A couple months back my fellow blogger Mako and I had a few posts back and forth about appropriations in the item pricing law. As I mentioned then I really don't care about the item pricing law but I thought it was a dangerous precedent to make controversial bills voter proof. By using appropriations, Legislatures are gaming the system and limiting the power of the people.
Well they are at it again. This time legislatures have made the redrawing of legislative and Congressional lines referendum proof. This means that even if a majority of Michiganders thought the new lines were just political gerrymandering, we are powerless to change it.
While it may be too little too late for some of this years legislation State Representative Jim Townsend has proposed an amendment to the states constitution that would bar this practice while keeping in tact the safe guards that protect actually budget bills from potentially damaging referendums.
Personally I would be shocked if this legislation goes anywhere since legislators love any power they can get their hands on and this form of exploiting our system is far to enticing for politicians to relinquish.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Job-killers, or convenient rhetoric?
My colleague Glenn Gogoleski has an unapologetic history a defending corporate interests. Luckily for corporate America they have plenty of money to defend themselves. Mr. Gogoleski's recent surge in posting targets the injustice of the justice system from a corporate standpoint. This includes a case brought by the NLRB against Boeing, a case about work place chairs, and a case against Wal-Mart.
In the case of the NLRB versus Boeing Mr. Gogoleski states that this a "legal overstep by the NLRB". In the case of the chairs for workers in California Mr. Gogoleski goes to the standard scare tactic of "(Californians) will now be paying substantially more for retail goods". In the case of the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Mr. Gogoleski goes all in with conservative rhetoric calling it "another frivolous, job killing class action lawsuit".
According to a US courts government web site the purpose of the American court system is to apply and interpret laws. Contrary to what Glenn would have you believe these are all valid questions regarding the interpretation of laws. Is it illegal to threaten unions? Yes. Did Boeing threaten their union? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there a law on the books regarding chairs for employees in California? Yes. Are corporations following the law? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it against the law to treat women different in the workplace? Yes. Did Wal-Mart, as a corporation, have a policy of treating women unfairly? No, according to the Supreme Court. Did certain Wal-Mart stores have unfair labor practices regarding women? Maybe. Maybe not. Future litigation will probably answer that question.
Luckily here in the greatest country on earth we have a justice system to help settle disputes instead of having to rely on Mr. Gogoleski's opinion of what does and what does not qualify as a valid court case. Does Glenn believe all of these cases represent "overreaching government" or are "frivolous"? His posts and subsequent comments would suggest he does. Does that make it true? Maybe. Maybe not. I would guess that Glenn is not particularly concerned about government overreach in the case of taxing pensions or emergency financial managers. Those disputes will also be decided by a court. How convenient to claim government overreach when it suits you and act like you know better than the judges and juries that heard the arguments and interpreted the laws.
Glenn also loves to point out how much it costs the companies involved in lawsuits as though that should prohibit legal action against a company. If a company breaks the law should it be precluded from lawsuits simply because that might increase the cost of products to customers? Trial lawyers are a free market entity not a government operation. Suing a company like Wal-Mart is not free. If you are going to take on a company of this size you better have a hefty sum of money handy and be fairly certain you can win. Lawyers are businessman. The average Lawyer Salary in 2006 was just over $100,000 (corporate lawyers have the highest average salaries btw). They don't make that kind of money by taking on every case that walks through their door.
Does that mean that every case is valid? No. But in the free market there is a cost in failing to make your case. I hope Glenn as a "Libertarian-leaning, capitalist-loving conservative" isn't suggesting that the government add in more laws and regulations to stop frivolous lawsuits.
Glenn is very excited about his new line of posts and considers these a "first in a series" but they will all tell the same story of how Glenn doesn't like lawsuits against companies. They will have little to nothing to do with the actual validity of the cases. They will instead focus on the unsupported opinions of Glenn and how much Americans and corporations suffer from being held accountable.
In the case of the NLRB versus Boeing Mr. Gogoleski states that this a "legal overstep by the NLRB". In the case of the chairs for workers in California Mr. Gogoleski goes to the standard scare tactic of "(Californians) will now be paying substantially more for retail goods". In the case of the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Mr. Gogoleski goes all in with conservative rhetoric calling it "another frivolous, job killing class action lawsuit".
According to a US courts government web site the purpose of the American court system is to apply and interpret laws. Contrary to what Glenn would have you believe these are all valid questions regarding the interpretation of laws. Is it illegal to threaten unions? Yes. Did Boeing threaten their union? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there a law on the books regarding chairs for employees in California? Yes. Are corporations following the law? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it against the law to treat women different in the workplace? Yes. Did Wal-Mart, as a corporation, have a policy of treating women unfairly? No, according to the Supreme Court. Did certain Wal-Mart stores have unfair labor practices regarding women? Maybe. Maybe not. Future litigation will probably answer that question.
Luckily here in the greatest country on earth we have a justice system to help settle disputes instead of having to rely on Mr. Gogoleski's opinion of what does and what does not qualify as a valid court case. Does Glenn believe all of these cases represent "overreaching government" or are "frivolous"? His posts and subsequent comments would suggest he does. Does that make it true? Maybe. Maybe not. I would guess that Glenn is not particularly concerned about government overreach in the case of taxing pensions or emergency financial managers. Those disputes will also be decided by a court. How convenient to claim government overreach when it suits you and act like you know better than the judges and juries that heard the arguments and interpreted the laws.
Glenn also loves to point out how much it costs the companies involved in lawsuits as though that should prohibit legal action against a company. If a company breaks the law should it be precluded from lawsuits simply because that might increase the cost of products to customers? Trial lawyers are a free market entity not a government operation. Suing a company like Wal-Mart is not free. If you are going to take on a company of this size you better have a hefty sum of money handy and be fairly certain you can win. Lawyers are businessman. The average Lawyer Salary in 2006 was just over $100,000 (corporate lawyers have the highest average salaries btw). They don't make that kind of money by taking on every case that walks through their door.
Does that mean that every case is valid? No. But in the free market there is a cost in failing to make your case. I hope Glenn as a "Libertarian-leaning, capitalist-loving conservative" isn't suggesting that the government add in more laws and regulations to stop frivolous lawsuits.
Glenn is very excited about his new line of posts and considers these a "first in a series" but they will all tell the same story of how Glenn doesn't like lawsuits against companies. They will have little to nothing to do with the actual validity of the cases. They will instead focus on the unsupported opinions of Glenn and how much Americans and corporations suffer from being held accountable.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Eliminating ads targeting kids won't cure obesity
The government has decided to ask junk food marketers not to advertise to kids. I'm afraid this proposal misses the real issue. Do advertisements entice kids into buying things they don't need and aren't good for them? Yes. But we are legislating the symptom here not the cause.
By in large young kids do not buy their own food. Parents buy it for them. This proposal plays right into our "take no responsibility" culture. How dare we expect a parent to say no when a child asks for junk food. Why should parents be expected to parent when they can just blame someone else for their kid being fat.
The same is true of the school lunch program. Since when did our primary objective become making students happy? I doubt very highly that if given a choice the majority of school age kids would rank going to school as their top choice for how to spend their time. I fail to understand why food is the area where we stop worrying about what is best for kids and start focusing on providing things that kids like.
Obviously cost plays a part in shaping the school menu but in a place of learning, where we are teaching our kids to make good choices, providing unhealthy food just to save a few bucks sends the wrong message. Additionally, with the high cost of health care and the ever increasing numbers of obese kids, the long term costs far outweigh the short term savings.
If we are truly concerned about obesity in school age children then we should use the government's power to fix the problem not the symptom. If you take the time to educate a child early and often on the value of good nutrition the rate of obesity goes down. Studies also show that parent involvement increases the value of this education.
A better plan would be to tax the junk foods rather than legislate advertisements. Taxing these products should lead to lower consumption rates while providing a funding source for the very education that will lower obesity in our kids and subsequently, in society.
Unfortunately the world is full of choices and providing kids with the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices even when parents aren't around is the best thing we can do to prepare our kids for the real world. Acting like the bad things don't exist may make parents feel better but in the end, obfuscating reality, does more harm than good.
By in large young kids do not buy their own food. Parents buy it for them. This proposal plays right into our "take no responsibility" culture. How dare we expect a parent to say no when a child asks for junk food. Why should parents be expected to parent when they can just blame someone else for their kid being fat.
The same is true of the school lunch program. Since when did our primary objective become making students happy? I doubt very highly that if given a choice the majority of school age kids would rank going to school as their top choice for how to spend their time. I fail to understand why food is the area where we stop worrying about what is best for kids and start focusing on providing things that kids like.
Obviously cost plays a part in shaping the school menu but in a place of learning, where we are teaching our kids to make good choices, providing unhealthy food just to save a few bucks sends the wrong message. Additionally, with the high cost of health care and the ever increasing numbers of obese kids, the long term costs far outweigh the short term savings.
If we are truly concerned about obesity in school age children then we should use the government's power to fix the problem not the symptom. If you take the time to educate a child early and often on the value of good nutrition the rate of obesity goes down. Studies also show that parent involvement increases the value of this education.
A better plan would be to tax the junk foods rather than legislate advertisements. Taxing these products should lead to lower consumption rates while providing a funding source for the very education that will lower obesity in our kids and subsequently, in society.
Unfortunately the world is full of choices and providing kids with the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices even when parents aren't around is the best thing we can do to prepare our kids for the real world. Acting like the bad things don't exist may make parents feel better but in the end, obfuscating reality, does more harm than good.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
"They Keep Acting As If It's Always 1980"
Another old-school Republican* who- free from the confines of politics- acknowledges that the current GOP economic plan is nonsensical:
That was the analysis of Bruce Bartlett, Fmr. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under George H.W. Bush (amongst other credentials), as stated on last night's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.
Well said, sir.
* see also Paul O'Neill and David Stockman.
The most important thing to understand is that certain policies such as the Reagan tax cut in 1981 - which I supported and continue to support - were the right thing to do at that time under those economic conditions. (But) Republicans keep acting as if it's always 1980 with exactly those particular problems and they simply refuse to acknowledge that anything has changed in the last thirty years and I think the basic problem with the economy today is a lack of aggregate demand and I just don't see any way of increasing that through the sorts of tax policies that (current Republican presidential candidates) are talking about.
That was the analysis of Bruce Bartlett, Fmr. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under George H.W. Bush (amongst other credentials), as stated on last night's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.
Well said, sir.
* see also Paul O'Neill and David Stockman.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Mavs Win!
I really don't care about who won the NBA championship other than I'm glad that it was not Lebron James. I guess that makes me a LBJ hater so these comments below, that James made yesterday, to some small extent are directed at me.
"All the people that were rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that. So they can get a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be on being happy about not only myself, but the Miami Heat not accomplishing their goal. But they got to get back to the real world at some point."
The problem I have is that Lebron wants it both ways. You don't get to reap the rewards of having your own ESPN special to announce, like some attention starved high school kid, what NBA team you are going to play for and then when you get there talk about how many championships you are going to win, and then turn around and lament the number of people to root for you to fail.
You made yourself the villain so you don't get to act like the victim now. I assume at some point James will win a championship and if he does I bet one of the first things he talks about is how he is vindicated and that all the people who didn't believe in him can shove it. If he really wanted to create fans out of those of us who like to see him fail he would take the high road and say nothing about those who take joy in his pain. Unfortunately he won't recognize his own hypocrisy and will continue to think he should be allowed to have his cake and eat it too.
"All the people that were rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that. So they can get a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be on being happy about not only myself, but the Miami Heat not accomplishing their goal. But they got to get back to the real world at some point."
The problem I have is that Lebron wants it both ways. You don't get to reap the rewards of having your own ESPN special to announce, like some attention starved high school kid, what NBA team you are going to play for and then when you get there talk about how many championships you are going to win, and then turn around and lament the number of people to root for you to fail.
You made yourself the villain so you don't get to act like the victim now. I assume at some point James will win a championship and if he does I bet one of the first things he talks about is how he is vindicated and that all the people who didn't believe in him can shove it. If he really wanted to create fans out of those of us who like to see him fail he would take the high road and say nothing about those who take joy in his pain. Unfortunately he won't recognize his own hypocrisy and will continue to think he should be allowed to have his cake and eat it too.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Education is the solution, not the problem
In the past when I have posted about Education some commenters have taken the opportunity to assert that "money is not the answer" with regards to how to improve our education system. I assume this position to be based more on the interest in keeping taxes low than a fully researched opinion since the data tends to show a small positive correlation between education spending and test scores. Additionally if money didn't matter in education then the test prep industry wouldn't be a $4 billion a year industry and parents would send their kids to Community College instead of MIT. The truth is that like most things you get what you pay for. We want our kids to get a good education to give them the best chance of being successful and some of the most expensive colleges have the best ROI. A more appropriate statement would be that money isn't the ONLY answer.
One thing that I find particularly odd about the recent obsession over teachers pay by the right is just how at odds this is with the typical Republican ideology. When a CEO receives massive compensation the argument is that you have to pay top dollar to get the best people. The same is true of teachers. This is a highly educated workforce specifically trained to be educators. As with a CEO the free market idea should be that a teachers pay should reflect his or her value to the corporation (the school) i.e. the ability to replace the position without a drop in production.
A New York Times report on what makes a good teacher suggests that a teachers ability shows a high correlation to student achievement. It also shows that these are skills that can be taught. Obviously, as with all skills, there are a certain set of people that will excel and a certain set that will fail. The point being that you can't just turn any bum into a great teacher but if you hope to make a good teacher it will require a good education. Given that private schools compensate their teachers at a fairly equivalent rate to public schools yet tend to require less education the free market would suggest that the current pay is not out of line as the rhetoric might suggest.
It then follows that if pay rates are not out of line the changes we should be pushing for are not monitary but improvement based. Studies conclude that having a highly trained workforce, good facilities, smaller class sizes and high parental involvement as the necessary ingredients to improved student achievement. reducing money for schools will have a negative impact on three out of the four items necessary to improving proformance.
Republicans also tend to push for the public sector to act more like the private sector. Any businessman will tell you that the goal of spending money should be to get the best return on your investment. Well, low educated couples are four times as likely to get a divorce as high educated couples. Increasing the graduation rate and subsequent college attendance rates by 5% could save as much as $8 billion a year for the American tax payer. The higher the education level of a woman the less likely she will be to have an abortion. The more educated you are the less likely you will be to smoke cigarettes which costs American taxpayers $100 billion a year. The higher your education level the lower your chances are of being Obese which costs the American tax payer over $36 billion a year. Drug use also drops as education increases. What other area of government spending has such a huge bang for your buck?
Instead of attacking teachers pay and security with shadow legislation we as a society would be better served to look for solutions that improve the core areas of education which lead to better results. Merit Pay, Vouchers, and Deficit reduction are the side show in the education circus. Teacher education, good facilities, limited class sizes and parent participation get real results. If only our elected officials could focus on good policy instead of convenient politics.
One thing that I find particularly odd about the recent obsession over teachers pay by the right is just how at odds this is with the typical Republican ideology. When a CEO receives massive compensation the argument is that you have to pay top dollar to get the best people. The same is true of teachers. This is a highly educated workforce specifically trained to be educators. As with a CEO the free market idea should be that a teachers pay should reflect his or her value to the corporation (the school) i.e. the ability to replace the position without a drop in production.
A New York Times report on what makes a good teacher suggests that a teachers ability shows a high correlation to student achievement. It also shows that these are skills that can be taught. Obviously, as with all skills, there are a certain set of people that will excel and a certain set that will fail. The point being that you can't just turn any bum into a great teacher but if you hope to make a good teacher it will require a good education. Given that private schools compensate their teachers at a fairly equivalent rate to public schools yet tend to require less education the free market would suggest that the current pay is not out of line as the rhetoric might suggest.
It then follows that if pay rates are not out of line the changes we should be pushing for are not monitary but improvement based. Studies conclude that having a highly trained workforce, good facilities, smaller class sizes and high parental involvement as the necessary ingredients to improved student achievement. reducing money for schools will have a negative impact on three out of the four items necessary to improving proformance.
Republicans also tend to push for the public sector to act more like the private sector. Any businessman will tell you that the goal of spending money should be to get the best return on your investment. Well, low educated couples are four times as likely to get a divorce as high educated couples. Increasing the graduation rate and subsequent college attendance rates by 5% could save as much as $8 billion a year for the American tax payer. The higher the education level of a woman the less likely she will be to have an abortion. The more educated you are the less likely you will be to smoke cigarettes which costs American taxpayers $100 billion a year. The higher your education level the lower your chances are of being Obese which costs the American tax payer over $36 billion a year. Drug use also drops as education increases. What other area of government spending has such a huge bang for your buck?
Instead of attacking teachers pay and security with shadow legislation we as a society would be better served to look for solutions that improve the core areas of education which lead to better results. Merit Pay, Vouchers, and Deficit reduction are the side show in the education circus. Teacher education, good facilities, limited class sizes and parent participation get real results. If only our elected officials could focus on good policy instead of convenient politics.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Doing The Right Thing? Does Not Compute.
A few observations from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:
Ms. Maddow was discussing the Anthony Weiner scandal with Chris Hayes and they agreed that GOP politicians who are calling on Rep. Weiner to resign are really nothing more than opportunists. Mr. Hayes says:
I agree (to the extent that they have not felt the need to urge David Vitter et al to resign in the past). Ms. Maddow also agrees. Rachel says:
Uhhh... maybe because it's the right thing to do? (And, of course, it was/is the right thing for David Vitter to have done/do too). They absolutely brought embarassment to the institution of the United States congress; I say that fully aware that certain people (*cough* Bachmann!) arguably bring shame every time they open their cheese-holes.
I guess that brings me to my own counterpoint. If those previous paragraphs were brought to you by Derek Anderson Fan... perhaps these next few paragraphs might be considered to be authored by my alter ego, Derek Jeter Hater.
Earlier in the segment - the pretext if you will - was a video of GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum saying:
Now, who is he to say what is best for Anthony Weiner's family? Why is it everyone assumes that stepping down is necessarily a positive? Who looks at a family situation and says "you know what would improve this situation? Unemployment!" Brilliant idea!!
Now, admittedly, I am probably being somewhat silly with the unemployment concern - but I am absolutely serious as to my questioning as to why it is universally assumed that resignation helps save families/marriages? Rep. Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who has long been involved in Democratic politics, have been married less than a year. Weiner has been a US Congressman since 1999. Seemingly, they have only known each other in essentially their current roles - meaning there is no 'Reset' button in this relationship where they can go back to a simpler time when they were college sweethearts, before Anthony was corrupted by the allure of power, notoriety, and/or internet porn.
They are what they are. Only they know what is best for their relationship. If Huma wants him to resign - he should probably resign- but he sure as shit should not resign because a Bible thumping douchebag like Rick Santorum thinks it's best. Fuck him.
Ms. Maddow was discussing the Anthony Weiner scandal with Chris Hayes and they agreed that GOP politicians who are calling on Rep. Weiner to resign are really nothing more than opportunists. Mr. Hayes says:
The cheapest way to score a "family values point" is... to parachute in with some censorious statement about someone else's problem... it doesn't cost anything. You don't actually have to do anything.
I agree (to the extent that they have not felt the need to urge David Vitter et al to resign in the past). Ms. Maddow also agrees. Rachel says:
I feel like I understand why Republicans are calling for Anthony Weiner's resignation... it's, as you say, opportunism (but) what is going on with the 9 or 10 Democrats now who are also calling on Anthony Weiner to resign?
Uhhh... maybe because it's the right thing to do? (And, of course, it was/is the right thing for David Vitter to have done/do too). They absolutely brought embarassment to the institution of the United States congress; I say that fully aware that certain people (*cough* Bachmann!) arguably bring shame every time they open their cheese-holes.
I guess that brings me to my own counterpoint. If those previous paragraphs were brought to you by Derek Anderson Fan... perhaps these next few paragraphs might be considered to be authored by my alter ego, Derek Jeter Hater.
Earlier in the segment - the pretext if you will - was a video of GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum saying:
If I had done what Congressman Weiner had done, I'd be worried about my family and getting my life back together... I would've stepped down and done what's best for the people that I love.
Now, who is he to say what is best for Anthony Weiner's family? Why is it everyone assumes that stepping down is necessarily a positive? Who looks at a family situation and says "you know what would improve this situation? Unemployment!" Brilliant idea!!
Now, admittedly, I am probably being somewhat silly with the unemployment concern - but I am absolutely serious as to my questioning as to why it is universally assumed that resignation helps save families/marriages? Rep. Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who has long been involved in Democratic politics, have been married less than a year. Weiner has been a US Congressman since 1999. Seemingly, they have only known each other in essentially their current roles - meaning there is no 'Reset' button in this relationship where they can go back to a simpler time when they were college sweethearts, before Anthony was corrupted by the allure of power, notoriety, and/or internet porn.
They are what they are. Only they know what is best for their relationship. If Huma wants him to resign - he should probably resign- but he sure as shit should not resign because a Bible thumping douchebag like Rick Santorum thinks it's best. Fuck him.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
New International Trade Crossing support confusing
Back when it was called the Detroit River International Crossing supported by Governor Granholm all of the Republicans in the State Senate were against it and all but one Democrat was for it.
Now that Governor Snyder supports it Republicans are finding it much more palatable. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville went from being against the project to submitting the bills for it. In September of 2007, before the major economic melt down, Richardville said "Despite the state's current budget problems, MDOT" is pushing forward with "building an unnecessary bridge".
At the time he also stated that "MDOT insists on moving forward with plans to build a bridge on a massively polluted site". I can not find any information suggesting that the site for the bridge has changed since Richardville's original objections. If that is the case and the site is still the same I'm not sure why his objection to the site no longer exist.
Richardville's new found support for the project seems to be focused around some maneuvering that Governor Snyder has done which basically eliminates that tax burden on Michigan residents. Unfortunately this offer was on the table about a year ago or a full 6 months before Richadville voted against the then DRIC.
Adding to the confusion is the statements from Governor Snyder on how important this is to Michigan's trade and jobs. If this is true now then it was also true when Richardville was against this "unnecessary bridge". Canada apparently thinks it has so much value that they are willing to spend millions, and perhaps billions, of their own money as well as chip in Michigan's $550 million.
The main opponents to this bridge, not surprisingly, are the owners of the Ambassador Bridge. They put together a report showing how a new bridge will lose millions a dollars a year. Their President of operations, Dan Stamper, also claims that traffic across the bridge has been decreasing for the past decade so there is no need for a new bridge yet his company has spent millions on efforts to expand their own bridge.
Unfortunately the Republican objections to the plan appear more tied the $553,665 in campaign contributions that they received from the owners of the Ambassador Bridge than anything else. After all the bridge will create jobs, cost Michigan tax payers nothing and create competition. I thought those were the ideas that got Republicans elected in November.
At least in this case Governor Snyder has put the good of the state ahead of his re-election. If only every politician were so inclined.
Now that Governor Snyder supports it Republicans are finding it much more palatable. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville went from being against the project to submitting the bills for it. In September of 2007, before the major economic melt down, Richardville said "Despite the state's current budget problems, MDOT" is pushing forward with "building an unnecessary bridge".
At the time he also stated that "MDOT insists on moving forward with plans to build a bridge on a massively polluted site". I can not find any information suggesting that the site for the bridge has changed since Richardville's original objections. If that is the case and the site is still the same I'm not sure why his objection to the site no longer exist.
Richardville's new found support for the project seems to be focused around some maneuvering that Governor Snyder has done which basically eliminates that tax burden on Michigan residents. Unfortunately this offer was on the table about a year ago or a full 6 months before Richadville voted against the then DRIC.
Adding to the confusion is the statements from Governor Snyder on how important this is to Michigan's trade and jobs. If this is true now then it was also true when Richardville was against this "unnecessary bridge". Canada apparently thinks it has so much value that they are willing to spend millions, and perhaps billions, of their own money as well as chip in Michigan's $550 million.
The main opponents to this bridge, not surprisingly, are the owners of the Ambassador Bridge. They put together a report showing how a new bridge will lose millions a dollars a year. Their President of operations, Dan Stamper, also claims that traffic across the bridge has been decreasing for the past decade so there is no need for a new bridge yet his company has spent millions on efforts to expand their own bridge.
Unfortunately the Republican objections to the plan appear more tied the $553,665 in campaign contributions that they received from the owners of the Ambassador Bridge than anything else. After all the bridge will create jobs, cost Michigan tax payers nothing and create competition. I thought those were the ideas that got Republicans elected in November.
At least in this case Governor Snyder has put the good of the state ahead of his re-election. If only every politician were so inclined.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Why Even Have FoxTrax?
Let me start by catching up the uninitiated as to what I am talking about in that post title.
FoxSports Detroit and I would assume all affiliates of the 29 other MLB teams - or, rather, all those with a contract with FoxSports use a technology called FoxTrax to show whether a (disputed) pitch was a ball or a strike (i.e. did the ump get it right?)
It's not my favorite technology since it often shows pitches that I believe were "on the black" to be off the plate. I just accept that I would be more of a pitchers umpire because I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt considering all the drift to hitter-friendly conditions in the past generation (if you know baseball, you know the list: mound height, smaller ballparks, smaller strikezone, 'roided up players, juiced ball?, etc).
Okay, now that my readers are all hopefully caught up - here is the problem I have:
Over the weekend Detroit-ChiSox series, there was a pitch that White Sox DH/1B Adam Dunn took for a called strike three. A replay was shown and Tigers play-by-play broadcaster, Mario Impemba, audibly gasped and said "that was nowhere near the strike zone!" Later in the game when Adam Dunn came to the plate, Impemba again claimed Dunn was "called out earlier today on a pitch that clearly out of the strike zone.".
With that said...it should be a surprise to you, dear reader, that when FoxSports showed a replay using FoxTrax, it indicated the pitch was a strike!! Now, why would you invest in this technology if you clearly do not take it seriously and apparently don't expect your viewing audience to trust it? It makes no sense!
Moreover, I am curious about how the technology actually works? It is just a shmuck in the production truck just eyeballing an approximate square? That could sound like an inexact technology that would produce errors except that is how the First & 10 lines are generated on football broadcasts... and how often are those actually wrong? Pretty much never!
Also, I wanted to compare this technology to what they use for tennis tournaments these days. They have a replay system which routinely zooms in to show a ball in or out by mere millimeters and I have never, ever heard anyone suggest that the technology got it wrong. So I guess the analagous situation would be that Mario (& Rod Allen) were calling a tennis match and having replay show a ball was on the line but they actually insisted the ball was out by a foot!
All right, if I have not made myself clear, consider me on the side of technology. Mario Impemba got the call wrong. The replay indicated he was wrong. He was too stubborn to acknowledge it. The reason you have FoxTrax is because announcers like Mario Impemba don't know a strike when they see one!
FoxSports Detroit and I would assume all affiliates of the 29 other MLB teams - or, rather, all those with a contract with FoxSports use a technology called FoxTrax to show whether a (disputed) pitch was a ball or a strike (i.e. did the ump get it right?)
It's not my favorite technology since it often shows pitches that I believe were "on the black" to be off the plate. I just accept that I would be more of a pitchers umpire because I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt considering all the drift to hitter-friendly conditions in the past generation (if you know baseball, you know the list: mound height, smaller ballparks, smaller strikezone, 'roided up players, juiced ball?, etc).
Okay, now that my readers are all hopefully caught up - here is the problem I have:
Over the weekend Detroit-ChiSox series, there was a pitch that White Sox DH/1B Adam Dunn took for a called strike three. A replay was shown and Tigers play-by-play broadcaster, Mario Impemba, audibly gasped and said "that was nowhere near the strike zone!" Later in the game when Adam Dunn came to the plate, Impemba again claimed Dunn was "called out earlier today on a pitch that clearly out of the strike zone.".
With that said...it should be a surprise to you, dear reader, that when FoxSports showed a replay using FoxTrax, it indicated the pitch was a strike!! Now, why would you invest in this technology if you clearly do not take it seriously and apparently don't expect your viewing audience to trust it? It makes no sense!
Moreover, I am curious about how the technology actually works? It is just a shmuck in the production truck just eyeballing an approximate square? That could sound like an inexact technology that would produce errors except that is how the First & 10 lines are generated on football broadcasts... and how often are those actually wrong? Pretty much never!
Also, I wanted to compare this technology to what they use for tennis tournaments these days. They have a replay system which routinely zooms in to show a ball in or out by mere millimeters and I have never, ever heard anyone suggest that the technology got it wrong. So I guess the analagous situation would be that Mario (& Rod Allen) were calling a tennis match and having replay show a ball was on the line but they actually insisted the ball was out by a foot!
All right, if I have not made myself clear, consider me on the side of technology. Mario Impemba got the call wrong. The replay indicated he was wrong. He was too stubborn to acknowledge it. The reason you have FoxTrax is because announcers like Mario Impemba don't know a strike when they see one!
Palin 2012
As a Democrat I'm very excited about the continued obsession with Sarah Palin and her potential run for President. Nothing boosts the Democratic brand more than having people like Palin as the spokes people for the Republican party. Unfortunately Palin only has a 22% favorability rating which is as low as George W. Bush ever sank. At least Bush actually did something for people to like or dislike. Palin might as well have been a community organizer for the past few years for as much as she has accomplished.
In what I assume to be an effort to improve her brand Palin is taking a "vacation" across America using money donated to SarahPAC and made her latest gaffe of butchering the history of Paul Revere.
Personally I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or does not know about American history. There is plenty of quotes to suggest that she might not be the smartest candidate for president that this country has every seen. The problem I have is that she defended her ignorance and the blamed a gotcha question. This is a tried and true response for Palin when she missteps on questions. Since her supporters have backed this defense in the past why not try it again. But maybe she has a point. Who among us would so readily be able to answer such a loaded question as the one posed to Palin.
"What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"
Clearly the person asking this question was planted by the liberal media just looking for a way to make Palin look silly. If we don't blame someone else for Palin's gaffes then she just becomes another citizen who is completely unqualified to be President and she is just too important to the Democratic party to let that happen.
In what I assume to be an effort to improve her brand Palin is taking a "vacation" across America using money donated to SarahPAC and made her latest gaffe of butchering the history of Paul Revere.
Personally I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or does not know about American history. There is plenty of quotes to suggest that she might not be the smartest candidate for president that this country has every seen. The problem I have is that she defended her ignorance and the blamed a gotcha question. This is a tried and true response for Palin when she missteps on questions. Since her supporters have backed this defense in the past why not try it again. But maybe she has a point. Who among us would so readily be able to answer such a loaded question as the one posed to Palin.
"What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"
Clearly the person asking this question was planted by the liberal media just looking for a way to make Palin look silly. If we don't blame someone else for Palin's gaffes then she just becomes another citizen who is completely unqualified to be President and she is just too important to the Democratic party to let that happen.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
O'Reilly setting the table for 2012
Bill O'Reilly is a smart guy who prefers conservative values. Given this he tends to support Republican candidates in elections. It should then come as no surprise that in an effort to exploit the bias of his viewers he would use the tried and true fallacy of media bias to tip the scales in favor of "his" guys.
On his show from June 1st O'Reilly quotes from a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) a "nonpartisan" organization that just happens to get 86% of it's funding from conservative leaning sources. The study indicates that in the 2008 election cycle, ABC, NBC, and particularly CBS present more favorable views of Obama than McCain. Based on this study O'Reilly concluded that "(the coverage) was all favorable to Obama" and "it just wasn't fair the last time around, Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment."
Void of the fact that this same study also points out that not only is Fox News, which O'Reilly happens to work for, not fair and balanced on this topic, they actually show their own bias by giving more favorable views on McCain than Obama.
The beauty is that by putting this out there now in reference to the 2012 elections O'Reilly has already set the table to claim bias on anything he disagrees with over the next year and a half relating the coverage of the presidential candidates.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that O'Reilly is a good judge of bias. On this same program he claims that his staff has more liberals than conservatives. This may be true but it also could be true that O'Reilly believes he falls in the middle of the political spectrum and therefore anyone left of him is liberal. This reminds me of a George Carlin bit that one of my colleagues often quotes where he says “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Just because politically you passed Bill O'Reilly that is not proof that you are in fact a maniac.
The other unfortunate and telling issue I take with O'Reilly's definitive statements about how Obama was treated by the media is the fact the this same organization also put out another study titled: MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO) Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain. (take note of the bias in the title from this "nonpartisan" organization). This study shows the exact opposite results of the study that O'Reilly quotes. Additionally this study shows that Fox News was the worst offender of "bashing" Obama surpassing the bias that CBS showed that prompted O'Reilly to say "I am concerned as an American, that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate."
Ironically O'Reilly is using "gotcha journalism" here on his guest Diane Sawyer since she wasn't given a heads up on this topic to be able to defend her network against these accusations.
O'Reilly would have more credibility if he didn't exhibit such blatant bias when calling out someone else for showing bias.
The fight over bias may never end because there is no statistical measure that will come remotely close to settling the issue and the easiest way to discredit those whom you disagree with is to make a claim that is impossible to prove. As I said before, O'Reilly is a smart guy and you can bet he knows exactly what he is doing in continuing to represent bias as an important topic of political conversation instead of the diversionary tactic that it is.
On his show from June 1st O'Reilly quotes from a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) a "nonpartisan" organization that just happens to get 86% of it's funding from conservative leaning sources. The study indicates that in the 2008 election cycle, ABC, NBC, and particularly CBS present more favorable views of Obama than McCain. Based on this study O'Reilly concluded that "(the coverage) was all favorable to Obama" and "it just wasn't fair the last time around, Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment."
Void of the fact that this same study also points out that not only is Fox News, which O'Reilly happens to work for, not fair and balanced on this topic, they actually show their own bias by giving more favorable views on McCain than Obama.
The beauty is that by putting this out there now in reference to the 2012 elections O'Reilly has already set the table to claim bias on anything he disagrees with over the next year and a half relating the coverage of the presidential candidates.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that O'Reilly is a good judge of bias. On this same program he claims that his staff has more liberals than conservatives. This may be true but it also could be true that O'Reilly believes he falls in the middle of the political spectrum and therefore anyone left of him is liberal. This reminds me of a George Carlin bit that one of my colleagues often quotes where he says “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Just because politically you passed Bill O'Reilly that is not proof that you are in fact a maniac.
The other unfortunate and telling issue I take with O'Reilly's definitive statements about how Obama was treated by the media is the fact the this same organization also put out another study titled: MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO) Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain. (take note of the bias in the title from this "nonpartisan" organization). This study shows the exact opposite results of the study that O'Reilly quotes. Additionally this study shows that Fox News was the worst offender of "bashing" Obama surpassing the bias that CBS showed that prompted O'Reilly to say "I am concerned as an American, that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate."
Ironically O'Reilly is using "gotcha journalism" here on his guest Diane Sawyer since she wasn't given a heads up on this topic to be able to defend her network against these accusations.
O'Reilly would have more credibility if he didn't exhibit such blatant bias when calling out someone else for showing bias.
The fight over bias may never end because there is no statistical measure that will come remotely close to settling the issue and the easiest way to discredit those whom you disagree with is to make a claim that is impossible to prove. As I said before, O'Reilly is a smart guy and you can bet he knows exactly what he is doing in continuing to represent bias as an important topic of political conversation instead of the diversionary tactic that it is.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Smoking ban hurts business
Last year Michigan put in a ban on smoking that is affecting many bars and restaurants. These establishments complain that the ban is hurting their business. While I do feel for them, this ban helps save lives so tough cookies.
Having said that, do you know what else hurts business for bars and restaurants? High gas costs. Corn being used for ethanol. 10's of thousands of public employees losing their jobs. Inflation. Large companies hoarding money instead of hiring new employees. Lack of consumer confidence. Poor weather conditions. Rising health care costs. The earth quake in Japan. Health inspections. etc.
There are plenty of things business can complain about these days. That doesn't mean that the complaints are valid.
Having said that, do you know what else hurts business for bars and restaurants? High gas costs. Corn being used for ethanol. 10's of thousands of public employees losing their jobs. Inflation. Large companies hoarding money instead of hiring new employees. Lack of consumer confidence. Poor weather conditions. Rising health care costs. The earth quake in Japan. Health inspections. etc.
There are plenty of things business can complain about these days. That doesn't mean that the complaints are valid.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Newt under attack
Newt Gingrich has come under attack from his own party for suggesting that Paul Ryan's plan of privatizing Medicare might not be a great idea. Gingrich claims he was not talking about the Ryan plan but then again he also claimed he cheated on his wife because of how much he loves America.
This seems to be a pattern with Republicans where you are either in lock step agreement or you are "an embarrassment to the party". It should be noted that the majority of Americans are also against the Ryan plan on Medicare so Newt is actually in the majority if in fact he was commenting on the Ryan plan.
While I certainly don't mind the Right cannibalizing each other, in a race to see how politically far right they can go, since this strategy will only benefit Democrats, I think it is a dangerous trend to suggest that disagreement or debate somehow makes you a turn coat or Un-American.
The confrontation Newt Gingrich experienced is an example of why our politics is so divisive now-adays. The extreme wings have the most skin in the game but make for the worst decision makers. Our politicians would make better decisions if they put their constituents before party and certainly before their own reelection.
So while Republicans and the media act like Newt stumbled in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination the real failure here is on the part far right for holding up the unpopular as the infallible while marginalizing the middle.
This seems to be a pattern with Republicans where you are either in lock step agreement or you are "an embarrassment to the party". It should be noted that the majority of Americans are also against the Ryan plan on Medicare so Newt is actually in the majority if in fact he was commenting on the Ryan plan.
While I certainly don't mind the Right cannibalizing each other, in a race to see how politically far right they can go, since this strategy will only benefit Democrats, I think it is a dangerous trend to suggest that disagreement or debate somehow makes you a turn coat or Un-American.
The confrontation Newt Gingrich experienced is an example of why our politics is so divisive now-adays. The extreme wings have the most skin in the game but make for the worst decision makers. Our politicians would make better decisions if they put their constituents before party and certainly before their own reelection.
So while Republicans and the media act like Newt stumbled in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination the real failure here is on the part far right for holding up the unpopular as the infallible while marginalizing the middle.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Squaring the Circle
Yesterday the Senate held a vote on eliminating subsidies for the five largest oil companies. While a majority of Senators did vote Yes on the bill, the perversion of the filibuster, where a super majority is now required to pass almost every piece of legislation, stopped the bill from passing.
In response to the vote Mitch McConnell called the actions of Senate Democrats a "dog and pony show". I think it is safe to say that this term falls into the category of pot and kettle, where political rhetoric exhibits a complete lack of self awareness. By now it should be assumed that "at least 90%" of all political actions are "dog and pony shows". Stating that fact like it is breaking news just seems odd.
Void of that the fact that a mere 10 years ago this bill would have been passed by simple majority, 74% of Americans favor ending the subsidies to big oil companies. Support like that doesn't indicate an elaborately staged performance by Democrats as much as it does a "we know what's best for you" attitude from Republicans.
Also it should be noted that ending this subsidy would reduce the deficit by five and a half times as much as ending funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR combined. If you recall the rhetoric from those debates it was about "shared sacrifice" and "everything is on the table". But when part of that everything includes big oil you get quotes like " we’re only talking about four billion dollars." from Sarah Palin and "the Obama proposal [of cutting oil subsidies] is ludicrous." from Tim Pawlenty.
The other point to consider is that fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul tend to be against all government interference in the private sector. While that means they want less regulations it also means that aren't excited about subsidies. If you are interested in reducing the size of government, ending the oil subsidies will do that. Additionally it will help to reduce the deficit while having no negative impact on consumers since gas prices won't go up, jobs won't be lost and our dependence on foreign oil won't change.
In the end changing the narrative to imply this whole debate is a publicity stunt by Democrats is preferable to having to explain how your votes don't match your rhetoric. And having a media that is too paranoid of being labeled liberal to cut through the dog and pony show that is political spin, doesn't hurt either.
In response to the vote Mitch McConnell called the actions of Senate Democrats a "dog and pony show". I think it is safe to say that this term falls into the category of pot and kettle, where political rhetoric exhibits a complete lack of self awareness. By now it should be assumed that "at least 90%" of all political actions are "dog and pony shows". Stating that fact like it is breaking news just seems odd.
Void of that the fact that a mere 10 years ago this bill would have been passed by simple majority, 74% of Americans favor ending the subsidies to big oil companies. Support like that doesn't indicate an elaborately staged performance by Democrats as much as it does a "we know what's best for you" attitude from Republicans.
Also it should be noted that ending this subsidy would reduce the deficit by five and a half times as much as ending funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR combined. If you recall the rhetoric from those debates it was about "shared sacrifice" and "everything is on the table". But when part of that everything includes big oil you get quotes like " we’re only talking about four billion dollars." from Sarah Palin and "the Obama proposal [of cutting oil subsidies] is ludicrous." from Tim Pawlenty.
The other point to consider is that fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul tend to be against all government interference in the private sector. While that means they want less regulations it also means that aren't excited about subsidies. If you are interested in reducing the size of government, ending the oil subsidies will do that. Additionally it will help to reduce the deficit while having no negative impact on consumers since gas prices won't go up, jobs won't be lost and our dependence on foreign oil won't change.
In the end changing the narrative to imply this whole debate is a publicity stunt by Democrats is preferable to having to explain how your votes don't match your rhetoric. And having a media that is too paranoid of being labeled liberal to cut through the dog and pony show that is political spin, doesn't hurt either.
Are You An Extremist?
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
That quote is one of the more famous observations of the late great George Carlin. I actually often think of that quote while on the road as a reminder to myself to not fall into the trap of being judgmental about others whose driving habits don't exactly mirror my own.
However, I don't typically think of it as being necessarily applicable to other areas of life... until yesterday. What happened yesterday? Glad you asked. I got an e-mail from my brother which included an accusation that:
"(you) parrot out extreme left wing viewpoints (and therefore are) an idiot"
Now, how exactly do you refute such a charge? One's instinct it to inquire as to who exactly is an extremist out of such people whom I admire (in policy and media - listed alphabetically):
Stephen Colbert
David Gergen
Melissa Harris-Perry (column: Fighting For Change, Longing For The Sea)
Simon Johnson
Ezra Klien
Paul Krugman (op-ed: Republicans War on Math)
Rachel Maddow (segment: Obama Risks Compromising the Presidency)
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Nouriel Roubini (interview: with Charlie Rose)
Robert Shiller
Eliot Spitzer
Jon Stewart (YouTube: final speech at Rally To Restore Sanity)
Joseph Stiglitz
Fareed Zakaria (YouTube: comments regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque")
And, as I may have mentioned on this site before, I actually respect David Brooks and, to some extent, even David Frum.
And is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a left-wing extremist? I really like what he has had to say about defense spending, military intervention in the Middle East, DADT, etc.
Anyway, maybe faced with such an inquiry, my brother picks a couple he considers extremists (and who are we kidding? Olbermann and Maher are going to get tagged)... maybe others?
Maybe he accuses, for example, Robert Shiller (although to be honest, I suspect my brother has as much chance of knowing who won the bronze medal in the Hammer Throw at the 1976 Olympics as he does of knowing anything of significance about Mr. Shiller). Now I know from watching Mr. Shiller on Charlie Rose that he advocates mandatory tax increases on the wealthy when the inequality index rises. Does that opinion make him an extremist? I'd say "no" - but who am I to judge? I suspect it's not an idea that would poll well with the American people. Does that, by definition, make it extreme? I say 'no'... it merely makes it unpopular (at least temporarily so). Moreover, the same brother accusing me (sort of) of being an extremist is a long-time advocate of the Fair Tax. This is a policy proposal recently referenced by Rachel Maddow as something like "a fringe, Right-Wing idea" (I can't find the actual quote just now... hopefully I will!).
Is she right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It is her opinion. Is the Fair Tax "extreme"? Maybe... who am I to say? I can define it as "extreme" by my own standards, but that is all those standards are: mine and mine alone.
So, back to the beginning. My concern is that many people are falling into a trap where they define people in their own party who are closer to the center as, well not necessarily "idiots" per se, but rather, in conservative circles, they talk of RINOs (a common charge against Meghan McCain for example); liberals and progressives might label their centrists as "corporatists" and/or the more blunt "sell outs" (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, etc).
I suppose if there is one thing that we should all agree with: Joe Lieberman is a worthless piece of shit.
And then people further from the center become "wing-nuts" and/or "extremists". I, of course, cannot and/or should not speak for the mainstream Right, but one has to assume they're embarrassed by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, etc.
So, I don't know. I guess all I can say is if Fareed Zakaria is considered an extremist: consider me an extremist.
That quote is one of the more famous observations of the late great George Carlin. I actually often think of that quote while on the road as a reminder to myself to not fall into the trap of being judgmental about others whose driving habits don't exactly mirror my own.
However, I don't typically think of it as being necessarily applicable to other areas of life... until yesterday. What happened yesterday? Glad you asked. I got an e-mail from my brother which included an accusation that:
"(you) parrot out extreme left wing viewpoints (and therefore are) an idiot"
Now, how exactly do you refute such a charge? One's instinct it to inquire as to who exactly is an extremist out of such people whom I admire (in policy and media - listed alphabetically):
Stephen Colbert
David Gergen
Melissa Harris-Perry (column: Fighting For Change, Longing For The Sea)
Simon Johnson
Ezra Klien
Paul Krugman (op-ed: Republicans War on Math)
Rachel Maddow (segment: Obama Risks Compromising the Presidency)
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Nouriel Roubini (interview: with Charlie Rose)
Robert Shiller
Eliot Spitzer
Jon Stewart (YouTube: final speech at Rally To Restore Sanity)
Joseph Stiglitz
Fareed Zakaria (YouTube: comments regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque")
And, as I may have mentioned on this site before, I actually respect David Brooks and, to some extent, even David Frum.
And is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a left-wing extremist? I really like what he has had to say about defense spending, military intervention in the Middle East, DADT, etc.
Anyway, maybe faced with such an inquiry, my brother picks a couple he considers extremists (and who are we kidding? Olbermann and Maher are going to get tagged)... maybe others?
Maybe he accuses, for example, Robert Shiller (although to be honest, I suspect my brother has as much chance of knowing who won the bronze medal in the Hammer Throw at the 1976 Olympics as he does of knowing anything of significance about Mr. Shiller). Now I know from watching Mr. Shiller on Charlie Rose that he advocates mandatory tax increases on the wealthy when the inequality index rises. Does that opinion make him an extremist? I'd say "no" - but who am I to judge? I suspect it's not an idea that would poll well with the American people. Does that, by definition, make it extreme? I say 'no'... it merely makes it unpopular (at least temporarily so). Moreover, the same brother accusing me (sort of) of being an extremist is a long-time advocate of the Fair Tax. This is a policy proposal recently referenced by Rachel Maddow as something like "a fringe, Right-Wing idea" (I can't find the actual quote just now... hopefully I will!).
Is she right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It is her opinion. Is the Fair Tax "extreme"? Maybe... who am I to say? I can define it as "extreme" by my own standards, but that is all those standards are: mine and mine alone.
So, back to the beginning. My concern is that many people are falling into a trap where they define people in their own party who are closer to the center as, well not necessarily "idiots" per se, but rather, in conservative circles, they talk of RINOs (a common charge against Meghan McCain for example); liberals and progressives might label their centrists as "corporatists" and/or the more blunt "sell outs" (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, etc).
I suppose if there is one thing that we should all agree with: Joe Lieberman is a worthless piece of shit.
And then people further from the center become "wing-nuts" and/or "extremists". I, of course, cannot and/or should not speak for the mainstream Right, but one has to assume they're embarrassed by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, etc.
So, I don't know. I guess all I can say is if Fareed Zakaria is considered an extremist: consider me an extremist.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Snyder's three card monty
Last week Governor Snyder signed into law a restructuring of the tax code giving a massive cut to businesses. Republicans are praising the move as they believe it will bring companies to Michigan and create jobs. The move changes Michigan's standing in the nation from 19th in business tax burden to 35th. While this is an improvement it falls well short of driving companies to Michigan. If you had the choice between 50 different mortgage rates would you choose the 15th best rate? At best this will drive a small number of companies in bordering states to Michigan.
The good news is that by electing Rick Snyder we elected a smart business man who excels at analyzing the situation and compiling data to maximize the value of every tax dollar. After what I assume was exhaustive research into the topic the Governor had this to say about the return on investment Michigan can expect to see with these business tax cuts "Can we quantify all the numbers (of jobs created)? No. But we know it's going to happen."
So I guess the Governor has decided using business techniques in political office is too burdensome and he has chosen to run the Governors office more like Jim Leyland would - using his gut to guide him.
Given that the Governor has not shown any interest in putting some numbers to his proposal I did a little research to see what $1.7 billion in tax cuts gets you. According to the Center for American Progress tax cuts result in 1 job for every $137,000 in cuts. This means at a cost of $1.7 billion the Governor's tax cuts will create around 12,400 new jobs over the next year. The reason for the low return on investment is that companies are in business to make money not create jobs.
12,000 new jobs doesn't sound too bad. The problem is that over the last year we have lost 19,000 public sector jobs due to lost tax revenue and that number will certainly increase once the Governors new cuts go into affect. Maybe the goal is to eliminate those vile public sector jobs like policemen, firefighters and teachers and slowly replace them with private sector jobs. If so, this tax cut is spot on.
Michigan residents and businesses have already seen massive tax cuts over the last few years thanks to the drop in house and commercial building values and the subsequent drop in property tax.
A government worker pays taxes just like anyone else in the state so lowering taxes to the point of massive public sector job loss is counter productive. These cuts are a policy of job shifting not job creation. My guess is the Governor isn't promising to create jobs not because he hasn't looked at all of the data, but because he has.
The good news is that by electing Rick Snyder we elected a smart business man who excels at analyzing the situation and compiling data to maximize the value of every tax dollar. After what I assume was exhaustive research into the topic the Governor had this to say about the return on investment Michigan can expect to see with these business tax cuts "Can we quantify all the numbers (of jobs created)? No. But we know it's going to happen."
So I guess the Governor has decided using business techniques in political office is too burdensome and he has chosen to run the Governors office more like Jim Leyland would - using his gut to guide him.
Given that the Governor has not shown any interest in putting some numbers to his proposal I did a little research to see what $1.7 billion in tax cuts gets you. According to the Center for American Progress tax cuts result in 1 job for every $137,000 in cuts. This means at a cost of $1.7 billion the Governor's tax cuts will create around 12,400 new jobs over the next year. The reason for the low return on investment is that companies are in business to make money not create jobs.
12,000 new jobs doesn't sound too bad. The problem is that over the last year we have lost 19,000 public sector jobs due to lost tax revenue and that number will certainly increase once the Governors new cuts go into affect. Maybe the goal is to eliminate those vile public sector jobs like policemen, firefighters and teachers and slowly replace them with private sector jobs. If so, this tax cut is spot on.
Michigan residents and businesses have already seen massive tax cuts over the last few years thanks to the drop in house and commercial building values and the subsequent drop in property tax.
A government worker pays taxes just like anyone else in the state so lowering taxes to the point of massive public sector job loss is counter productive. These cuts are a policy of job shifting not job creation. My guess is the Governor isn't promising to create jobs not because he hasn't looked at all of the data, but because he has.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Rod Allen Again? Yes. Sorry.
Sorry, dear readers. I know it's probably not a good thing that I am turning this esteemed blog into a schizophrenic journal where Elijah Moon is doing insightful analysis/commentary on the big issues of the day and I am metaphorically throwing things at Rod Allen (and other nitwit baseball commentators), but, alas, it is what it is.
Last night's spotlighted Rod Allen comment was only annoying because of how he so blatantly contradicted himself from a different recent conversation he had with Mario Impemba. The Tigers were facing the Blue Jays and power-armed right-handed starter Brandon Morrow. Morrow cruised through the first couple innings which led Rod Allen to say:
Why did Seattle give up on a guy like this? And they got a reliever for him! Brandon League.
Now, truthfully, I completely agree with that sentiment of that comment. The problem is that just a few weeks ago - I can't recall the context but it may have been in reference to Joba Chamberlin (who has been a successful reliever after essentially failing as a starter during the 2009 season) - Rod Allen said he'd rather have a stud closer than a stud starter. His reasoning, as I recall, was that there was nothing more demoralizing to a baseball team than to have a lead going into the 8th/9th innings only to have the back end of the bullpen blow the game. I didn't agree with him when he said it, I don't agree with him now, but that is what he said.
Okay. Now who is the closer for Seattle? Why... it's Brandon Fucking League!! And as of this posting, League is tied for third in the A.L. in saves with 9 - and he is the only one of the top 4 to have not blown a save yet this season! Even Mariano Rivera has blown two.
So, again, I apologize. I will go down to the office of Elijah Moon and suggest he write something about the debt ceiling debate or Chinese currency manipulation so we can get this Furriners blog back to it's mission statement: smart political thoughts and Derek Anderson worship.
Last night's spotlighted Rod Allen comment was only annoying because of how he so blatantly contradicted himself from a different recent conversation he had with Mario Impemba. The Tigers were facing the Blue Jays and power-armed right-handed starter Brandon Morrow. Morrow cruised through the first couple innings which led Rod Allen to say:
Why did Seattle give up on a guy like this? And they got a reliever for him! Brandon League.
Now, truthfully, I completely agree with that sentiment of that comment. The problem is that just a few weeks ago - I can't recall the context but it may have been in reference to Joba Chamberlin (who has been a successful reliever after essentially failing as a starter during the 2009 season) - Rod Allen said he'd rather have a stud closer than a stud starter. His reasoning, as I recall, was that there was nothing more demoralizing to a baseball team than to have a lead going into the 8th/9th innings only to have the back end of the bullpen blow the game. I didn't agree with him when he said it, I don't agree with him now, but that is what he said.
Okay. Now who is the closer for Seattle? Why... it's Brandon Fucking League!! And as of this posting, League is tied for third in the A.L. in saves with 9 - and he is the only one of the top 4 to have not blown a save yet this season! Even Mariano Rivera has blown two.
So, again, I apologize. I will go down to the office of Elijah Moon and suggest he write something about the debt ceiling debate or Chinese currency manipulation so we can get this Furriners blog back to it's mission statement: smart political thoughts and Derek Anderson worship.
Monday, May 9, 2011
I Call B.S. - Mark Mulder Edition
It should probably come as no surprise that new ESPN baseball analyst (and former oft-injured pitcher), Mark Mulder, does not know what he is talking about... the guy went to Michigan State! How embarrassing for him.
ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.
Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:
Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.
For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)
To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?
Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:
6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches
So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!
Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.
Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.
ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.
Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:
What makes him so good is the stuff that he has and he pitches to contact - which keeps his pitch count down (and) allows him to go deeper into games. I think if he wanted to, he could strike out a lot more guys but he chooses not to. He gets ahead and stays ahead and pitches to contact.
Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.
For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)
To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?
Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:
6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches
So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!
Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.
Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Rod Allen Will Not Be My G.M.!
Another ridiculous statement last night by Fox Sports Detroit analyst Rod Allen last night during the Tigers-Blue Jays game.
Rod had this to say about Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar:
Tigers play-by-play guy, Mario Impemba, lended his support to the statement with "Andrus is the first one that came to mind I guess as an alternative to Escobar."
Does Mr. Allen know there is a National League?
Has he ever heard of Troy Tulowitzki? Hanley Ramirez? Jose Reyes?
Now what you might be thinking is: yeah, yeah, Furriners, they are better than Escobar now, but if I am starting an organization from scratch, you probably want to start with younger talent to build a team for the long-haul (like the way one would certainly start an NFL team with Aaron Rodgers rather than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady). I would agree.
Do you know who is younger than Yunel Escobar?
Troy Tulowitzki. And Hanley Ramirez. And Jose Reyes.
Sorry, Rod Allen... you just got owned!
* And, by the way, I like to think I'm being nice by not pointing out Stephen Drew and Starlin Castro as well.
** Hmmm... that probably wasn't very nice of me to do that.
Rod had this to say about Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar:
If you were starting a team and you were picking a shortstop, (Escobar) might be the first guy you'd pick. He is that good on both sides of the ball. The young kid, Elvis Andrus, in Texas is a pretty good player too, but there are not many players walking around as good as this guy at that shortstop position.
Tigers play-by-play guy, Mario Impemba, lended his support to the statement with "Andrus is the first one that came to mind I guess as an alternative to Escobar."
Does Mr. Allen know there is a National League?
Has he ever heard of Troy Tulowitzki? Hanley Ramirez? Jose Reyes?
Now what you might be thinking is: yeah, yeah, Furriners, they are better than Escobar now, but if I am starting an organization from scratch, you probably want to start with younger talent to build a team for the long-haul (like the way one would certainly start an NFL team with Aaron Rodgers rather than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady). I would agree.
Do you know who is younger than Yunel Escobar?
Troy Tulowitzki. And Hanley Ramirez. And Jose Reyes.
Sorry, Rod Allen... you just got owned!
* And, by the way, I like to think I'm being nice by not pointing out Stephen Drew and Starlin Castro as well.
** Hmmm... that probably wasn't very nice of me to do that.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tax increases off the table
While talking about the GOP stance on increasing the debt limit John Boehner recently stated that "Nothing Is Off the Table Except Raising Taxes."
First it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help with our current budget deficit.
Second the effective tax rate for Americans is at it's lowest point since the end of WWII.
Third, the goal should be getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. The government and the poor are much more likely to spend every dime they get than the rich who show a high propensity for saving when taxes are cut.
So tax increases being off the table do not represent sound or popular thinking regarding the budget deficit.
The Republican stance is that we don't have a taxing problem we have a spending problem. To some extent they are correct. We have a spending problem but that problem is military spending. While our current budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is very high it was higher in the 40's. It should come as no surprise that WWII had a negative affect on our budget deficit. We should also not be shocked that all of our current military actions are expanding our deficit. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the second most expensive military actions behind only WWII and similarly our current budget deficit is second only to that of the WWII era.
While we obviously have a spending problem that we need to work on we do also have a tax problem. In 2009 the tax code was filled with $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. The problem is that these tax breaks favor some segments over others. One example of this is the Drug industry which pays an average effective tax rate of 5.4% while the Electric Utilities industry pays 33.8%. I would say that sort of disparity represents a problem.
It also makes the Republican talking point of businesses fleeing the country to places like Ireland, with their 12.5% tax rate, somewhat less plausible when a number of industries actually already pay less here in America.
If the goal is to eliminate the Federal Government than taking tax increases off the table makes sense. If however your goal is to reduce the budget deficit the data shows keeping tax rates low will do more harm than good.
First it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help with our current budget deficit.
Second the effective tax rate for Americans is at it's lowest point since the end of WWII.
Third, the goal should be getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. The government and the poor are much more likely to spend every dime they get than the rich who show a high propensity for saving when taxes are cut.
So tax increases being off the table do not represent sound or popular thinking regarding the budget deficit.
The Republican stance is that we don't have a taxing problem we have a spending problem. To some extent they are correct. We have a spending problem but that problem is military spending. While our current budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is very high it was higher in the 40's. It should come as no surprise that WWII had a negative affect on our budget deficit. We should also not be shocked that all of our current military actions are expanding our deficit. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the second most expensive military actions behind only WWII and similarly our current budget deficit is second only to that of the WWII era.
While we obviously have a spending problem that we need to work on we do also have a tax problem. In 2009 the tax code was filled with $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. The problem is that these tax breaks favor some segments over others. One example of this is the Drug industry which pays an average effective tax rate of 5.4% while the Electric Utilities industry pays 33.8%. I would say that sort of disparity represents a problem.
It also makes the Republican talking point of businesses fleeing the country to places like Ireland, with their 12.5% tax rate, somewhat less plausible when a number of industries actually already pay less here in America.
If the goal is to eliminate the Federal Government than taking tax increases off the table makes sense. If however your goal is to reduce the budget deficit the data shows keeping tax rates low will do more harm than good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
