In a clear example of how dysfunctional our current Federal government can be, changes to Social Security are on the table when considering if we should default on our national debt.
So far I have heard of three different items being in play with regards to changes to SS. The first is raising the retirement age, the second is changing the cost of living adjustment, and the third is means testing.
As a Democrat I would be fine with means testing. My personal preference would be removing the Social Security Wage Base. This would help the solvency of SS while requiring much fewer regulations to maintain and essentially have the same result as means testing for budget purposes. Unfortunately this is the least likely of these three items to happen.
Changing the cost of living adjustment would help to make SS more solvent however it would do it at the expense of lowering the benefits to retirees. Ironically Republicans want to cut taxes to get money back in people's pockets yet this proposal is essentially a tax increase since it is lowering the amount of money citizens would have to spend and keep more money in the hands of big government.
The item that I actually have the biggest issue with is raising the age for SS benefits. When John Boenher talked about this idea last year he said "We're all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected," . This seems to be the strongest argument for raising the retirement age. Unfortunately this statement is only partially true.
Boenher is looking for an increase of 5 years over the current retirement age. The belief that we are living longer is based on the data showing that around the time of implementation of SS, life expectancy was around 62 years while we are closer to 77 years today.
To some extent this statistic is a misnomer since one of the biggest reasons for the increase in life expectancy is a drop in infant mortality. If you look at the change in life expectancy starting at age 65 we have only realized an increase in 4.5 years since 1950.
To make matters worse the increase in life expectancy of the those in the top half of the earnings distribution is increasing faster than those at the bottom. The top half have seen an increase in life expectancy of 6.5 years since 1972 while the bottom half can expect to live a shade under 2 years longer.
So a system that was set up as a social safety net will be modified by Republicans in a way that will mainly benefit those who need it least. In essence we will "fix" SS on the backs of the poor and protect it for the well off since they will have a greater chance of being alive to utilize the system.
From tax cuts to health care to union busting, Republican legislators have shown that they will fight tooth and nail to keep money in the pockets of the rich at the detriment of the poor. And they do all this to support their version of Reaganomics which is vast departure of the actual supply side economics Saint Ronnie supported.
The good news is that Washington is in no mood to deal so changes to SS probably won't happen. The bad news is that the president shows no willingness to say no to the Republican agenda that kills jobs and stagnates the economy. Americans may be suffering but at least both sides think they are winning the political posturing battle.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
I'll Say It Again
There are many things that tick me off. The demise of Celebrity Poker Showdown, the demise of World Series of Pop Culture, and the massive success of Celebrity Apprentice being some notable examples. Oh, and George W. Bush taking us to war in Iraq under false pretenses... that was annoying too.
However, few things piss me off more than Republicans and conservatives who simultaneously espouse the views of "the stimulus didn't work" and "tax cuts create jobs". I thought of that again this week when, on Monday's Dylan Ratigan Show, conservative pundit Tim Carney said "lowering tax rates at this time will create jobs". He said that on the same day that Speaker Boehner was granted television time by the all the major networks to respond to President Obama's speech on the debt standoff and claimed the stimulus failed.
Let me say it again, the Stimulus Bill was significantly made up of tax cuts! It's true. Either acknowledge that the Stimulus Bill did, in fact, create or save millions of jobs (as the CBO indicates), or acknowledge that your platform of additional tax cuts is not a job creating agenda.
As Stephen Colbert says: "We're at war, sir. Pick a side!"
However, few things piss me off more than Republicans and conservatives who simultaneously espouse the views of "the stimulus didn't work" and "tax cuts create jobs". I thought of that again this week when, on Monday's Dylan Ratigan Show, conservative pundit Tim Carney said "lowering tax rates at this time will create jobs". He said that on the same day that Speaker Boehner was granted television time by the all the major networks to respond to President Obama's speech on the debt standoff and claimed the stimulus failed.
Let me say it again, the Stimulus Bill was significantly made up of tax cuts! It's true. Either acknowledge that the Stimulus Bill did, in fact, create or save millions of jobs (as the CBO indicates), or acknowledge that your platform of additional tax cuts is not a job creating agenda.
As Stephen Colbert says: "We're at war, sir. Pick a side!"
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Stalemate!
If you're following the news, you know that we are in the midst of a stalemate. The two sides have spent years trying to make it work and, yes, there have been some good times but it has now become clear that something really has to change. We can't go on with the status quo because no one is happy.
I am, of course, talking about the Cincinnati Bengals and Carson Palmer.
Palmer has indicated he has played his last down with Bengals. He would rather retire than continue to play with the perennially dysfunctional Bengals.
Yesterday on Jim Rome is Burning, the topic was discussed as to what the Bengals should do about his trade request. Jim Rome said this:
Is he right? I can definitively say "maybe".
Here in the Detroit-area, one hears this story and one immediate thinks back to the surprise early retirement of Barry Sanders in 1999. Would Barry Sanders have played for another team if the Lions had been willing to trade him? I don't know for sure. I just think it was, more or less, out of the question. I actually was not living in Michigan at the time so I am not the best source for what the local community was thinking, but I am guessing most were not in favor of trading the very much still elite-level running back. Keep him and hope he's bluffing. That would have been my thought. (Of course, it turned out he was not. It's likely the only reason why Emmitt Smith is the NFL's all-time leading rusher.)
Now, let's be clear, Carson Palmer is no Barry Sanders. So maybe, if I were a Bengal fan, I could support trading him. Honestly, I would want to know what kind of return you could get for him before deciding whether it was worth trading him. It has been reported today that Donovan McNabb is being traded from the Redskins to the Vikings for two future 6th round picks. If that is the value of McNabb, what is the trade value of Carson Palmer?
Palmer, without question, is still a solid starting quarterback. But is he worth the value he is owed on his contract? He is owed $11.5 million for the upcoming season. I'm not saying he is not, I am just saying that contracts mean a lot when it comes to determining trade value; just because he threw 26 TD passes last season, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Bengals would be getting a great haul of future picks for the disgruntled quarterback.
So, to conclude, as a completely impartial observer, I would say if you can get meaningful value for him (say at the very least one 3rd round pick), I'd want the Bengals to trade him. If he was only worth a 4th round pick (which, you may recall, was what the Oakland Raiders got for Randy Moss), I'd let him sit.
I am, of course, talking about the Cincinnati Bengals and Carson Palmer.
Palmer has indicated he has played his last down with Bengals. He would rather retire than continue to play with the perennially dysfunctional Bengals.
Yesterday on Jim Rome is Burning, the topic was discussed as to what the Bengals should do about his trade request. Jim Rome said this:
And one more thing, you're not rewarding the guy, you're doing what's best for the franchise. The guy's not going to play. You better get something for him... something is still more than nothing. It's not a reward, it's doing what's right for the team.
Is he right? I can definitively say "maybe".
Here in the Detroit-area, one hears this story and one immediate thinks back to the surprise early retirement of Barry Sanders in 1999. Would Barry Sanders have played for another team if the Lions had been willing to trade him? I don't know for sure. I just think it was, more or less, out of the question. I actually was not living in Michigan at the time so I am not the best source for what the local community was thinking, but I am guessing most were not in favor of trading the very much still elite-level running back. Keep him and hope he's bluffing. That would have been my thought. (Of course, it turned out he was not. It's likely the only reason why Emmitt Smith is the NFL's all-time leading rusher.)
Now, let's be clear, Carson Palmer is no Barry Sanders. So maybe, if I were a Bengal fan, I could support trading him. Honestly, I would want to know what kind of return you could get for him before deciding whether it was worth trading him. It has been reported today that Donovan McNabb is being traded from the Redskins to the Vikings for two future 6th round picks. If that is the value of McNabb, what is the trade value of Carson Palmer?
Palmer, without question, is still a solid starting quarterback. But is he worth the value he is owed on his contract? He is owed $11.5 million for the upcoming season. I'm not saying he is not, I am just saying that contracts mean a lot when it comes to determining trade value; just because he threw 26 TD passes last season, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Bengals would be getting a great haul of future picks for the disgruntled quarterback.
So, to conclude, as a completely impartial observer, I would say if you can get meaningful value for him (say at the very least one 3rd round pick), I'd want the Bengals to trade him. If he was only worth a 4th round pick (which, you may recall, was what the Oakland Raiders got for Randy Moss), I'd let him sit.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Atlanta Schools Cheating Scandal
When I heard about the Atlanta teacher cheating scandal story I had decided that it was probably not worth discussing since it is not a Michigan story but given my history of defending the public school systems a commenter on this blog asked if I was "going to conveniently dodge that issue, as I expect you to?"
Challenge accepted.
The issue in Atlanta and presumably elsewhere, are the incentives. When you incentivize the public sector like the private sector you shouldn't be surprised when you get the same sort of corruption. The housing bubble and the BP oil spill are prime examples of how bad incentives lead to bad results.
By in large the public doesn't understand what it takes to educate our children so it is easy to dumb it down to test scores as an evaluation method for public teachers. After all test scores can be posted and easily interpreted.
It is ironic that in a day and age when parents are increasingly involved in their children's education, some people believe that administrators are somehow uninformed on the performance of their staff.
Today's teachers get a constant barrage of "evaluations" and "recommendations" typically from parents of the worst behaved students, who, unlike in the good old days, defend their malcontent child instead of support the professional educator.
This lack of respect for the skills of an educator is what leads to these misguided incentives. In other countries teachers are revered not reviled. The belief that educators, many of whom hold masters degrees, are idiots, is a uniquely American view. Not surprisingly, the people who think teaching is easy also think that fixing education is easy.
We have become a society where keeping score in sports is bad for our kids mental well being and good grades for students are a more important evaluation tool then the actual education.
A recent study on college grading shows an ever increasing trend towards handing out better and better letter grades. In the 1950's only 15% of grades were A's while today that number has risen to well over 40%. Are the students smarter today? This report found that students today actually study less than their predecessors so probably not.
This study also found that private schools were much more likely to hand out good grades than their public counterparts. The studies authors have postulated that the reason for this rise, are the incentives. Students review their professors and higher grades means better reviews and better reviews mean the professor is better at their job. Obviously the institution would want to keep and subsequently pay their better teachers. Plus, there is the added bonus that giving out better grades also means less stress from student and parent complaints.
If linking teacher performance to outcomes was so simple it would have been done a long time ago. The reality is, there are a lot of things that go into being a good teacher and boiling it down to a simplistic format just so those outside of the profession can make a snap judgement helps no one.
Challenge accepted.
The issue in Atlanta and presumably elsewhere, are the incentives. When you incentivize the public sector like the private sector you shouldn't be surprised when you get the same sort of corruption. The housing bubble and the BP oil spill are prime examples of how bad incentives lead to bad results.
By in large the public doesn't understand what it takes to educate our children so it is easy to dumb it down to test scores as an evaluation method for public teachers. After all test scores can be posted and easily interpreted.
It is ironic that in a day and age when parents are increasingly involved in their children's education, some people believe that administrators are somehow uninformed on the performance of their staff.
Today's teachers get a constant barrage of "evaluations" and "recommendations" typically from parents of the worst behaved students, who, unlike in the good old days, defend their malcontent child instead of support the professional educator.
This lack of respect for the skills of an educator is what leads to these misguided incentives. In other countries teachers are revered not reviled. The belief that educators, many of whom hold masters degrees, are idiots, is a uniquely American view. Not surprisingly, the people who think teaching is easy also think that fixing education is easy.
We have become a society where keeping score in sports is bad for our kids mental well being and good grades for students are a more important evaluation tool then the actual education.
A recent study on college grading shows an ever increasing trend towards handing out better and better letter grades. In the 1950's only 15% of grades were A's while today that number has risen to well over 40%. Are the students smarter today? This report found that students today actually study less than their predecessors so probably not.
This study also found that private schools were much more likely to hand out good grades than their public counterparts. The studies authors have postulated that the reason for this rise, are the incentives. Students review their professors and higher grades means better reviews and better reviews mean the professor is better at their job. Obviously the institution would want to keep and subsequently pay their better teachers. Plus, there is the added bonus that giving out better grades also means less stress from student and parent complaints.
If linking teacher performance to outcomes was so simple it would have been done a long time ago. The reality is, there are a lot of things that go into being a good teacher and boiling it down to a simplistic format just so those outside of the profession can make a snap judgement helps no one.
Corporations Are Not People!
It's always a touchy subject when you suggest you know how someone should "feel" about an issue. Emotions are, of course, not determined by the laws of reason.
Moreover, in making the argument I am about to make, I might be persuaded to take an entirely different view with a different protagonist.
Anyway, what I am talking about is that I just saw this article at Yahoo! News:
Microsoft Apologizes For Winehouse Tweet
It has been established that I am not on Twitter (and, hence, did not receive the "tweet" in question), but I was on Napster yesterday afternoon and they had a prominent graphic for their users to click to be directed to purchase the music of the recently deceased singer. It was obviously commercially motivated but I didn't consider it inappropriate or insensitively exploitative.
However, apparently, others did (keeping in mind the Microsoft "tweet" may have actually gone further. I don't know what it actually said, but I suppose I would have to concede that it is more aggressive marketing than the passive Napster graphic).
So today, we have a Microsoft "apology" where they say:
Apologies to everyone if our earlier Amy Winehouse 'download' tweet seemed purely commercially motivated.
Of course it was "commercially motivated"!! You're a corporation, that is what you do! And you know what, your "apology" is commercially motivated!! Some asshole in your Public Relations Department wrote it as damage control. That is it; it's not genuine contrition.
Anyways, I guess the point here is that despite what the US Supreme Court would lead us to believe, corporations are not people. They should NOT have the same rights and protections as people, nor should they necessarily be expected to show any human decency with regards to an artist's death.
The death of Ms. Winehouse is a commercial opportunity for these struggling music retailers and to expect them to not treat it as such is to personify them inappropriately.
Moreover, in making the argument I am about to make, I might be persuaded to take an entirely different view with a different protagonist.
Anyway, what I am talking about is that I just saw this article at Yahoo! News:
Microsoft Apologizes For Winehouse Tweet
It has been established that I am not on Twitter (and, hence, did not receive the "tweet" in question), but I was on Napster yesterday afternoon and they had a prominent graphic for their users to click to be directed to purchase the music of the recently deceased singer. It was obviously commercially motivated but I didn't consider it inappropriate or insensitively exploitative.
However, apparently, others did (keeping in mind the Microsoft "tweet" may have actually gone further. I don't know what it actually said, but I suppose I would have to concede that it is more aggressive marketing than the passive Napster graphic).
So today, we have a Microsoft "apology" where they say:
Apologies to everyone if our earlier Amy Winehouse 'download' tweet seemed purely commercially motivated.
Of course it was "commercially motivated"!! You're a corporation, that is what you do! And you know what, your "apology" is commercially motivated!! Some asshole in your Public Relations Department wrote it as damage control. That is it; it's not genuine contrition.
Anyways, I guess the point here is that despite what the US Supreme Court would lead us to believe, corporations are not people. They should NOT have the same rights and protections as people, nor should they necessarily be expected to show any human decency with regards to an artist's death.
The death of Ms. Winehouse is a commercial opportunity for these struggling music retailers and to expect them to not treat it as such is to personify them inappropriately.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Regulation hypocrisy
There are a number of stereotypes in politics. While a few tend to have some basis in reality most are propagated to further a political agenda. One such stereotype is the belief that Republicans are against regulations and Democrats are for them.
The reality is that Republicans love regulations just as much as Democrats. The only real difference is the type of regulations they support.
While Republicans are more that willing to oppose any regulations on business, guns and the environment, that doesn't mean they are against adding regulations when they are in charge. Below is a short list of recent examples.
- The voters of Michigan recently approved the use of medical marijuana. Republicans who control both the state house and senate are looking at adding regulations to the law.
- For decades public workers and local government have been given the opportunity to negotiate a compensation package that works best for both parties. Republicans have recently adopted legislation mandating the amount of health care costs that public employees must cover.
- The greatest judges in the greatest legal system in the world decided that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by the constitution. Republicans in multiple states are exercising the much loathed practice of government overreach and adding significant amounts of regulations to Abortion clinics in an effort to circumvent the supreme court's decision.
- Regardless of the reality that there seems to be no tangible evidence of voter fraud Republicans in multiple states are passing voter ID requirements.
- In Michigan the Emergency Manager legislation has further complicated the job of local officials as Republicans add legal justification for usurping power in the name of "fiscal responsibility".
- Tort reform is a Republican mainstay, that many Republicans in power are now pushing for to add new regulations to our court system.
- Given that social issues are at the top of the Republican agenda it should come as no surprise that the Internet and in particular Internet porn is an area rife with Republican regulations.
- Michigan voters recently passed a law allowing embryonic stem cell research which Republicans have attached new regulations to.
- Possibly the most prevalent area of Republicans fervor for regulations are the state immigration laws that are being passed, with Arizona and Georgia leading the pack.
Politician's all have their own agenda which consists of adding regulations on things they don't like and removing regulations on the areas they support. Democrat or Republican it makes no difference. The hyperbole around regulation is nothing more than rhetoric staking out a fallacious position in an effort to gain votes without presenting any actual facts.
The reality is that Republicans love regulations just as much as Democrats. The only real difference is the type of regulations they support.
While Republicans are more that willing to oppose any regulations on business, guns and the environment, that doesn't mean they are against adding regulations when they are in charge. Below is a short list of recent examples.
- The voters of Michigan recently approved the use of medical marijuana. Republicans who control both the state house and senate are looking at adding regulations to the law.
- For decades public workers and local government have been given the opportunity to negotiate a compensation package that works best for both parties. Republicans have recently adopted legislation mandating the amount of health care costs that public employees must cover.
- The greatest judges in the greatest legal system in the world decided that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by the constitution. Republicans in multiple states are exercising the much loathed practice of government overreach and adding significant amounts of regulations to Abortion clinics in an effort to circumvent the supreme court's decision.
- Regardless of the reality that there seems to be no tangible evidence of voter fraud Republicans in multiple states are passing voter ID requirements.
- In Michigan the Emergency Manager legislation has further complicated the job of local officials as Republicans add legal justification for usurping power in the name of "fiscal responsibility".
- Tort reform is a Republican mainstay, that many Republicans in power are now pushing for to add new regulations to our court system.
- Given that social issues are at the top of the Republican agenda it should come as no surprise that the Internet and in particular Internet porn is an area rife with Republican regulations.
- Michigan voters recently passed a law allowing embryonic stem cell research which Republicans have attached new regulations to.
- Possibly the most prevalent area of Republicans fervor for regulations are the state immigration laws that are being passed, with Arizona and Georgia leading the pack.
Politician's all have their own agenda which consists of adding regulations on things they don't like and removing regulations on the areas they support. Democrat or Republican it makes no difference. The hyperbole around regulation is nothing more than rhetoric staking out a fallacious position in an effort to gain votes without presenting any actual facts.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Fed As God
If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.
Most of us are familiar with this quote from the great French philosopher, Voltaire.
I thought of that yesterday when I was watching The Dylan Ratigan Show and they were interviewing John Hofmeister, author of Why We Hate The Oil Companies: Straight Talk From An Energy Insider. After seeing Mr. Hofmeister interviewed on several occasions (he was an in-demand guest during the BP Oil Spill), I get the feeling that he really is essentially a straight-shooter. There are going to be liberals who find him too pro-business and conservatives would find him too pro-environment. That, of course, should not be construed as an endorsement of everything he says; I just mention that to provide some context to his thoughts.
Anyway, what was interesting was that he indicated that he wanted something set up for national energy policy that was not unlike how the Federal Reserve is responsible for monetary policy. He believed having someone appointed to 14-year terms as the head of this Board would be a good way to keep politics out of policy. That is, of course, a large reason the Fed is set up like that. It would considered VERY bad if a President was able to manipulate interest rates for the sake of elections like the way George W. Bush reportedly did with his silly "Terror Alert" system. (Many pundits smelled something fishy as each election neared during the Bush administration, there would be an alert - which caused fear - which led people to vote for the supposedly stronger national defense party.)
His thoughts reminded me of how former Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD), was basically advocating for that (an independent board) for national health care policy in his 2009 book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis.
And, yet, there are lots of citizens (and they're actually not all teabaggers) who want to "end the fed" (as presribed in Ron Paul's book).
I don't really claim to know the ideal solution here, but I get the feeling this is a case of - I don't recall the term, it's apparently something you learn in Poli-Sci 101 - where one side of a debate is extremely passionate and the other side (which may, in fact, be the majority) just does not match the intensity of the other side. I think it is a phenomenom often associated with gun-control. I think most of us believe some reasonable restrictions on gun rights is appropriate - but the NRA has consistently won because of the consistent passion and political pressure they bring to the debate.
That said, while I don't have any reason to believe that the Fed is going to be ended any time soon, it is clear that the teabaggers have the balls of the GOP in a stranglehold and it's leading the country down a dangerous path.
Most of us are familiar with this quote from the great French philosopher, Voltaire.
I thought of that yesterday when I was watching The Dylan Ratigan Show and they were interviewing John Hofmeister, author of Why We Hate The Oil Companies: Straight Talk From An Energy Insider. After seeing Mr. Hofmeister interviewed on several occasions (he was an in-demand guest during the BP Oil Spill), I get the feeling that he really is essentially a straight-shooter. There are going to be liberals who find him too pro-business and conservatives would find him too pro-environment. That, of course, should not be construed as an endorsement of everything he says; I just mention that to provide some context to his thoughts.
Anyway, what was interesting was that he indicated that he wanted something set up for national energy policy that was not unlike how the Federal Reserve is responsible for monetary policy. He believed having someone appointed to 14-year terms as the head of this Board would be a good way to keep politics out of policy. That is, of course, a large reason the Fed is set up like that. It would considered VERY bad if a President was able to manipulate interest rates for the sake of elections like the way George W. Bush reportedly did with his silly "Terror Alert" system. (Many pundits smelled something fishy as each election neared during the Bush administration, there would be an alert - which caused fear - which led people to vote for the supposedly stronger national defense party.)
His thoughts reminded me of how former Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD), was basically advocating for that (an independent board) for national health care policy in his 2009 book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis.
And, yet, there are lots of citizens (and they're actually not all teabaggers) who want to "end the fed" (as presribed in Ron Paul's book).
I don't really claim to know the ideal solution here, but I get the feeling this is a case of - I don't recall the term, it's apparently something you learn in Poli-Sci 101 - where one side of a debate is extremely passionate and the other side (which may, in fact, be the majority) just does not match the intensity of the other side. I think it is a phenomenom often associated with gun-control. I think most of us believe some reasonable restrictions on gun rights is appropriate - but the NRA has consistently won because of the consistent passion and political pressure they bring to the debate.
That said, while I don't have any reason to believe that the Fed is going to be ended any time soon, it is clear that the teabaggers have the balls of the GOP in a stranglehold and it's leading the country down a dangerous path.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Government Revenue
In my recent post on the revenue problem that our government has, one of the commenter's indicated that I missed some important information in the discussion.
Constitutionally Speaking, from Perrinton, MI stated the following:
For the ignorant and the ideologues out there, the FACT of the matter is that we have the HIGHEST levels of government revenues in the history of this nation. In fact, the 5 HIGHEST revenue levels in history have come SINCE the Bush tax cuts.
We do NOT have a revenue problem, our problem is ENTIRELY a spending problem.
While I do NOT have the DATA that Constitutionally Speaking is referencing since there is no LINK, I can tell you that while researching for my post I looked at revenue data and how the numbers compare over the last 30 years.
If you simply look at unadjusted data Constitutionally Speaking is incorrect since we have actually had the 6 highest revenues in our countries history under the Bush era tax cuts. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are essentially looking at a 3-D issue in 2-D world.
If you use this line of thinking then the Gulf War cost the US more to wage than World War 1.
If you fail to adjust for inflation then of course it looks like we are spending more money now than ever and taking in more revenue than ever. The reality is that after adjusting for inflation and population growth the 2009 Federal revenue is $6,964.02 per person. That number happens to be just under the 1989 number of $6,964.61 per person.
The graph below shows that the inflation adjusted 2009 Federal revenue per person was actually the 17th highest in history. It also show that it is not a FACT that Bush era tax cuts yielded the 5 highest Federal revenues in history.
You could also look at Federal revenue as a percentage of GDP and see that the 2009 number is as low as it has been since 1959. This same link also shows that only one year since the Bush era tax cuts were enacted falls in the top 5 of Federal revenue as a percentage of GDP.
I would also argue that as our population grows the size of government needs to expand along with it. If you are to think of government as a business, and the business has an increasing demand for widgets the employees the business will need to produce the widgets will also increase. Obviously this means the business is spending more money. Is that good or bad for the company? It is hard to say since outlays are only part of the equation. In business you want to eliminate spending with a low ROI and increase spending with a high ROI. The same is true of government. You want to provide the services that the people want at a good value. The exact expenditures and income are secondary.
Just because something is a FACT doesn't mean it proves your point. If it did, I would probably get a lot less comments and the budget debate would be settled by now. The good news is that for every ignorant ideologue that posts here, there is a commenter to hold us accountable, and for that, I thank you.
Constitutionally Speaking, from Perrinton, MI stated the following:
For the ignorant and the ideologues out there, the FACT of the matter is that we have the HIGHEST levels of government revenues in the history of this nation. In fact, the 5 HIGHEST revenue levels in history have come SINCE the Bush tax cuts.
We do NOT have a revenue problem, our problem is ENTIRELY a spending problem.
While I do NOT have the DATA that Constitutionally Speaking is referencing since there is no LINK, I can tell you that while researching for my post I looked at revenue data and how the numbers compare over the last 30 years.
If you simply look at unadjusted data Constitutionally Speaking is incorrect since we have actually had the 6 highest revenues in our countries history under the Bush era tax cuts. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are essentially looking at a 3-D issue in 2-D world.
If you use this line of thinking then the Gulf War cost the US more to wage than World War 1.
If you fail to adjust for inflation then of course it looks like we are spending more money now than ever and taking in more revenue than ever. The reality is that after adjusting for inflation and population growth the 2009 Federal revenue is $6,964.02 per person. That number happens to be just under the 1989 number of $6,964.61 per person.
The graph below shows that the inflation adjusted 2009 Federal revenue per person was actually the 17th highest in history. It also show that it is not a FACT that Bush era tax cuts yielded the 5 highest Federal revenues in history.
You could also look at Federal revenue as a percentage of GDP and see that the 2009 number is as low as it has been since 1959. This same link also shows that only one year since the Bush era tax cuts were enacted falls in the top 5 of Federal revenue as a percentage of GDP.
I would also argue that as our population grows the size of government needs to expand along with it. If you are to think of government as a business, and the business has an increasing demand for widgets the employees the business will need to produce the widgets will also increase. Obviously this means the business is spending more money. Is that good or bad for the company? It is hard to say since outlays are only part of the equation. In business you want to eliminate spending with a low ROI and increase spending with a high ROI. The same is true of government. You want to provide the services that the people want at a good value. The exact expenditures and income are secondary.
Just because something is a FACT doesn't mean it proves your point. If it did, I would probably get a lot less comments and the budget debate would be settled by now. The good news is that for every ignorant ideologue that posts here, there is a commenter to hold us accountable, and for that, I thank you.
I Call Bullshit: O'Reilly Factor Edition
First of all, I get the feeling from watching that show that one could devote a post a day to de-bunking the B.S. they are selling over at The O'Reilly Factor.
Also, I should say that I actually only watched a few segments of the show. There may have been other B.S. that I just didn't see.
Okay, so Mr. O'Reilly starts his show with The Memo (entitled Agony On The Left). It includes:
As for "who wants to keep borrowing?" line. Is it not disingenuous to indict Obama when The Paul Ryan Plan - which was voted for by 98% of GOP House members - would (officially) add $5T to the national debt over the next 10 years? And that is not to mention the preposterous assumptions his plan makes regarding the unemployment rate and future GDP growth!
After The Memo, Mr. O'Reilly speaks with Dick Morris. One topic they got into, after talking about how horrific President Obama is, was recent polls indicating that, nevertheless, Obama is beating Mitt Romney (47-41), Michelle Bachmann (50-37), Rick Perry (50-37), and Sarah Palin (53-34) in hypothetical 2012 matchups.
Mr. Morris, in a curious twist of logic, claims that means Romney is beating Obama by 6 points because, in a presidential election, undecideds always vote against the incumbent. "Always?", Mr. O'Reilly inquires. Yes, always claims Mr. Morris. He says "I worked for Bill Clinton and I'd take a poll and he'd be at 40 and Bob Dole would be at 40. I would say to him 'you're losing by 20 points' and he would understand that".
At that point, I thought hmmmm... did Bill Clinton not completely crush Bob Dole? It really doesn't seem as if Mr. Morris has any inclination to present any objective facts!
Mr. Morris continues his analysis of the poll by saying that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are only losing because many voters don't know who they are. Does it not seem odd to jump to that conclusion when the undecided in these polls range from 12 (in the Romney poll) to 13 (in each of the other three hypothetical matchups)? What is the evidence that indicates that name recognition is holding back Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry? (Not to mention that I think most independents would, in fact, become less inclined to vote for those two as they learned more about them!)
Wait! I'm not done with Mr. Morris. He crammed a lot of bullshit in his five minutes on the show! As Mr. O'Reilly was about to end the segment, Mr. Morris had a point that he just needed to make -- like it was a really good point or something. He said:
Wow! That is some grade-A bullshit right there! There is little doubt that most actual Democrats would love, love, love for either of those two women to get the Republican nomination. They would have no shot at winning in a general election.
That said, I agree only in the sense that I have personally posted on this very blog about how I wish the media was not so fascinated with Sarah Palin. However, it should not be forgotten that is a media fascination - not a Democratic Party fascination. And it's a fascination that is not difficult to decipher. Ms. Palin apparently generates internet traffic; she draws eyeballs... however you want to say it. And to the extent the Democratic Party has any interest in Sarah Palin - it's merely as fundraising bait.
Existential threat?!?!? Wow! That is some wicked delusion he's peddling.
Later in the show, Dennis Miller was brought out. He addressed a topic that I posted on earlier in the week: the tax dispute with the fan that caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit. Mr. Miller first mentioned how they were going to "tax the kid's baseball" and followed it up with this longer thought-like fragment:
Where to begin with that one? First of all, what the fuck is he talking about bringing up Tim Geithner and The Fed? Talk about pandering to people's angst! Yeah, people can hate Mr. Geithner and The Fed. That is fine - but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is tax law - long ago established through congressional legislation!
And just to be clear, they are not "taxing the kid's baseball". He could have caught it and given it back and nothing would have happened. But that is not what happened. He caught it, gave it back, and accepted compensation in the form of season tickets for a suite and assorted memorabilia in exchange for the ball. That is what is being taxed. It's just like if you win money or prizes on a game-show. That is taxable income. It has been for many, many years. I recall my parents lamenting in the 1980s how people who won prizes (such as a new car on The Price is Right) would have to come up with cash to pay the tax bill for such prizes. Also, consider this article from 2004 regarding people who received "free" cars from Oprah Winfrey.
But in Dennis Miller's world, blame Tim Geithner and/or The Federal Reserve. It's nuts.
Also, I should say that I actually only watched a few segments of the show. There may have been other B.S. that I just didn't see.
Okay, so Mr. O'Reilly starts his show with The Memo (entitled Agony On The Left). It includes:
It is not good for the nation to borrow another $2T on top of the $14.5T we already owe. I think even the dimmest among us knows that is bad. Who wants to keep borrowing? The Left and it's leader, President Obama.Okay. The use of the terms "not good" and "bad" are perhaps passable in only the most literal sense because, yes, we'd all love if the budget was balanced and everyone had free health care and our schools were perfect and we all got to marry supermodels and watch Derek Anderson make additional Pro Bowls. Other than the last one, none of this is likely to happen any time soon.
As for "who wants to keep borrowing?" line. Is it not disingenuous to indict Obama when The Paul Ryan Plan - which was voted for by 98% of GOP House members - would (officially) add $5T to the national debt over the next 10 years? And that is not to mention the preposterous assumptions his plan makes regarding the unemployment rate and future GDP growth!
After The Memo, Mr. O'Reilly speaks with Dick Morris. One topic they got into, after talking about how horrific President Obama is, was recent polls indicating that, nevertheless, Obama is beating Mitt Romney (47-41), Michelle Bachmann (50-37), Rick Perry (50-37), and Sarah Palin (53-34) in hypothetical 2012 matchups.
Mr. Morris, in a curious twist of logic, claims that means Romney is beating Obama by 6 points because, in a presidential election, undecideds always vote against the incumbent. "Always?", Mr. O'Reilly inquires. Yes, always claims Mr. Morris. He says "I worked for Bill Clinton and I'd take a poll and he'd be at 40 and Bob Dole would be at 40. I would say to him 'you're losing by 20 points' and he would understand that".
At that point, I thought hmmmm... did Bill Clinton not completely crush Bob Dole? It really doesn't seem as if Mr. Morris has any inclination to present any objective facts!
Mr. Morris continues his analysis of the poll by saying that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are only losing because many voters don't know who they are. Does it not seem odd to jump to that conclusion when the undecided in these polls range from 12 (in the Romney poll) to 13 (in each of the other three hypothetical matchups)? What is the evidence that indicates that name recognition is holding back Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry? (Not to mention that I think most independents would, in fact, become less inclined to vote for those two as they learned more about them!)
Wait! I'm not done with Mr. Morris. He crammed a lot of bullshit in his five minutes on the show! As Mr. O'Reilly was about to end the segment, Mr. Morris had a point that he just needed to make -- like it was a really good point or something. He said:
They (Bachmann and Palin) are an existential threat to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is essentially based on women. Women and minorities. Therefore, when they see a conservative Republican woman, that threatens them in a way that a man never can. That is why they are so vitriolic against both of them.
Wow! That is some grade-A bullshit right there! There is little doubt that most actual Democrats would love, love, love for either of those two women to get the Republican nomination. They would have no shot at winning in a general election.
That said, I agree only in the sense that I have personally posted on this very blog about how I wish the media was not so fascinated with Sarah Palin. However, it should not be forgotten that is a media fascination - not a Democratic Party fascination. And it's a fascination that is not difficult to decipher. Ms. Palin apparently generates internet traffic; she draws eyeballs... however you want to say it. And to the extent the Democratic Party has any interest in Sarah Palin - it's merely as fundraising bait.
Existential threat?!?!? Wow! That is some wicked delusion he's peddling.
Later in the show, Dennis Miller was brought out. He addressed a topic that I posted on earlier in the week: the tax dispute with the fan that caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit. Mr. Miller first mentioned how they were going to "tax the kid's baseball" and followed it up with this longer thought-like fragment:
You can see how we're over-thinking things in this culture now that you can't even catch a ball and give it back to a guy without putting yourself into some weird system where (Tim) Geithner and The Fed come in like fireants and just try to burn it to the ground! It's crazy!
Where to begin with that one? First of all, what the fuck is he talking about bringing up Tim Geithner and The Fed? Talk about pandering to people's angst! Yeah, people can hate Mr. Geithner and The Fed. That is fine - but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is tax law - long ago established through congressional legislation!
And just to be clear, they are not "taxing the kid's baseball". He could have caught it and given it back and nothing would have happened. But that is not what happened. He caught it, gave it back, and accepted compensation in the form of season tickets for a suite and assorted memorabilia in exchange for the ball. That is what is being taxed. It's just like if you win money or prizes on a game-show. That is taxable income. It has been for many, many years. I recall my parents lamenting in the 1980s how people who won prizes (such as a new car on The Price is Right) would have to come up with cash to pay the tax bill for such prizes. Also, consider this article from 2004 regarding people who received "free" cars from Oprah Winfrey.
But in Dennis Miller's world, blame Tim Geithner and/or The Federal Reserve. It's nuts.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Adult Conversation?
Shortly after the November elections, Republicans starting showing up on various political television shows and talking about how we need to have "an adult conversation". Apparently their idea of an adult conversation goes something like "I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."
It started with Eric Cantor's "I'm taking my ball and going home" action of walking out of debt ceiling negotiations because John Boehner and the President had a play date and Cantor wasn't invited.
Follow that up with Mitch McConnell's "I know you are but what am I" where he pouts because the President won't meet him half way by accepting McConnell's first and only position of no increased revenue.
But of course the best example of how mature Republican politicians handle something as important as the possible collapse of the world economy from US debt default was the "whoever smelt it dealt it" plan presented yesterday by Mitch McConnell that allows the debt ceiling to be raised without a single Republican having to go on record as voting for it.
I guess if this is how adults handle important decisions, I might just prefer we go back to those childish conversations of the past where compromise and bi-partisan weren't the political equivalent of H E double hockey sticks.
Of course the conversations are not over and there is always a chance these things get turned around. As an example of how this might happen below is a note Mitch McConnell gave to the President yesterday during their negotiations which shows how mature leaders can come to an agreement.
It started with Eric Cantor's "I'm taking my ball and going home" action of walking out of debt ceiling negotiations because John Boehner and the President had a play date and Cantor wasn't invited.
Follow that up with Mitch McConnell's "I know you are but what am I" where he pouts because the President won't meet him half way by accepting McConnell's first and only position of no increased revenue.
But of course the best example of how mature Republican politicians handle something as important as the possible collapse of the world economy from US debt default was the "whoever smelt it dealt it" plan presented yesterday by Mitch McConnell that allows the debt ceiling to be raised without a single Republican having to go on record as voting for it.
I guess if this is how adults handle important decisions, I might just prefer we go back to those childish conversations of the past where compromise and bi-partisan weren't the political equivalent of H E double hockey sticks.
Of course the conversations are not over and there is always a chance these things get turned around. As an example of how this might happen below is a note Mitch McConnell gave to the President yesterday during their negotiations which shows how mature leaders can come to an agreement.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Another Tax Dispute For Jeter
At this very moment, a "most popular story" at CNN.com is that the fan who caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit could face a tax hit for the value of what he accepted in exchange for giving the ball to Jeter.
This is not the first tax dispute involving Mr. Jeter. Remember when America's darling got in trouble with tax officials in New York state because he claimed to live in Florida to take advantage of their lack of state income taxes even though he actually lived in New York City? I remember that.
Of course, he got busted. I guess that while he is considered by some to be a "big deal" - he is not quite big enough to have local officials look the other way. That is what has happened in Massachusetts with Mr. Mitt Romney. (Of course, his dispute had nothing to do with taxes though).
I also noted that there was apparently a debate amongst the two biggest idiots on ESPN (Skip Bayless and Rob Parker) regarding whether ranks in the top five Yankees of all time. While I can't stomach actually watching it, I decided to pick five Yankees better than Derek Jeter. They are:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Joe DiMaggio
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Hideki Irabu
There ya go. Some people forget Irabu. He was definitely better than Jeter though. Ask any Yankee fan.
This is not the first tax dispute involving Mr. Jeter. Remember when America's darling got in trouble with tax officials in New York state because he claimed to live in Florida to take advantage of their lack of state income taxes even though he actually lived in New York City? I remember that.
Of course, he got busted. I guess that while he is considered by some to be a "big deal" - he is not quite big enough to have local officials look the other way. That is what has happened in Massachusetts with Mr. Mitt Romney. (Of course, his dispute had nothing to do with taxes though).
I also noted that there was apparently a debate amongst the two biggest idiots on ESPN (Skip Bayless and Rob Parker) regarding whether ranks in the top five Yankees of all time. While I can't stomach actually watching it, I decided to pick five Yankees better than Derek Jeter. They are:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Joe DiMaggio
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Hideki Irabu
There ya go. Some people forget Irabu. He was definitely better than Jeter though. Ask any Yankee fan.
The fallacy of corporate taxes
Rhetoric over taxes is currently dominating every debate over the economy. Unfortunately the rhetoric around these tax doesn't match the reality. Take for example a recent post by the Detroit News' own George Bullard where he opined "Maybe the private sector could deliver more jobs if taxes, compared to other countries, were less burdensome?".
The proof that is most often offered to back this point is that the US has the highest corporate tax rate. While technically this is accurate, the US does have one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the world the reality is that almost no business pays this rate thanks to the convoluted tax system that allows some companies to pay nothing or get money back from government.
Of the 19 member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) the US has the 5th lowest effective tax rate. At 13.4% the US is below the OECD average 16.1%.
Additioanlly, when considering corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP the US actually has the absolute lowest corporate tax rates of the OECD member states.
The fact is, when it comes to actual taxes paid, the US compares rather favorably to other nations. I think what many people don't understand is that US corporations do not pay income tax. They only pay taxes on profit and over the years companies have found many ways to make profit disappear and lower or eliminate their tax burden.
Given this, corporate tax cuts will only help companies that are already making profits. According to the NY Times, small businesses, which employ about half of the countries private sector employees, are struggling to break even. So for companies not making a profit like many of our nations small businesses, tax cuts will not lead to greater employment. The same article also says that "more small businesses say that they are planning to shrink their payrolls than say they want to expand them."
A recent NFIB survey found that while there are a number of companies that think corporate tax rates are holding them back the number is relatively unchanged over the past decade. Conversely the number of companies that rank "poor sales" as their biggest challenge has doubled since the economic downturn started.
Making matters worse is the steadfast belief that all things private sector are good and all things public sector are bad. By cutting back on government employees we are moving these jobs to the private sector and in example after example after example the tax payer ends up spending more money for government services offered by private corporations.
So while large corporations are pulling in record profits, Republicans want to give them a tax break. While small businesses struggles to stay afloat, diminishing tax revenue has cost the economy a half million consumers. While the unemployment pushes ever higher, Republicans will only accept more job killing cuts. While the rich took home more of the countries income than anytime since the great depression, Republicans insist that tax cuts are off of the table. And I thought President Obama was supposed to be the radical?
The proof that is most often offered to back this point is that the US has the highest corporate tax rate. While technically this is accurate, the US does have one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the world the reality is that almost no business pays this rate thanks to the convoluted tax system that allows some companies to pay nothing or get money back from government.
Of the 19 member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) the US has the 5th lowest effective tax rate. At 13.4% the US is below the OECD average 16.1%.
Additioanlly, when considering corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP the US actually has the absolute lowest corporate tax rates of the OECD member states.
The fact is, when it comes to actual taxes paid, the US compares rather favorably to other nations. I think what many people don't understand is that US corporations do not pay income tax. They only pay taxes on profit and over the years companies have found many ways to make profit disappear and lower or eliminate their tax burden.
Given this, corporate tax cuts will only help companies that are already making profits. According to the NY Times, small businesses, which employ about half of the countries private sector employees, are struggling to break even. So for companies not making a profit like many of our nations small businesses, tax cuts will not lead to greater employment. The same article also says that "more small businesses say that they are planning to shrink their payrolls than say they want to expand them."
A recent NFIB survey found that while there are a number of companies that think corporate tax rates are holding them back the number is relatively unchanged over the past decade. Conversely the number of companies that rank "poor sales" as their biggest challenge has doubled since the economic downturn started.
Making matters worse is the steadfast belief that all things private sector are good and all things public sector are bad. By cutting back on government employees we are moving these jobs to the private sector and in example after example after example the tax payer ends up spending more money for government services offered by private corporations.
So while large corporations are pulling in record profits, Republicans want to give them a tax break. While small businesses struggles to stay afloat, diminishing tax revenue has cost the economy a half million consumers. While the unemployment pushes ever higher, Republicans will only accept more job killing cuts. While the rich took home more of the countries income than anytime since the great depression, Republicans insist that tax cuts are off of the table. And I thought President Obama was supposed to be the radical?
Twit-tering
Can we stop acting like celebrity and viewer tweets are an important part of the daily new cycle. If I really cared about what Kim Kardashian or random viewer X thought about the Casey Anthony verdict I would follow them on Twitter. Having an opinion and a twitter account doesn't make your thoughts news.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Spending problem?
As we inch ever closer to a government default I keep hearing that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. I personally believe that we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem as tax rates are lower than anytime since 1950.
Since 1980 the average inflation rate per year is 3.6% which means to buy the same stuff this year as last year the government should have increased spending by an average of 3.6% per year. According to the data provided by the American Presidency Project Reagan increased spending by and average of 7.6% per year, George H.W. Bush by 4.7% per year, Clinton by 3.6% per year, George W. Bush by 9.9% per year and the estimates for Obama put him on a pace for 3.5% per year.
Of the past five presidents only Clinton and Obama kept spending at the pace of inflation set over the last 30 years. So to the extent that we have a spending problem that problem has been more pronounced under recent Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents. It is either a political ploy or an ignorance of the numbers to place the label of big government socialists at the feet of Democrats when Republican Presidents show a much greater penchant for over spending.
There are some areas where we do have spending problems but they tend to be Republican spending priorities so they are not up for debate currently. The Bush tax cuts, for example, which were by in large supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats are one of these areas. It's estimated that these cuts added $2.8 trillion to the national debt over the last 10 years.
The other areas where we have Federal spending problems are Defense and Health Care. Of the increases in spending over the past 10 years 81% of the increase is due to Defense and Health Care.
So while Mitch McConnell holds on to the idea that the November elections were somehow a validation of his stance against any tax increases, 52% of Americans favor higher taxes for the rich to solve the debt and 17 of 29 economists and fund managers for the top Wall Street bond dealing firms say that cuts alone will not fix the debt.
Unfortunately Republicans insist that Tax increases are off of the table, every dollar of Defense spending is justified and necessary and we have the greatest health care system in the world and asking this industry to make some of the "tough choices" that the public sector is being forced to accept would lead to a catastrophic failure of the health care system.
If the only budget items that are not sacred cows are PBS, Planned parenthood and Federal and State employees then we don’t just have a spending problem, we also have an information deficit problem. Placing all of the blame at the fallacy of big government Democrats may be good politics but does nothing to help the economy and the hard working Americans that are looking for politicians to lead in these difficult times instead of dole out politically motivated rhetoric.
Since 1980 the average inflation rate per year is 3.6% which means to buy the same stuff this year as last year the government should have increased spending by an average of 3.6% per year. According to the data provided by the American Presidency Project Reagan increased spending by and average of 7.6% per year, George H.W. Bush by 4.7% per year, Clinton by 3.6% per year, George W. Bush by 9.9% per year and the estimates for Obama put him on a pace for 3.5% per year.
Of the past five presidents only Clinton and Obama kept spending at the pace of inflation set over the last 30 years. So to the extent that we have a spending problem that problem has been more pronounced under recent Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents. It is either a political ploy or an ignorance of the numbers to place the label of big government socialists at the feet of Democrats when Republican Presidents show a much greater penchant for over spending.
There are some areas where we do have spending problems but they tend to be Republican spending priorities so they are not up for debate currently. The Bush tax cuts, for example, which were by in large supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats are one of these areas. It's estimated that these cuts added $2.8 trillion to the national debt over the last 10 years.
The other areas where we have Federal spending problems are Defense and Health Care. Of the increases in spending over the past 10 years 81% of the increase is due to Defense and Health Care.
So while Mitch McConnell holds on to the idea that the November elections were somehow a validation of his stance against any tax increases, 52% of Americans favor higher taxes for the rich to solve the debt and 17 of 29 economists and fund managers for the top Wall Street bond dealing firms say that cuts alone will not fix the debt.
Unfortunately Republicans insist that Tax increases are off of the table, every dollar of Defense spending is justified and necessary and we have the greatest health care system in the world and asking this industry to make some of the "tough choices" that the public sector is being forced to accept would lead to a catastrophic failure of the health care system.
If the only budget items that are not sacred cows are PBS, Planned parenthood and Federal and State employees then we don’t just have a spending problem, we also have an information deficit problem. Placing all of the blame at the fallacy of big government Democrats may be good politics but does nothing to help the economy and the hard working Americans that are looking for politicians to lead in these difficult times instead of dole out politically motivated rhetoric.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Redistricting is referendum proof
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
