

Not only have these decisions resulted in less money ending up in the classroom they have also lead to a near 7% drop in teachers employed in Michigan on the governors watch. Odd that a group so interest in increasing education spending and creating jobs has so little concern over the loss of more than 4,000 teaching jobs.

So while some conservative voters who would typically oppose increased government spending contort their beliefs in the hopes of retaining power for their party, most voters recognize that in terms of real dollars Rick Snyder is committing less state funds currently to education than at any point under the previous administration. And while clever manipulation of per pupil funding allows the governor to claim a spending increase, the amount of money flowing to classrooms has indisputably declined. Obfuscation won't change these facts.

Having said that if you're the kind of person that likes to read Michigan based conservative media sources, this reality is unlikely to change your mind. But for those who put the educational outcomes of Michigan's children above their political affiliation, this bizarre obsession with a total spending statistic that is nothing more than an immaterial election year ploy is deeply disheartening.

Don't let Michigan Republicans fool you again.

The Michigan legislature has been tilting left recently and the conservative media has taken notice. Some have lamented this shift towards typically liberal policies as turning away from the roots of Republican ideology while others have claimed this change proves Republican lawmakers are working across the aisle.

The reality is that Michigan legislators are no different than any other legislators - their number one goal is to stay in power and with the elections fast approaching Michigan's Republican officeholders are looking for ways to remove the extremist stench they doused themselves in shortly after the 2012 election cycle ended.

So while Republican legislators have shown interest recently in things like raising the minimum wage, increasing education funding, blocking an expansion of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA), increasing taxes to address crumbling roads, and using public funds to save the DIA and help pensioners, their record suggests the sudden interest in portraying themselves as pragmatic moderates has far more to do with getting re-elected than some sort of magnanimous bipartisanship.

This legislative window dressing should help quell the fears of some independents about the radical agenda many Republicans across the nation have been pursuing however it is important to remember that these compromises only represent a small portion of the legislative actions with which these individuals should be judged by.

One of the first acts of Rick Snyder and the Republican majority was to cut taxes for corporations and offset the loss of revenue by taxing the elderly. A move that the governor claimed would create jobs yet Michigan still trails most states in growth.

This corporate giveaway also came at the expense of Michigan's burgeoning film industry since incentives that were drawing an increasing number of film studios to the area were slashed to put a few bucks in the hands of important donors.

The legislature has made a point to increasing funding to education recently yet data shows that since 2007 inflation adjusted education spending in Michigan is short some $1.5 billion. It also true that a portion of the money that Republicans claim they added came directly out of teachers paychecks. Cutting teacher’s wages to claim spending is up does not show Republicans are as dedicated to improving education as they would like you to believe.

In December of last year the legislature passed a bill requiring women to buy additional insurance coverage for removing a collection of cells. To make matters worse the Republican legislature enacted this attack on women's rights without the consent of the voters or the governor as both were bypassed in this process.

Shortly after voters decided they didn't want the government to have the power to void local election results and force an emergency manager on struggling cities, Republicans ignored the will of the people and passed a new emergency manager law that thanks to subversive legislative trick could no longer be put up for a vote of the people.

The legislature also decided to take local control of education away from a most Detroit parents and hand it over to a corporate entity which has been losing students at an alarming rate.

In retaliation for a union effort to secure the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain, the governor signed "right to work" legislation that allows individuals to opt out of the democratic process while restricting unions from enjoying this same freedom of choice. This legislation was yet another win Republicans handed to their big corporate donors and a loss for Michigan since reports show that 7 of the 9 slowest growing state economies are in RTW states.

When discussing legislation to restrict women right to decide what she can and cannot do with her own body Republicans banned Representative Lisa Brown for using the word vagina. Apparently free speech has its limits.

Governor Rick Snyder used Indiana as the model for reviving the Michigan economy yet data shows the tax cutting policies the governor has championed are far less effective than the tax and spend policies of states like Minnesota.

The Republican legislature attempted to make absentee voting in Michigan more difficult to quell their unsubstantiated voter fraud fears.

Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette is fighting to keep same sex couples from their dream of marriage equality even though the courts have determined his position to be unconstitutional.

So while Republicans have spent the last few months putting lipstick on the pig that is their legislative priorities, it is important for voters to remember that the softened positions these individuals are taking now don't represent a true Republican agenda. If it did the conservative media won't spend so much time pointing out how recent legislation represents a departure from core Republican values.

As George W. Bush once said "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!” If Michigan voters forget the litany of grotesquely sectarian legislation Republicans crammed into the last lame duck session and give them another unfettered opportunity they shouldn't be surprised when many of these same legislators abandon their new found love of compromise and force more hyper partisan laws on Michigan residents.

Un-armed survivor is better than a dead hero

Gun rights advocates often assert that discussing solutions for gun violence shortly after a mass shooting is a bad idea. Given the propensity for gun violence in the US such rhetoric serves as convenient cover to any meaningful change. Ironically while these people feel waiting to discuss the role of guns in mass murders is a good thing, asking individuals to wait even one day to purchase a gun is borderline unconstitutional.

Of course this is only one of many parlor tricks groups like the NRA use in an attempt to defend their increasingly fringe positions. The current favorite misdirection tactic comes from NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre who said after 20 children and 6 adults were gunned down at school in Newtown Connecticut "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Unfortunately far too many people believe this statement instead of see it for what it is - a desperate attempt to discourage any reasonable gun restrictions that might save lives.

Data shows that of the 62 mass murders over the past 30 years zero of the attackers in a mass shooting were stopped by a good guy with a gun. Is it possible that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Sure. But do you really want to bet your life on that possibility? There are a number of examples of how this NRA manufactured meme is more fiction than fact but one recent attack in Las Vegas offers a realistic picture of the dangers of an army of armed "good guys".

In this instance Jerad and Amanda Miller shoot two police officers at a restaurant and then headed to a nearby Wal-Mart where Jerad Miller was confronted by Joseph Wilcox, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately for Wilcox he was unaware that there was a second armed assailant, and it cost him his life. Perhaps more people would have died were it not for the heroic act of Joseph Wilcox or perhaps the couple would have left the customers unharmed.

The problem is that a good guy with a gun has a completely different goal than the bad guy with a gun. The goal of the bad guy is often to harm as many people as possible and they are typically willing to die for their cause. The goal of the good guy is to save as many lives as possible including that of the bad guy, while not getting shot themselves. The good guy also has the distinct disadvantage of being in a rational state of mind. For the good guy taking the life of another human being is, as it should be, the last resort. For the bad guy this is likely their sole purpose.

The reality is that a good guy is restricted by rules. Even if this Wal-Mart had a guard posted at the entrance, that guard wouldn't be allowed to shoot and kill any customer they deemed a threat without that threat being crystal clear. The bad guy on the other hand has no such restrictions. They will shoot those with guns first and take hostages to shield themselves from armed vigilantes.

Of course Joseph Wilcox probably had no formal training on how to handle this sort of situation. He also had no way of knowing that the individual he was confronting had already killed two cops. Police officers have made being prepared to engage and subdue criminals their job/life mission yet many are still caught off guard. Do we really think simply owning a gun or taking a couple classes makes an individual qualified to properly assess the scene and determine the best course of action when faced with an armed aggressor?

Without this training very few people will be able to determine if the individual walking into their local Chipotle carrying an assault rifle is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Of all the mass murders over the past three decades about 3/4 of the guns owned by the assailants were purchased legally. They may have very well been a good guy with a gun until something happened that turned them into a bad guy with a gun.

But perhaps the worst part of Wayne LaPierre's statement is the "only" portion of it. Are we really supposed to believe that ending gun violence requires every American to carry a gun? Some countries with the lowest gun ownership numbers also happen to be the countries with the lowest gun violence rates. Perhaps what we should focus on is finding ways to keep guns from ending up in the hands of bad guys instead of creating a country full of trained assassins. Polls show that 90% of the population supports mandatory background checks including closing the gun show loophole that allows felons to purchase guns without determining that person's criminal history or mental state. You don't have to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment to recognize that in most states you are required to present more information to vote or own a car than you need to purchase a gun.

Unfortunately for the NRA and gun diehards their 2nd amendment rights are an all or nothing proposition. What may be common sense changes to gun laws for the vast majority of the country are seen as a communist affront to freedom by gun rights advocates. The problem is that if you are the type of person that believes even the slightest restriction on guns is a full frontal assault on your most basic rights then you might just be one straw on the camel short of becoming the bad guy with a gun we keep hearing so much about.

Ending tenure could cause more problems than it solves

For supporters of education reform a recent decision by California Judge Rolf Treu ruling teacher tenure unconstitutional was transformational. Now schools can freely fire bad teachers and put the US back on top as the best educational system in the world.

Of course very few legal battles end after one court decision and this case will be no different. As if often a complaint in controversial court cases some see this as an activist judge letting his political views get in the way of a reasoned decision.

For example by concluding that the due process protections afforded to educators under tenure denied students "equal opportunity to achieve a quality education" Judge Treu seems to ignore the fact that correlation does not prove causation. If tenure unfairly protects teachers then there should be a considerably higher number of teachers fired per year at schools where tenure is not available. Data shows that is not the case. Believing tenure is to blame for low termination rates and proving that tenure keeps bad teachers in the classroom are two very different things.

Additionally if Judge Treu believes that tenure results in the retention of bad teachers which leads to an unequal opportunity for students to achieve then he must believe that the counterfactual is true. This means Judge Treu feels that hiring new teachers will lead to equal opportunity for all students because if it doesn't then the correlation between tenure and student achievement is anecdotal. Unfortunately data shows that new hires are less effective than their more experienced counterparts. Given that 46% of teachers leave the profession in the first five years it should come as no surprise that those individuals that administrators have observed, mentored and granted tenure are more skilled than those fresh out of college.

It should also be noted that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of quality educators waiting in the wings. Giving administrators additional tools to remove bad teachers only improves educational outcomes if the replacement teacher is more adept. A study of New York schools shows a school can hire as many as 11 teachers before finding one highly effective teacher which suggests students are likely to experience years of poor teaching and turnover before getting a better option. In this regard Judge Treu is like the football fan who wants to trade his starting QB because he believes anyone else would be an improvement when the reality is not every teacher is going to be the Peyton Manning of teachers and not every backup is magically superior to the starter. If the current system doesn't allow for equal opportunity making it unconstitutional then if the judge’s solution only exacerbates the problem would it not also be unconstitutional?

Judge Treu also mentioned the cost of removing a tenured teacher as reason to remove these protections, however such a concern is irrelevant to this conversation. The expenses involved in firing a teacher are the result of any number of free market exchanges which are extrinsic to the equal opportunity argument at the core of this discussion. Additionally the cost of due process should not be a reason to deny a person their due process. However if costs were important then the judge should also consider the costs associated with removing tenure protections.

A study of the costs of teacher turnover in Texas found the replacement cost to be over $56,000. It is also true that the documentation and mediation process of tenure helps schools avoid many wrongful termination lawsuits which can cost a school district millions in damages on top of the standard court costs associated with these sorts of cases.

Some technocrats have discovered that many "bad" teachers simply need additional training to improve their skill set. The cost of this instruction is likely far less than the expense of replacing these teachers while yielding quicker results. This suggests if Judge Treu's goal is to provide equal opportunity to all students he would spend more time focusing on what improves these opportunities than postulating about what doesn't.

If he took this tact he would notice that in Washington DC charter schools expel 72 of every 10,000 students while the public schools only expelled 1 per every 10,000. Bad students take up a considerable amount of a teacher’s time and energy leaving the other students in the classroom with fewer opportunities to learn. Perhaps the key to improving the student’s access to high quality teaching requires giving public schools the same flexibility charter schools have to remove "bad students". If this inequality between schools reduces the educational opportunities for students to learn then perhaps this legislative double standard, giving preference to charter schools, should be ruled unconstitutional as well.

Perhaps the problems are not with tenure but instead with the administrators that do the hiring. Chicago schools were given the green light to fire poor performing teachers however some 40% of schools fired zero teachers. If our urban schools are crawling with ineffective educators then why wouldn't these administrators seize this opportunity? Could it be that the whole "bad teachers" meme is a fallacy or is there a similar epidemic of "bad administrators"? Either way eliminating tenure will not have the desired effect reformers believe it will.

Of course supporters will find out such a change is not all sunshine and rainbows since it will have unintended consequences. For example this change will allow administrators to remove highly effective teachers for any number of non-performance based reasons. They could fire the most experienced teachers simply to cut costs. Such a situation would likely provide students with less opportunity not more. Teachers could also be fired for having a different set of political beliefs. Imagine the outrage from reformers when a teacher gets fired because of their views on abortion or religion? Would you want to be the teacher in charge of educating the principle or superintendents kids when reprimanding that student or giving them a poor grade could cost you your job?

If this ruling is upheld it will likely impact other sectors of education as much if not more than it does teachers. For instance in New Jersey this same equal opportunity argument was used to in a decision that stated schools with different funding levels due to property tax rates amounted to a discriminatory practice since all students were then not treated equal. While this might be good for all students it also smacks of the socialist redistribution policies that many reformers would not typically support.

While attempting to give all students access to a high quality of education is an admirable goal Judge Treu appears to be living in an information vacuum since the data on tenure and retention of bad teachers is hardly as definitive and causational as he seems to believe it is. Making matters worse it seems the real world impact of this decision could increase a school’s legal costs while making the equal opportunity for students to achieve less, not more likely.

In the end this "win" could end up being a huge loss for the people who need it the most.

Republicans used to support "job killing" minimum wage increases

The public's opinion of a particular political action is often colored by that person's political affiliation. So even when the president adopts Republican strategies like he has done with education, immigration, health care reform, and military actions people will find fault with policies they previously supported.

Unfortunately this sort of blind opposition permeates current US politics and leads many to use their dislike for a person or party as the basis of their position.

For instance when discussing the topic of minimum wage recently many act as though there is a clear division of right and wrong where Republicans understand the impact of raising the minimum wage while most Democrats are just too dim to get it. However history shows that the two most recent increases enjoyed bi-partisan support. The 1997 increase was sponsored by Texas Republican Bill Archer and passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate before eventually being signed into law by Bill Clinton.

The same is true of the 2007 increase that garnered the support of Republicans in both the House and Senate before it reached the desk of George W. Bush. What could have possibly changed that makes minimum wage so terrible now?

Of course admitting you dislike something because the other side supports it is something almost no one is willing to do so that forces people to look for information to support their conclusion. For example conservatives have linked the increase in minimum wage to a loss of jobs for young people. The data to support such a claim seems to be mainly anecdotal however many topics like this become a matter of faith so definitive causation is not necessary for widespread acceptance. Having said that if all that is required for this debate is a casual correlation then it should be noted that youth unemployment in the US between 1997 and 2011 jumped 6% while the youth unemployment rate of the same time frame for Denmark, a country which has no minimum wage, increase by a nearly identical 5.9%. Perhaps the minimum wage increase is to blame for the 0.1% difference between the two countries over that 15 year span however it is hardly a smoking gun that proves the minimum wage kills jobs.

Additionally data shows that the number of youth choosing to participate in the workforce has been steadily declining for the last forty years. Are minimum wage increases to blame for the bulk of this drop or is it possible that other factors like the rise in elderly employees is affecting teen jobless rates?

If youth employment numbers are so critical to the success of the country then why did Republicans ever agree to a single increase in the minimum wage? Why not oppose all changes to wages and instead offer a litany of bills to address this apparent calamity? The complete vacuum of legislation from Republicans suggests their current concern over this rate is anything but genuine.

While feigning concern over youth employment has paid off well, part of the reason Republicans have never addressed the falling youth participation rate has to do with the fact that many teenagers are choosing to pass on menial jobs and instead focus on other more meaningful opportunities that address the same core themes of punctuality and responsibility. As such, it has been reported that while less teens are working, this generation crams more into a typical day than any previous generation.

It is also true that the current system is already set up to favor rich kids. Given that most Republican policies are geared towards placating the wealthy, expecting them to do anything that levels the playing field for the less privileged with no political gain would be a stretch.

Of course the anecdotal evidence doesn't stop there. To show just how awful the minimum wage is for the youth or the poor many point to low paying professions of the past and conclude that the reason they don't exist is the repressive minimum wage. My colleague Gary Wolfram even wrote a diatribe based on his personal experience with attempting to fuel his vehicle to suggest that were it not for wage requirements tens of thousands of youth would be employed at service stations across the US pumping gas. If this were true then countries without a minimum wage would be teaming with full service gas stations since the only possible reason to employ modern technology must be the minimum wage. Yet, data shows this to be a quixotic position since the prevalence of full service gas stations in countries without a minimum wage, like Denmark, are no different than the US.

The reality is US history is filled with inventions aimed at using less man power and speeding up production long before the first minimum wage came into effect. If it can be done faster and cheaper using a machine then a company is likely to automate. But beyond that do we really want people working for $2.00 an hour simply to claim we have a lower unemployment rate?

The goal should be to get as many people as possible good paying jobs that allow them to support a family without government assistance. If Republicans think the minimum wage is an awful way of accomplishing that goal then all they have to do is offer a different solution that encourages companies to give a slightly greater share of their profits to the hard working men and women who helped earn it instead of sitting on record amounts of cash and rewarding shareholders for their trivial participation. If Republicans believe in their job creation dogma anywhere near as much as their political ads suggest they do, advocating for policies that have proven to keep money out of the economy is exceedingly counterproductive. By why let reality get in the way of a politically motivated predetermined conclusion?