Social Animal Fail

As I have mentioned in at least one previous post, there has been a new (or rather a modified) Emergency Financial Manager law put into effect here in Michigan. I have - I'm sure much to the chagrin of our liberal audience (were to actually have an audience here at the Furriners blog) - advocated a "wait-and-see" approach rather than the "hair on fire" rhetoric of Rachel Maddow.

That said, Rachel does make very good points and I especially appreciated this analysis:

What's new here is that this state has decided that local elections, locally elected officials are a problem that has to be done away with, that democracy is in the way of fixing problems in the United States now, of making things more efficient, particularly in poor places. Not that democracy IS the way we fix problems but that democracy IS the problem and it therefore needs to be side-stepped for efficiency's sake, for our own good. Governor knows best.

Good point. An argument that one would think would appeal to Americans of all ideologies. Whether you're liberal or conservative, we do all tend to share a common belief in our right to choose our leaders.

And, beyond that, the actual impetus for doing a post on this subject was from watching Fareed Zakaria GPS over last weekend; Fareed's guests included conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks to discuss his latest book, The Social Animal.

The book is about how humans interact with another and how the ability to relate to people is a determining factor in how one does in life. The relevant part to the EFM for Benton Harbor story was when Mr. Brooks said his research indicates:

Groups are smarter than individuals (and) groups that meet face-to-face are a lot smarter than groups that meet electronically.

Hmmm... that would certainly lead one to conclude that putting one individual in charge of "fixing" Benton Harbor (or any other troubled city, municipality, organization, etc) would not be an ideal solution.

Of course, that is science. And we know how how most conservatives feel about science.

Snyder to talk school change

Earlier this morning Rick Snyder spoke about his ideas for improving education. Among the topics he discussed were early childhood education, merit pay, and tenure.

While support for early childhood education is a welcome change given that research shows this to be a very valuable tool, the push for merit pay and against tenure are more troubling.

I spoke with a top school official in my home town about merit pay and he stated "It is just going to be very difficult for districts to put together a system that is fair and really works. In the end, the goal is to reward high performing teachers. I am not convinced that a merit pay system will do that." By in large the teachers I have spoken with are fine with getting paid for performance but have yet to see a system that will do this in a fair and accurate way.

For months now we have been told that Rick Snyder can fix Michigan's economy because he is a successful businessman. The implication is that being a businessman gives him a better understanding of economics than a typical politician and he is better equipped to come up with the best solutions. If this is true then his support of merit pay is puzzling since Teachers and groups like the National Education Association oppose merit pay. If the logic is that businessman have the best solutions for business then it follows that educators have the best solutions for education. Merit pay is a businessman's solution to an education problem. It is a square peg for a round hole solution which is why studies show that merit pay doesn't work.

The fight to end teacher tenure is equally perplexing. The arguments against it usually start with the false claim that teachers can't be fired. Tenure is the "right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause." not a guarantee of a job for life. That is usually followed up with the excuse that it is expensive to fire a tenured teacher. While it can be costly and require documentation to get separation from a tenured teacher the same is true in the private sector. Most any handbook on firing an employee suggests that good documentation is paramount to avoiding a lawsuit and wrongful termination lawsuits tend to be as expensive if not more expensive than firing a tenured teacher. To some extent tenure actually benefits the schools.

Given that these are such weak arguments supporters of eliminating tenure usually state some statistics to show how few tenured teachers are fired each year. While it is true that very few tenured teachers are fired each year compared to other professions, this is a very apples to oranges argument. For Saline, Michigan a teacher doesn't get tenured until their fifth year. When you consider that 46% of all new teachers are out of the profession within 5 years it should come as no surprise that tenured teachers have a low turnover rate. Attrition for any profession is much more likely to happen in the first few years so comparing only tenured teacher that get fired to all firings in other professions proves nothing.

If you look at the overall turnover rates teachers are around 16.8% per year which compares to rates for other professionals including private school teachers. Blaming tenure for poor teachers is an excuse. As a Businessman Governor Snyder should know that you don't completely scrap a good set of rules simply because of a few bad apples. This is a throw the baby out with the bath water solution to improving education.

I would also point out a few other things regarding the claims against tenure and the push towards vouchers. If tenure is so bad the why would any for profit private schools offer it to their teachers? If private schools are so superior why are their student performance results no different than public schools. If public teachers are so over paid then why do they receive the same compensation as private school teachers with lower qualifications? If private schools are so good at controlling costs why do private school administrators get paid more than public school administrators to oversee much smaller schools while only handling a fractional of the special education students that cost schools the most money?

Our public schools already spend a lot of time figuring out the best methods for teaching and improving the education system. While the current system may not be perfect I would prefer that education reform come from educators than from the lawyers and businessmen that make up the Michigan Legislature.

The Conservative bias of media

One of the comments I often receive on my posts is that the sources I use to support my liberal point of view are liberal rags. First, I didn't realize that Redstate.com, The Heritage Foundation, and The Wall Street Journal were liberal rags. Second, I would caution against calling government information sites such as the CBO, the GAO, and the IRS unreliable sources. Finally it is dangerous to assume that simply because information comes from a liberal source that the information it contains is inaccurate. Being liberal doesn't make me a liar any more than being Muslim makes you a terrorist or being white makes you a racist.

There is nothing wrong with believing that a liberal source should be questioned but dismissing any information a liberal presents out of hand is a great way to keep yourself uninformed. This is a bit of a groupthink issue since dismissing anything you disagree with without supporting information shows the same lack of critical thinking, analyzing, and evaluating associated with groupthink. Accepting only those facts that you already agree with and only listening to those that you know share your opinions does not make you well informed.

A bigger problem here is the prejudice involved in the liberal media bias complaint. Labeling any news source that doesn't pick a side as liberal, leads to hypocrisy. An example of this is calling Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin "Gothcha Journalism" and then claiming Bill O'Reilly just asked the president the "tough questions". These are both examples of journalists asking political figures questions not proof of liberal media bias.

Another example of this are these two Fox News stories. One about James O'Keefe's video of NPR's Ron Schiller and the other about Ian Murphy's conversation with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. When talking about the conversations Fox uses the words "repeatedly tried to bait Walker into saying something inappropriate" when talking about Murphy's conversation and "engage in a wide-ranging discussion" when discussing O’Keefe’s conversation. Both Murphy and O'Keefe used underhanded methods and asked baiting questions but you wouldn't think that by reading the conservative leaning Fox News articles.

Simply finding an occasion or multiple occasions where Fox News shows their bias doesn't make them a 100% unreliable source nor does it mean that because they have a slant on their stories that the information in their stories are lies. The point being that claiming liberal media bias as proof that your opinion is right and my sources are wrong is a simpletons method that celebrates ignorance over being informed.

Is it so impossible to believe that maybe the media isn't too liberal but you are just that conservative? As a liberal there are plenty of times when NPR, CNN and the mainstream media outlets have been far too conservative for me but that doesn't mean I claim a conservative media bias and act like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and Ezra Klein are the only sources of unbiased information.

The question that readers should be asking is fact or fiction not liberal or conservative since the former leads to progress while the later only serves to hold us back.

Capital Gains Tax Rate - Welfare for the rich

Since the elections this past November I have been sending a letter to Representative Tim Walberg once a week asking him the same question each time. That question pertains to the statement on the Walberg for Congress website in the section titled “Tim Walberg’s plan to create jobs” where he says he wants to “eliminate the capital gains tax”. What I wanted to understand is how eliminating the Capital Gains Tax would create jobs and what benefits eliminating the Capital Gains Tax would create beyond that.

According the Wikipedia a Capital Gains tax (CGT) is a tax on “the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property”. The item that I am most interested in is the Stock Market since the dogma of the Stock Market is that everyone can participate and get rich. My research however indicates that the Stock Market is a tool that the rich use to rapidly increase their wealth while giving the illusion of equal opportunity. Unfortunately Tim Walberg’s proposal would only further exasperate this issue.

In his eventual response to my letter Representative Walberg stated “It is my opinion that eliminating or reducing the capital gains tax would help increase economic growth”. The attached graph shows no correlation between unemployment and the Capital Gains tax rate. Additionally, reports by the Tax Policy Center and the Advanced Market Intelligence for Advisors show no correlation between the CGT rate and the growth rates of GDP or the Stock Market. Given the lack of a clear cause and effect the claim that cutting the Capital Gains tax rate will improve the economy appears to be more opinion than fact.

It should also be noted that from 2001-2004, when Capital Gains tax rates were at the lowest numbers if over half a century, was the first time in history that we saw a drop in participation in the stock market. This would indicate that there is also little correlation between the Capital Gains tax rate and participation in the Stock Market.

Perhaps the claim has to do with a belief that lowering taxes in general helps the economy. Again the data would not back Representative Walberg’s stance. The Tax Policy Center shows that the top 3% of tax return paid 83% of the Capital Gains tax. This means that the other 17% is paid by the remaining 97% of Americans. This clearly indicates that it is the super rich who get the benefit from the Stock Market. And a CBO report on the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% shows that economic growth from those tax cuts will result in an increase in jobs of between 0.0% and 0.1%. If the vast majority of the benefit of a cut in the CGT rate goes to the super rich and tax cuts for the rich have almost no affect on the economy then it follows that cutting the CGT rate will not lead to an increase in the economy.

Also in his response Representative Walberg stated “It is estimated that 83 million Americans invest in the stock market and the average investor is in their 40s, employed and earns about $60,000”. While his statistics may be true it is also true that the top 10% hold almost 80% of all stocks.

Maybe Representative Walberg feels that eliminated the CGT will help the poor who participate in the Stock Market. According to a Federal Reserve report only about half of American households own stocks and fewer than 30% hold stocks outside of a retirement account. For the 20% or so that hold stocks in a retirement account CGT does not apply. Regardless of the CGT rate, any contributions to a 401K are free from CGT. You will have to pay income tax when you pull the money out but not CGT. Additionally, tax payers with ordinary income tax rates of 15% or less already pay a CGT of 0.0%. This means eliminating the CGT, as Mr. Walberg would like to do, will result in no change to the “average” investor that Mr. Walberg implies will be helped by his policy change.

The reality is that thanks to the already historically low CGT rates the super rich shift their earnings to the Stock Market to avoid paying taxes. An IRS report shows that the top 400 individual tax payers only made 6.5% of their wealth through salaries and wages while bringing home 81.3% of their money in the form of Capital Gains. A good example of how this is done can be seen right here in Michigan. This past year Bill Ford Jr. received $16 million in compensation - $4 million in salary and $12 million in stock options. By taking stock options he can reduce his tax burden by up to 2.4 million dollars. Worse yet is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison who was paid a base salary of $5 million in $980 million in exercised stock options. Unfortunately very few Americans are offered stock options in lieu of wages, so this is an opportunity that is only available to a select few.

Defenders of cuts to the CGT will suggest that investing in the stock market is a risky and you can lose money. While this is true it is also true that the government will subsidize your losses. Imagine if you lost $50 gambling and as you were leaving the Casino handed you a $10 bill. This is essentially what our current tax system does. The only people who don’t get their money back when their stock tanks are those in retirement accounts, since you can’t claim the loss in a retirement account on your tax return.

I am certainly in support of anything that will create jobs but cutting the CGT rate is a blatant give away to the rich disguised as an opportunity for everyone.

Fiscal conservatives in sheeps clothing

The Tea Party has staked out the political position as a group representing the fiscal conservative point of view. Polls indicate that they are also very socially conservative but for the purposes of this post I will take them at their word and assume that they are willing to support the candidate that best represents their fiscal conservatism.

First, I would like to point out that being a fiscal conservative does not mean you must always support tax cuts as a economic policy. In a recent article in the New York Times Bruce Bartlett, a former official under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned of the current perversion of supply side economics. Bartlett had this to say about the belief that all tax cuts increase revenue:

"This is a simplification of what supply-side economics was all about, and it threatens to undermine the enormous gains that have been made in economic theory and policy over the last 30 years."

Reagan cut some taxes and raised others and Bartlett feels that this sort of approach is at the heart of the success of supply side economics. Unfortunately the Republican solutions being offered for deficit reduction are only focused on cuts and ignore the opportunity that tax increases offer. Democrats have accepted that some cuts are necessary if we are to get serious about our National Debt and now Republicans have to accept that some tax increases are necessary if their deficit rhetoric is more than just election year politicking.

Another major component of the Republican deficit reduction plan is the old Republican stand by - privatization. The Ryan plan for example wants to shift medicare from a government run system to a voucher program. Unfortunately the only model this program is the one that the congressman is currently part of and it is worse at controlling costs than Medicare. Additionally privatization has been pushed before in other areas by well organized and very well funded private organizations. The results show higher costs for private TSA agents vs. public and tax payers getting stuck with the bill for privately run prisons when the companies running the prisons lost their contracts due to poor performance.

Republicans have also focused all of their "important" deficit reduction cuts on spending they are against more for political reasons than for the savings they offer. Planned Parenthood gets $317 million dollars from the government yet the oil industry gets $4 billion and subsidies even though they already make billions in profit every year. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $422 million a year from the American tax payer while we subsidies ethanol to the tune of $7.7 billion per year. Foreign Aid costs Americans $49 billion a year yet we lose $295 billion a year to cost overruns for military acquisitions. In every instance Republicans are attacking the former instead of the latter.

Finally, just to pile on, it should also be noted that a recent report by the Associated Press it was found that a number of government officials were using BP oil spill money on pet project having little or nothing to do with oil spill associated expenses. The five major offenders listed in the report were all Republicans. I guess Kwame Kilpatrick hasn't cornered the market on using tax payer money for personal gain.

A History of Opportunism

Last year, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, opined that the federal debt is the greatest national security threat that the nation faces. I think his theory is that to be a global superpower, you have to be an economic superpower and we could cease to be so if we allow the continued ballooning of the federal debt, lack a manufacturing base, run massive trade deficits, etc.

It is a reasonable analysis that politicians of both parties should consider as they try to come up with a plan to deal with our medium-to-long term economic situation.

Well, needless to say, GOP politicians are doing much more than just considering it. Many have fully embraced it and are highlighting it whenever the opportunity presents itself - which, I should point out, there is nothing inherently wrong with. When important analysis comes out that supports your ideological view, it is only natural to try to make sure your fellow citizens know about it. For most people, that means telling friends, e-mailing links, posting to Facebook, tweeting (I guess), or blogging - which is the highest form of modern impersonal communication. For elected officials, it can be e-mailing supporters, posting to their website, issuing press releases, writing op-eds, spouting off on any cable news show that will have them (or a respectable Sunday morning show if they are "important" or sufficiently well known).

For example, here is an op-ed mentioning the "debt bomb" from Tea Party darling Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).

The important thing to realize, however, is that you cannot just embrace that which you agree with while entirely dismissing the information that doesn't fit within your ideological view. And I am here to tell you that the GOP is very much guilty of this. I mean Admiral Mullen opines on the "debt bomb"... very big deal. But do you know what intelligence and military analysis previously determined was a substantial national security threat?

Climate Change!

And what does GOP want to do about climate change?

"Nothing" you say?

Wrong! They actually want to make it worse! Their recent budget extension bill would have essentially neutered the EPA by including provisions such as stripping it of it's legal authority with regards to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. And, by the way, it should be noted that it wouldn't have done so with some legalese tucked away in the middle of the bill with the hope that no one would notice. No, no. This is GOP dogma and they're perfectly willing to go on national TV and argue that the EPA should go the way of the Eastern Cougar.

This was just the latest example of the the GOP being entirely hypocritical. Heck, it should not be forgotten that they are even complete hypocrites on the budget issue. Was it not Vice President Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter"? Or, to be even more damningly precise (considering the conservative fetish for Ronald Reagan), what Mr. Cheney actually said was:

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Really?!?

Of course, that was after House Speaker Newt Gingrich had spent the mid-90s trying to gut social programs, most notoriously shutting down the government in attempt to privatize Medicare. The obvious takeaway is that, to the GOP, deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House.

And just to put something of a post-script on this. Consider the aforementioned Medicare. Newt Gingrich tried to privatize the program in the 1990s - leading to a government shutdown. A few years later, President George W. Bush, in a desperate attempt to have some kind of accomplishment he could use to court a certain group of voters (the elderly), passes an expansion of the program (Part D) without paying for it. Then, the Democrats propose health care reform package which includes efforts to save money on Medicare - leading the GOP and conservative media to howl in disapproval and suggest that it will cut Medicare benefits (even as AARP officially supported the plan). Now, after that moment of opportunism has passed, they are again proposing the ending of Medicare. What happened to wanting to protect it?

I guess it's like ol' quip about Michigan weather: if you don't like it, just wait 15 minutes and it will change. That is the GOP.

In Honor of Bill O'Reilly

Last week, Jon Stewart showed a little clip of Bill O'Reilly actually debunking conservative propaganda designed to delegitimize President Obama. This is definitely a good thing. One issue that occassionally is fretted about amongst liberals and progressives is how to get information to people who only live within the FoxNews closed loop.

Admittedly, I should acknowledge that many conservatives presumably share the same consternation about those who they say only get their news from the "liberal media". I would, of course, generally call bullshit on that and argue that we're getting into the false equivalency debate all over again. But that is sooo Fall 2010! and this post has a different boogeyman than Fox News.

So it was a Free Trial Weekend for HBO on DirecTv this weekend. I took advantage of the opportunity to watch Real Time With Bill Maher. The subject came up of Jon Kyl lying about Planned Parenthood on the floor of the Senate. Bill seemed to argue that it was such an egregious and blatant lie that it basically took the cake as the worst of the worst of all political lies.

Ed Schultz, the firey MSBNC host, was all too eager to agree and he claimed that the only thing that might compare was Sarah Palin saying she "could see Russia from her backyard". A crowd-pleasing line to be sure.

The problem is that Sarah Palin never actually said such a thing! Only Tina Fey said that.

Sarah Palin merely said that one could see Russia from land in Alaska... which is 100% true. It is, of course, a comment worthy of parody because of the implication that it somehow gave her foreign policy credentials. However, it was a not a lie and Ed Schultz deserves to be called out for being the actual liar in this instance.

Also Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement

Continued From Part 1:

11. Jon Kyl, contrary to consensus opinion, thinks Nick Jonas is the "cute one".

12. Jon Kyl spent three weeks in November 1995 looking for the "real killers".

13. Jon Kyl contracted gonorrhea from a Thai prostitute in 1983.

14. Jon Kyl is the single-game record holder in Dig Dug.

15. Jon Kyl started a Britney Spears Countdown to 18 website in 1998.

16. Jon Kyl's most prized possession is his 1976 Oscar Gamble baseball card.

17. Jon Kyl texted photos of his penis to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

18. Jon Kyl camped outside of Best Buy for three hours the day the Murder She Wrote was released on DVD.

19. Jon Kyl gave gonorrhea to a Vietnamese prostitute in 1984.

20. Jon Kyl believed Alberto Gonzalez when he claimed under oath "at least 71 times that he could not recall events" related to the dismissal of U.S. attornies in 2006.

Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement

True statement: I do not know how to "tweet".

I guess with the small fervor going on (amongst late night comedians) over Jon Kyl's blatant lies on the Senate floor last week has me feeling a little left out.

However, I did realize I have a minority interest in this very blog and can post my ideas here. First of all, I want to say that in discussing this with co-blogger Elijah Moon, I actually wondered aloud if Stephen Colbert was coming up with all his tweets himself or if was getting contributions from his writers? As it turns out, it is actually quite easy to just pull a bunch of B.S. out of your ass (as Jon Kyl well knows)!

So without further ado, here are some contributions I literally came up with in about 1-2 minutes of brainstorming:

1. Jon Kyl's Capitol Hill nickname is Gollum.

2. Jon Kyl challenges Robert Reich to tetherball every time he sees him. Then he laughs.

3. Jon Kyl was "Soy Bomb" during Bob Dylan's 1998 Grammy appearance.

4. Jon Kyl lip syncs all his Senate speeches.

5. Jon Kyl calls in as "KylShot69" to Jim Rome's Annual Smack Off.

6. Jon Kyl thinks Derek Anderson should be starting at QB for the Cardinals (Oh wait, that is mine).

6. Jon Kyl shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

7. Jon Kyl has subscribed to Barely Legal since 1972.

8. Jon Kyl was the voice of Mr. Bill.

9. Jon Kyl owes me $2.00.

10. Jon Kyl cares about black people (and women).

The Ryan plan doesn't fit with Republican ideology

Paul Ryan has made economic issues his main focus. He has a degree in economics so it makes sense that this would be a passion of his and I really appreciate that he is working very hard to come up with ideas and push the conversation regarding deficit issues. Unfortunately for Congressman Ryan, his plan is deeply flawed.

The first problem is that a his portion of his plan relies on tax cuts to return us to prosperity. History shows that cutting tax rates for the rich, as the Ryan plan would do, does not help the economy. It leads to more saving and a decline in the S&P 500. Further analysis shows that tax cuts do not get a very good bang for your buck when compared with other stimulative measures.

These tax cuts have been a Republican mantra since Reagan first put the trickle down theory in action. Years of analysis show that Trickle Down Economics does not work and even fiscal conservatives like the Daily Beast's Andrew Sulivan have acknowledged this with his recent statement on Real Time with Bill Maher where he said "There was a point in history in which you could say it was a theory that f we cut taxes o the rich growth would happen but look; we've had 25 years of it and i hasn't happened. And the growth has happened when we raised taxes a little bit under Clinton and George H.W. Bush."

While that portion of the Ryan plan is troubling the really disturbing part is his plan for Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan has said his plan for overhauling this system is "identical" to the system currently used to provide health care to Congressman and other public workers. The problem is that when compared to Medicare and Medicaid the costs for the health care coverage provided to Congressmen is increasing at a faster rate. If Congressman Ryan's goal is to reduce the cost burden of Medicare and Medicaid I'm not sure why he would choose a plan that has a history of costing more than Medicare and Medicaid.

What I really don't understand about this portion of the plan is why a Republican would think this is a good idea since it flies in the face of the belief of running the government like a business. Right now Medicare and Medicaid are the Walmart of medical insurance. They can get the best deals because they have the most leverage. The smaller insurance companies, like the Mom and Pop stores, don't have the same buying power and can't negotiate the best deals. Competition is good for the consumer but in this instance Americans are the business and the hospitals are the consumer. If government is to be run like a business we should be looking for ways to increase our buying power not dilute it.

If Ryan gets his way Hospitals can set the price because the more "choices" (insurance companies) we have the less buying power each of those choices has to offer. The Hospitals become the Walmart in this negotiating process and we become the vendor who is pinching his margin just for the privilege of dealing with them.

If you want choice just for the sake of having choice then the Ryan plan gives you that. What is doesn't give you is a way to reduce the costs of medical care. The reason for the rising cost of health care insurance is health care costs not Medicare or the insurance companies.

We should have an "us" versus "them" mentality in this fight to lower health care costs but we also need to understand that the government is the "us" in this fight not the "them".

Old Enough To Know Better

There is a quote that I often recall from Bill Maher - I don't know for sure that he is the first to make this observation but he is certainly the person I associate the comment with:

Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.

I think when he uses it, it would often be used in the context of making sure liberals (in particular American liberals) don't accept, for example, something like Muslim oppression of women as just a legitimate part of their culture. I consider that good advice (for me) considering I am someone who took several classes in anthropology and have a natural tendency to accept cultural differences and view them all as equally valid. It's good to keep in my mind that, in some instances, cultural norms can be judged as "better" or "worse".

I thought of that comment yesterday while watching The Daily Show and seeing Jon Stewart casually defending a UCLA student who posted a racist rant on YouTube. Jon referred to her as an "18 or 19 year old kid (who) maybe doesn't understand what she was saying".

Come on! That is rubbish.

How does someone reach age 18 or 19 and not realize that racism is frowned upon and that even if you do have those feelings, it's probably a bad idea to broadcast them on the internet unless you can do so anonymously (and preferably in an "appropriate" forum)? (Which is to say that I assume there are racist websites all over the internet for people who want to bitch about minorities and immigrants... for example, www.foxnews.com.)

Also, by the way, UCLA is not necessarily a place for idiots. Although I concede I am hesitant to guarantee someone is as smart as their alma mater might suggest considering a mental midget like George W. Bush earned degrees from both Yale AND Harvard.

So, while I agree with Jon that the young lady is not necessarily "unredeemable"... how the hell would I know? In my opinion, Jon is going a little easy on her considering how repugnant her opinions are.

Power to the appropriations

My colleague Mako pointed out that Section 14 of the Shopping Reform and Modernization Act does not remove the power of the people to move forward with a citizen referendum to challenge the law. His statements are 100% accurate. The only problem is that is not the provision that I was referring to when I suggested that this bill is voter proof. Section 11 of the bill turns this bill into an appropriations bill and appropriations bills cannot be touched using a citizen referendum.

While I certainly appreciate the response from Mako and the Chicken Little portrait painted in it, the article I reference and the information therein are accurate.

Power to the...Government?

In his continuing attempts to make Michigan more attractive for business Governor Snyder has signed a bill to end the item pricing law in Michigan. For those of you who don’t know, most stores were required to put a purchase price on each item in the store so consumers could easily determine the cost of the item they were purchasing.

I personally don’t care about this law. I think the supposed savings that changing the law will create are an industry generated pipe dream but repealing the law doesn’t bother me. Unfortunately for Governor Snyder the public is against repealing this law by quite a wide margin. Polls like this typically lead a politician to start a campaign to convince the voters that this is a good idea. While the Governor has taken a few minutes to give some sound bites about the value of repealing this law this will most likely be the last time he talks about it. Thanks to a provision inserted in the bill the voting public cannot put this bill on the ballot. The Governor has decided that he knows best and the democratic process of democracy is not an inalienable right of the people. We the people are welcome to vote on any issues as long as the Governor allows us to.

What I really don’t get is the lack of concern over this blatant power grab. The Detroit News article on the repeal doesn’t even mention the fact that the law is voter proof. What happened to the liberal media I keep hearing about? I thought we were against big government telling us what we can and cannot do? Our state constitution guarantees us the right to citizen referendum so why is this bill exempt?

Again I really don’t care about this particular bill but if it is OK for our legislator to make one law that the citizens of Michigan cannot challenge then it is OK for the legislator to take the power away from the people for any law they create.

That is a scary interpretation of democracy.

In Defense Of Rick Snyder... sort of

Let me be clear, I really do not want to do a full-throated defense of Governor Snyder. I did not vote for him and I do not consider myself a supporter. However, I have been hearing a lot of "hair on fire" rhetoric from the Left about what he is doing - particularly with regards to a recent bill that authorizes so-called Emergency Financial Managers (EFMs) with broad authority to intervene in financially struggling communities. For example, the brilliant Rachel Maddow did a segment on it and while I did find her to be persuasive... I am not necessarily persuaded.

And perhaps shockingly, I would use logic recently expressed by conservative pundit Michael Medved - who don't know well enough to rank on the Conservative Reasonableness Scale (see below) - in pushing back against whack jobs on the Right saying Obama was purposefully ruining the country. Medved argued that it was a nonsensical argument because President Obama has the same motivation as any other (non-lame duck) politician... he wants to get re-elected! And hence he was pursuing policies that would, in his analysis, help that occur.

Similarly, I fully expect Governor Snyder to to try to responsibly deal with financial crises (within the scope of his own ideological parameters) - not to use EFMs to subvert democracy and establish "monarchial rule" (something I heard a caller on Sirius Left suggest was the end game).

CONSERVATIVE REASONABLENESS SCALE:

Always Reasonable: David Brooks
Typically Reasonable: David Frum
More Often Reasonable: George Will, Peggy Noonan
More Often Unreasonable: Charles Krauthammer
Completely Unreasonable: Michelle Malkin (ideological), Rush Limbaugh (cynical ratings whore)
Bat-Shit Crazy: Pamela Gellar (insane?), Glenn Beck (motivation is unclear... could have psychological problems and lack a firm grasp on reality. He might just a complete idiot who can not analyze facts. Then again, he might just be a Rush Limbaugh-esque ratings whore who is actually very successful if his goal is only to make money.

Misinformation leads to Equity Gap

In a recent survey Michael Norton, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, and his colleague Dan Ariely examined Americans thoughts on the equality gap. The results indicate that Americans think the gap is much smaller than it really is and they would like to see it reduced.

Mr. Norton and his colleague suggest that perhaps Americans are not well informed on this particular topic. I don’t think a lack of information is the issue here. I think Americans are informed but the information they are getting is wrong. The ultra rich spend all sorts of money to convince the poor to fight against their own interests. They do this because having the poor fight against their own interests directly benefits the ultra rich. It seems to me that Americans are informed on a bunch of economic ideas but thanks to the ultra rich that information is misinformation.

The ultra rich sell the idea of upward mobility to keep taxes low by convincing the poor that they too can be rich someday. The best part is that if you fail to become rich they will claim is has nothing to do with the old boys club or the situation you were born into, but you just didn’t work hard enough. Research shows America is not a particularly good place for upward mobility and that the whole idea is flawed but that doesn’t stop 54% of 18-29 years olds from thinking they will someday be rich.

The ultra rich sell the idea that unions are bad when in fact unions are the major reason we have safe working conditions, child labor laws and eight hour work days instead of the twelve that companies preferred. Labor Unions were an American invention and are as good of symbols of patriotism as baseball and apple pie. Instead the ultra rich would have you believe they ruin America and are the devils work. The current attack on teachers unions is an example of the benefit to the ultra rich from this belief. Education is one of the major determiners of income level and by eliminating money from the education process in the name of deficits not only do the rich keep their taxes low but it lessens the chances of poor and middle class kids achieving any form of upward mobility. The ultra rich don’t send their kids to public school so a lower class of education in the general populous just assures an easier path for their kids to become ultra rich.

The ultra rich sell the idea that they, the top 1% of wage earners pay more than their fair share of taxes when the reality is they hold 38% of the wealth while only paying 34% of the taxes. In fact the lower we make taxes on the ultra rich the higher their portion of the tax bill becomes. How convenient that the solution to the problem they have fabricated leads to the problem itself. They have set up their own self fulfilling prophecy.

The same is true with the inequity that exists in our country. The ultra rich act like they are so overburdened and that they are being taxed to death. The data shows that the gap is getting bigger and it gets bigger every time we cut taxes. If, as Norton and Ariely suggest, Americans want to see the equity gap closed the graphs below indicate that the best way to close the gap is to increase the top marginal tax rate. Unfortunately people have been so conditioned to loath tax hikes that closing the equity gap is nearly impossible. Luckily for the ultra rich they have also convinced Americans that the rich getting richer is good for all of us and that the Trickle Down Theory actually works.

At some point the class warfare that is being waged by the ultra rich will be exposed and demonstrations like those in Wisconsin will become more prevalent as the middle class stands up for themselves and demand to be treated fairly.

The Business of Government

Mitt Romney recently stated “I don’t know who else is going to get in the race but I do believe that it would be helpful if at least one of the people who’s running in the Republican field had extensive experience in the private sector, in small business, in big business, working with the economy."

This seems to be a prevailing theme of both Mitt Romney as well as many conservatives. The idea being that government should be run like a business because conservatives tend to tie free market ideology to cost effectiveness. While I don't think this approach recognizes the differences between the two entities and the diverging interests of each, I am interested in how this belief is being represented in the current budget debate.

When a business is deep in the hole and needs to make drastic changes to avoid bankruptcy they don't spend all of their time dissecting their budget for savings on pens, white out and staples. Unfortunately that is the approach that is being taken by Republicans. They are going after very small items that have almost no impact on the national debt or budget deficit.

Additionally you don't cut from areas where the savings from the cuts result in a loss in revenue greater than the savings. If saving a dollar means you lose two dollars in revenue you are worse off than making no cuts at all. Republicans are offering cuts to the IRS even though every dollar spent by the IRS on audits, liens and property seizures bring in $10 to the government. Not only are you catching people breaking the law but you are getting a great return. What business wouldn't take a 10 to 1 return on their investment.

While there may be some value to running the government like a business the practical application of this ideology by Republicans indicates this is just rhetoric used to dupe people. They are using the good will of those who actually care about the national debt to make politically motivated cuts against programs they don't like.

NPR, Planned Parenthood, Unions, and the IRS are the staplers and copy paper of the national budget - they offer more for values voters than real deficit reduction. While politically targeted cuts are standard fare in our corporate sponsored version of Democracy, hiding behind real concerns to make these cuts is very disappointing.

Your pain is their gain

In a purely political move some Republican legislators are blaming President Obama for the recent rise in gas prices. They claim that thanks to the President, domestic oil production is down; except that production is at its highest levels since 2003. They blame the President for putting a moratorium on new deep water oil drilling instead of acknowledging that it was a multitude of failures by big business that lead to this freeze. In essence the charge from Republicans is that the President is to blame for a reduction in oil supply in the US and that is affecting global pricing. Unfortunately for this argument the US supplies a very small percentage of the world’s oil and any reduction or increase is drop in the bucket of world oil supply.

The reality of the situation is that actual supply has nothing to do with the increases in pricing we have experienced over the past few weeks. The problem here is the free market system that determines oil prices. The buyers of oil buy in advance and this requires that they act as prognosticators of future oil supply and demand. The steep increase in oil prices is tied to concerns of the oil buyers that future supply might decrease. Rather than wait until supply is actually affected they are raising prices now to eliminate their risk in the upcoming weeks and months. The only people affected in this equation are the consumers since the oil buyers have passed along all of the uncertainty.

It is estimated that this free market speculation has artificially increased the cost by $20 per barrel. According to the US Energy Information Administration an increase of $10 per barrel of crude oil translates to an increase of around $0.24 per gallon for the consumer. This means that we are paying almost $0.50 per gallon more than the real value of gasoline.

Some legislators such as Jay Rockefeller have suggested that the President should release oil from our reserves. With all due respect to the Senator Rockefeller the unusually high cost of gas is a function of oil speculation not supply. While a new supply of oil might quell fears of some oil buyers, this line of thinking gives a free pass to the real cause of the increased prices at the pump, corporate greed. Rather than use the power of our government to push for accountability in the private sector like we do with the insurance industry we let the big oil companies cover their risk on the backs of hard working Americans. Unfortunately when you take the risk out of the risk - reward equation, all you are left with is reward. For Big Oil this is a heads they win tales we lose situations and instead of discussing the real issue our politicians are tossing around baseless rhetoric they hope to parlay into political gains.

Amy Holmes Fail!

It is always annoying when a pundit says something that, as a viewer, you know is flatly untrue but the host of the show apparently is not aware of the error. (And I don't mean statistics that can be interpreted in multiple ways - even if a certain party stretches credibility for the sake of their interpretation.)

A noteworthy example from last year was when Newt Gingrich said on The Daily Show that Richard Reid (the "Shoe Bomber") was read his Miranda rights (by the Bush Justice Dept) only because "he was an American citizen" - when, in fact, Richard Reid is NOT an American citizen and, in that way, his situation was no different than the "Underwear Bomber". This showed the hypocrisy of the GOP (and the political Right) as they were blasting A.G. Eric Holder and the Obama Administration despite the fact they were following the same protocol that the Bush Administration had (when the GOP had not raised any objection to the reading of Miranda rights). (Note: While Jon Stewart did not correct Newt Gingrich during the interview - he did acknowledge Newt's factual error after they came back from commercial break).

Well, on last Friday's Dylan Ratigan Show, there was a factual error stated by conservative pundit Amy Holmes. There was a discussion of the budget and the need to make significant alterations to the entitlement programs when Ms. Holmes said:

Back in 2005, George Bush tried to do this and some say he wasted an entire year of his presidency and that's when Harry Reid was Majority Leader and Harry Reid didn't want to do it... so as long as Harry Reid is in charge of the United States Senate and the Democratic Party, I don't think you're going to see real progress.

I heard that and Dylan Ratigan just let it go. The fact is that Harry Reid was NOT Majority Leader in 2005! The Republican Party had 55 seats in the 109th congress and the Majority Leader was Bill Frist. George W. Bush could not get his privatization of Social Security plans through the Congress controlled by his own party. The public hated the proposal... according to the Brookings Institute:

Observors noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush's handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent--between his State of the Union address and June.

Anyway, I didn't want to do this post to re-debate the Bush plan. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy of Amy Holmes and the failure to correct by Dylan Ratigan. And, in the bigger picture, the hugely relevant point is that as Republicans try to re-write history (again!) with regards to their fiscal discipline --- it is important to always keep in mind the famous quote typically attributed to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Does certainty really matter?

One problem that we find in politics is that people stake out a position and then look for arguments to support their stance. This leads to convenient rhetoric. One example of this is the push by Republican legislators to extend the Bush tax cuts because this would create certainty. John Engler said "We've got to provide businesses some certainty about what their tax landscape is going to look like, and we've got to provide families certainty,". "That's critical to maintain our recovery."

If we assume that this narrative is correct and that certainty is important to job growth then it follows that extending the Bush tax cuts should have a positive economic impact. It also follows that when families have a level of certainty they would feel more comfortable spending their discretionary earnings instead of saving them. If this is the case then the vast levels of uncertainty that Republicans are creating for public employees is detrimental to the economy.

Nationally the public sector has lost 435,000 jobs since 2008 and is estimated to lose between 25,000 and 30,000 a month in the second half of this year. In Michigan Governor Snyders proposed cuts that would cost public employees $180 million while increaing taxes by 1.1% for households making under $17,000 a year. Add in the current union busting tactics and public employees have anything but certainty.

If certainty is good for the economy it is good for every sector of the economy not just the sectors you support. Giving Michigan businesses $2 billion in tax breaks that the state can only afford if it slashes wages, and cuts jobs does not create certainty. If anything it creates more uncertainty. Henry Ford knew that paying his employees twice what other companies were paying would help his business because his employees could then afford to buy his cars. Similarly as a Michigan businiess a tax cut adds no value if that tax cut comes at the cost of shrinking the cosumer base.

Businesses already have a record amount of cash on hand. The problem is not the lack of certainty regarding taxes but the lack of certainty among consumers and public empoyees are consumers.

Either certainty matters or it doesn't and politicing to make certainty an excuse for massive give aways to big business on the backs of the middle class helps no one.

Bomani Jones & His Strawman Argument

Don't we all hate strawman arguments? It seems like it's the stock-n-trade argument of the GOP. But this is not about those loons.

This is about Bomani Jones, ESPN.com columnist and guest panelist this week on Jim Rome is Burning. Yesterday, they were discussing the draft prospects of Cam Newton and Mr. Jones said this:

Look at the names you're going to hear come out (about being the) #1 pick. You're gonna hear some talk probably about A.J. Green by the time it's all over. A wide receiver. Somebody will bring this up before it's all over. If we have a draft where you can consider taking a wide receiver at #1, that tells you there is no guy out there that's just this can't miss definite star player.

Now, technically, he may be correct. Somebody probably will bring up A.J. Green. This person will not be a credible person (for example: see this and this). Are you supposed to factor in every crackpot with an opinion when evaluating this draft?

By the way, Bomani also said:

The only quarterback in this draft that has#1 pick potential is Cam Newton just because of what the upside could possibly be.

Of course, Mel Kiper released Mock Draft 3.0 this week with Missouri quarterback Blaine Gabbert as the #1 pick. I am going to say Kiper is a more reliable source - although this a guy who seemed to advocate teams using a Top 10 pick on Jimmy Clausen, so I am willing to concede that Mr. Kiper's opinion is not the least bit infallible.

Another dissenting opinion comes from New York Giant defensive lineman Justin Tuck. He said:

Would I take (Newton) at #1? Absolutely not. In this league, the athletic quarterbacks don't last long. It's the quarterbacks that can sit in the pocket and take the picture of whatever defense we're in. It's those guys that teams are looking for and I don't think Cam is that player yet.

I like... I like. Sounds like a better evaluator of talent than Matt Millen for sure. And I don't mean that to damn him with faint praise - I mean, quite frankly, who isn't better than Matt Millen?

All that said, I admit I don't know what make of Newton at the NFL level. It really could go either way. (Consider that my CYA addendum so some a-hole with a blog won't link to this in three years if Cam Newton does turn out to be good!)