Adding to an already impressive list of legislative "solutions" that don't actually solve any problems, Rick Snyder and the Michigan legislature have decided to consider "merit pay" for public educators.
Like many of their previous legislative priorities including corporate tax cuts, charter schools and right to work, Republicans seem more interested in placating their corporate sugar daddies than analyzing data. Because if Republicans took the time to review the many studies on the topic they would see that the type of merit pay they support doesn't actually improve educational outcomes.
The merit pay solution fails in part because it assumes all teachers are slackers and that their primary motivation is money. Contrary to what many Republican believe most teachers already give maximum effort because they have a passion for teaching and anything less than their best would negatively affect their students. Imagine using monetary incentives to motive a pastor or a charity worker to do good deeds and you can start to understand why this corporate strategy isn't applicable across all occupations. But even beyond this, this solution also presumes schools provide all the resources necessary to make significant strides, that the teachers have been given the proper tools and training to implement meaningful improvements and that the leadership will support innovative changes.
Maybe the Governor should listen to his own rhetoric which contradicts the very merit pay system he currently supports. When running for office Rick Snyder said "Government doesn’t create jobs, we create an environment where jobs can flourish." Well the same is true in education - teachers don't create good test scores, they create an environment where good test score can flourish.
Similarly when asked to estimate the number of jobs his new environment would create the Governor said "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen." So Rick Snyder sees no value in setting expectations for the changes that have occurred on his watch yet exceeding an arbitrary goal set by technocrats is a core aspect of how the governor plans on improving educational outcomes. Such hypocrisy represents a massive double standard.
Of course if Republican politicians truly believe that merit pay gets the best results then why have they never considered making a significant portion of their own pay merit based. They could earn extra pay for things like low unemployment numbers, budget surpluses, improved crime rates, greater energy independence, better health care outcomes, and of course student test scores.
But the reality is that using metrics to define success is something politicians reserve for others since their true goal of raising money and winning elections doesn't require tangible results. It only requires an illusion of success and when your voting bloc already disavows science, considers Benghazi the biggest scandal in US history, and believes disagreeing with a media source proves liberal bias, convincing them that hard data and peer reviewed studies are propaganda from liberal elites isn't much of a stretch.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Partisanship is unconstitutional
A lot of talk from conservatives especially those on this blog in recent days revolves around the belief that Republicans value the Constitution more than Democrats.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
More ammunition for the conspiracy theorist
Last month, around the same time the Senate was debating the immensely popular background check bill, Republicans took their "fear government" conspiracy theory to a new level. This conspiracy now has some believing that the government is buying large quantities of ammunition to keep it out of the hands of gun owners.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Benghazi, IRS and AP Oh My!
This week Republicans are frothing at the mouth over a number of government "scandals". Well, welcome to the party. Democrats have been outraged over these very same issues for years.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Republican's dying to kill abortion
Last year Mississippi passed new restrictions on institutions that preform abortions meant to shutter the only remaining abortion clinic in the state. The law requires that these clinics be required to get admitting privileges to a local hospital to keep their state certification.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Snyder trades business acumen for faith
Michigan voters have been duped. The 2010 gubernatorial election may have been one of the biggest bait and switch cases in the history of the state of Michigan.
Rick Snyder's ads claimed "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." Business 101 suggests that if you want people to invest in your ideas you will need a business plan and as the Small Business Association sums up that plan should include research and predications:
"Your business plan is critical. Be sure to include accurate and realistic financials and market research to back up your predictions. Plan on being able to confidently communicate key sound bites from your plan on the fly—particularly how you will generate profit and how that will flow into your investor’s pockets."
Well the voters of the state of Michigan invested in Rick Snyder's business prowess yet here we are two years into his first term and none of the legislation the governor has signed into law smacks off the data driven-thorough analysis one would expect from a venture capitalist.
When asked to estimate the jobs that will be created from the corporate tax cuts the governor championed, he stated: "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen.”
Rick Snyder continues to support an emergency manager law that the voters roundly rejected despite the fact that what data exists to analyze the success or failure of emergency managers in Michigan shows that nearly every entity taken over by a state appointed manager has left it worse than they found it.
When pressed on his rationale for signing right to work legislation in Michigan the governor sounded like one bullied nerd stuck in third grade with a "they started it" claim against unions and a "All the other kids were doing it" defense in pretending Indiana had become a draw because of right to work despite reports to the contrary.
When it comes to education the governor has hit the trifecta of unsupported solutions. It starts with privatizing schools even though data shows no value to doing so. Next he formed a secret group, known as "skunk works", tasked to skirting the Michigan constitution’s prohibition of vouchers. But perhaps his worst education decision so far is the Educational Achievement Authority (EAA). Not only does this entity operate outside of normal statewide school district system meaning it can use state funds without being forced to reveal how these funds are being allocated or who benefits, but it has no data to support its existence or the expansion the legislature is currently planning. And according to the Mackinac Center it would allow the state to take over more than just the lowest achieving schools as the governor claims.
So while Michiganders may have expected Rick Snyder to provide an independent analytical voice and solve Michigan's problems by "thinking outside the box" to find some "cutting edge" "game changers" that supply a good "return on investment" while creating "synergy" within the various government agencies in a "win-win" for the public, the reality Rick Snyder governance is more of a faith based initiative requiring voters to reject reason and facts and instead rely on Rick Snyder's usual aplomb.
Rick Snyder's ads claimed "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." Business 101 suggests that if you want people to invest in your ideas you will need a business plan and as the Small Business Association sums up that plan should include research and predications:
"Your business plan is critical. Be sure to include accurate and realistic financials and market research to back up your predictions. Plan on being able to confidently communicate key sound bites from your plan on the fly—particularly how you will generate profit and how that will flow into your investor’s pockets."
Well the voters of the state of Michigan invested in Rick Snyder's business prowess yet here we are two years into his first term and none of the legislation the governor has signed into law smacks off the data driven-thorough analysis one would expect from a venture capitalist.
When asked to estimate the jobs that will be created from the corporate tax cuts the governor championed, he stated: "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen.”
Rick Snyder continues to support an emergency manager law that the voters roundly rejected despite the fact that what data exists to analyze the success or failure of emergency managers in Michigan shows that nearly every entity taken over by a state appointed manager has left it worse than they found it.
When pressed on his rationale for signing right to work legislation in Michigan the governor sounded like one bullied nerd stuck in third grade with a "they started it" claim against unions and a "All the other kids were doing it" defense in pretending Indiana had become a draw because of right to work despite reports to the contrary.
When it comes to education the governor has hit the trifecta of unsupported solutions. It starts with privatizing schools even though data shows no value to doing so. Next he formed a secret group, known as "skunk works", tasked to skirting the Michigan constitution’s prohibition of vouchers. But perhaps his worst education decision so far is the Educational Achievement Authority (EAA). Not only does this entity operate outside of normal statewide school district system meaning it can use state funds without being forced to reveal how these funds are being allocated or who benefits, but it has no data to support its existence or the expansion the legislature is currently planning. And according to the Mackinac Center it would allow the state to take over more than just the lowest achieving schools as the governor claims.
So while Michiganders may have expected Rick Snyder to provide an independent analytical voice and solve Michigan's problems by "thinking outside the box" to find some "cutting edge" "game changers" that supply a good "return on investment" while creating "synergy" within the various government agencies in a "win-win" for the public, the reality Rick Snyder governance is more of a faith based initiative requiring voters to reject reason and facts and instead rely on Rick Snyder's usual aplomb.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
How Capitalism is killing educational achievement
Earlier this week Michigan Governor Rick Snyder kicked off the 18th annual Governor's Education Summit under the cloud of "skunk works" exposed by Chad Livengood here at the Detroit News.
"Skunk works" was the code name give to secret meetings between the governor and a group of twenty individuals that included one educational professional who quickly realized that the group was "discussing a special kind of school being created outside of the Michigan public school system,". To no one's surprise this project aims to take more money away from public schools and funnel it to private organizations using a voucher program.
Republicans who support the governor’s efforts claim our education system is broken and they insist that teachers unions and bad teachers are the crux of the problem. Unfortunately this is all based on anecdotal evidence as the data shows no such correlation.
But the reality is that contending that our education system is broken is a fundamentally flawed argument that Republicans are using as an excuse to push their alternate agenda of corporatize our children’s education. Corporatization which has shown to be no better than the system they are working so hard to replace.
Ironically it is the very capitalism that Republicans hold up as the answer to our lagging test scores that is actually the problem. The data shows that the biggest problem with education is poverty. If you do an apples to apples comparison using test results from American schools with 10% or less impoverished students the US comes out on top. Similarly in schools with a student body that contains 10% to 25% children living below the poverty line the US is third best in the world.
While having poor test scores is certainly a concern the fact that we have the second highest rate of childhood poverty among developed countries is an embarrassment.
And while Republicans will continue to calumniate the education profession to benefit their corporate sponsors the truth is that as long as we lead the world in income disparity and keep the playing field severely slanted in favor of the rich regaining our position as the world leaders in test scores will remain an unachievable goal.
"Skunk works" was the code name give to secret meetings between the governor and a group of twenty individuals that included one educational professional who quickly realized that the group was "discussing a special kind of school being created outside of the Michigan public school system,". To no one's surprise this project aims to take more money away from public schools and funnel it to private organizations using a voucher program.
Republicans who support the governor’s efforts claim our education system is broken and they insist that teachers unions and bad teachers are the crux of the problem. Unfortunately this is all based on anecdotal evidence as the data shows no such correlation.
But the reality is that contending that our education system is broken is a fundamentally flawed argument that Republicans are using as an excuse to push their alternate agenda of corporatize our children’s education. Corporatization which has shown to be no better than the system they are working so hard to replace.
Ironically it is the very capitalism that Republicans hold up as the answer to our lagging test scores that is actually the problem. The data shows that the biggest problem with education is poverty. If you do an apples to apples comparison using test results from American schools with 10% or less impoverished students the US comes out on top. Similarly in schools with a student body that contains 10% to 25% children living below the poverty line the US is third best in the world.
While having poor test scores is certainly a concern the fact that we have the second highest rate of childhood poverty among developed countries is an embarrassment.
And while Republicans will continue to calumniate the education profession to benefit their corporate sponsors the truth is that as long as we lead the world in income disparity and keep the playing field severely slanted in favor of the rich regaining our position as the world leaders in test scores will remain an unachievable goal.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Big spending equals great results
At the national level one of the areas of biggest concern for Republicans seems to be the cost of education. Based on the measures that have been pushed through many state legislatures it appears that Republicans believe one of the biggest problems we face as a country is that we spend too much money on education.
But if we apply the spending logic that Republicans have for other areas of government, improvements to education will require more spending not less.
For example, we as a country spend as much on national defense as the next eleven countries combined. But try and cut defense spending and Republicans throw a fit. Many, like former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, even argued for an increase defense spending.
The US spends nearly twice as much on health care as the next country on the list. But try and change it and Republicans will stand at the bully pulpit and claim the US health care system is the "greatest health care system the world has ever known".
We also spend more to incarcerate our citizens than any other country in the world. According to Fox News the US spends almost 4 times a much on inmates as it does educating students. But Republicans will tell you that this spending is needed becuase prisons play a key role providing a safe society for US citizens.
The reality is when it comes to their priorities Republicans have no problem with vastly outspending the rest of the world. And while we spend nearly 50% more on health care than the next country, and a full 310% more on defense than the second country on the list we actually spend 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
Given the fact that for Republicans outspending other countries is essentially a requirement for the US to maintain it superior performance in things like defense, health care, and citizen safety it follows that the biggest problem in education is the clear lack of commitment the government has to acheiving greatness or in Republican terms - outspending every other nation by at least 50%.
But if we apply the spending logic that Republicans have for other areas of government, improvements to education will require more spending not less.
For example, we as a country spend as much on national defense as the next eleven countries combined. But try and cut defense spending and Republicans throw a fit. Many, like former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, even argued for an increase defense spending.
The US spends nearly twice as much on health care as the next country on the list. But try and change it and Republicans will stand at the bully pulpit and claim the US health care system is the "greatest health care system the world has ever known".
We also spend more to incarcerate our citizens than any other country in the world. According to Fox News the US spends almost 4 times a much on inmates as it does educating students. But Republicans will tell you that this spending is needed becuase prisons play a key role providing a safe society for US citizens.
The reality is when it comes to their priorities Republicans have no problem with vastly outspending the rest of the world. And while we spend nearly 50% more on health care than the next country, and a full 310% more on defense than the second country on the list we actually spend 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
Given the fact that for Republicans outspending other countries is essentially a requirement for the US to maintain it superior performance in things like defense, health care, and citizen safety it follows that the biggest problem in education is the clear lack of commitment the government has to acheiving greatness or in Republican terms - outspending every other nation by at least 50%.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Time to stop big government overreach by Michigan Legislature
For years now Republicans have been calling for "common sense" regulatory reform. On GOP.gov Congressman Mike Pence stated that "The House Republican Regulatory Reform plan is a commonsense solution that puts taxpayers first".
Well good news Michigan Republicans - Bill Lucas and his organization, Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum, have a petition that is right up their alley.
Over the past two years the Michigan legislature has gone out of their way to expose an issue with the Michigan constitution that clearly needs to be addressed if they truly believe in putting taxpayers first and as Wikipedia states: "The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders".
What they do is utilize a rule in the state constitution that prevents voters from exercising their constitutional right to repeal a law using the referendum process. All it takes is inserting a small budgetary measure known as an appropriation into any bill that voters might otherwise reject.
Their test case was the a repeal of Michigan's 33 year old item pricing bill that required retailers to mark the price on every item they sell. At the time polls showed opposition to repealing this so rather than present a value case for the repeal the legislature simply removed any possibility of repeal by including an appropriation in the bill.
Once they realized that they could get away with this anti-democratic big government power grab without much push back from voters the legislature started including appropriations in any bill that might be considered remotely controversial. Right to work, the previously repealed Emergency Manager, tax on pensions, redistricting and most recently wolf hunting have all been given appropriations to exclude Michigan voters from the democratic process.
Of course these legislators know that these aren't really appropriations bills since none of them appear on the legislature.mi.gov web page labeled "Appropriation Bills". Additionally there are hundreds of bills that have passed over the last two years with bipartisan support that don't include appropriations but easily could have.
So call it regulations or constitutional loopholes the reality is the rights of the taxpayers should be put ahead of politicians and their corporate sponsors. While the legislature can prevent us from repealing certain bills they can't prevent us from amending the state constitution to put the power of government back where it belongs - in the hands of the people.
If you're interested in finding out how you can help or contributing to this cause visit the Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum website to learn more.
Well good news Michigan Republicans - Bill Lucas and his organization, Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum, have a petition that is right up their alley.
Over the past two years the Michigan legislature has gone out of their way to expose an issue with the Michigan constitution that clearly needs to be addressed if they truly believe in putting taxpayers first and as Wikipedia states: "The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders".
What they do is utilize a rule in the state constitution that prevents voters from exercising their constitutional right to repeal a law using the referendum process. All it takes is inserting a small budgetary measure known as an appropriation into any bill that voters might otherwise reject.
Their test case was the a repeal of Michigan's 33 year old item pricing bill that required retailers to mark the price on every item they sell. At the time polls showed opposition to repealing this so rather than present a value case for the repeal the legislature simply removed any possibility of repeal by including an appropriation in the bill.
Once they realized that they could get away with this anti-democratic big government power grab without much push back from voters the legislature started including appropriations in any bill that might be considered remotely controversial. Right to work, the previously repealed Emergency Manager, tax on pensions, redistricting and most recently wolf hunting have all been given appropriations to exclude Michigan voters from the democratic process.
Of course these legislators know that these aren't really appropriations bills since none of them appear on the legislature.mi.gov web page labeled "Appropriation Bills". Additionally there are hundreds of bills that have passed over the last two years with bipartisan support that don't include appropriations but easily could have.
So call it regulations or constitutional loopholes the reality is the rights of the taxpayers should be put ahead of politicians and their corporate sponsors. While the legislature can prevent us from repealing certain bills they can't prevent us from amending the state constitution to put the power of government back where it belongs - in the hands of the people.
If you're interested in finding out how you can help or contributing to this cause visit the Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum website to learn more.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Republicans rewriting Michigan history
Last week my colleague Joshua Pugh took aim at the Michigan House Republicans for their right wing agenda that runs counter to the interest of the people. He also called out Jase Bolger in his critique which unsurprisingly elicited a response from Representatives Bolger's press secretary Ari Adler.
Outside of the campaign style personal attack on Joshua and his employer Progress Michigan which seemed below the standards we would expect from the office of the speaker of the house, Adler made a number of salient points that many Republicans would probably blindly accept as fact. Unfortunately these claims are more talking point than accurate portrayal of the Republican accomplishments over the past two years.
For instance Mr. Adler starts off his argument by pointing out that in Michigan since Republicans took control in 2011 there have been two budgets that passed four months early avoiding the government shut downs of the past. What he conveniently fails to mention is that those shut downs were the results of the two parties being forced to compromise. The quick budget resolutions are due to Democrats being shut out of the conversation which is not something the voters of a Democrat leaning state would see as something to celebrate like Mr. Adler does.
He goes one to suggest Republicans have eliminated $20 billion dollars in debt yet the data shows that Republicans just approved a budget that leaves Michigan with the largest debt in its history and that the per person debt in Michigan has gone up every year under Republicans and currently stands at record highs.
Next Mr. Adler touts Michigan Republicans efforts to restock the Rainy Day Fund (Budget Stabilization Fund) from $2 million to $500 million. Ironically this is a thorn in the sides to both parties since Republicans would prefer that taxes be cut instead of government savings while Democrats point out that Republicans cut $1 billion from education and increased taxes on the elderly by $300 million to achieve these gains in the Rainy Day Fund.
And of course no fallacious argument would be complete without a couple of unsubstantiated feel good anecdotal non-facts so Mr. Adler says "moving companies are reporting that people are returning to Michigan" and "we are hearing from many grandparents who are thrilled to see their kids returning, bringing their grandkids with them".
But perhaps the worst argument Ari Adler makes is attributing all the job creation and other economic gains from January 2011 to Republicans. While unemployment has gone down since 2011 it was already on a steady decline before Republicans showed up. Similarly while there has been private sector job creation since January 2011 the Republicans self proclaimed job creating business tax cuts didn't even take effect until 2012.
If you really wanted to understand Michigan’s economic performance over the past decade you need look no further than business to find the answers. For decades Michigan had put all of their eggs in the auto industry basket and as the big three lost ground so did Michigan. Ford for example lost more money in 2006 than at any point in the companies history. Given these huge losses they cut staff, downsized facilities and invested in the next generation of products. Three years later they emerged a profitable company.
Michigan followed a very similar path of cutting, downsizing and investing. Now years late thanks to the resurgence of the automotive industry, a focus on diversification, and years of government cuts paired with tax increases which Republicans have mainly left unchanged - Michigan is making a comeback.
While Ari Adler is long on talking points meant to fool voters into thinking this is solely a Republican recovery he never once mentions a single piece of legislation passed by his boss when talking about these improvements. Make no mistake; this was not an oversight on his part. The reality is Mr. Adler knows Michigan Republicans are just the beneficiaries of hard choices made by the previous administration, smart decisions by the auto industry and a resurging US economy. But if Ari Adler wants to give the new wave a Republicans the credit they deserve he can thank than for setting up Jase Bolger to become the next Minority Leader starting in January 2015.
Outside of the campaign style personal attack on Joshua and his employer Progress Michigan which seemed below the standards we would expect from the office of the speaker of the house, Adler made a number of salient points that many Republicans would probably blindly accept as fact. Unfortunately these claims are more talking point than accurate portrayal of the Republican accomplishments over the past two years.
For instance Mr. Adler starts off his argument by pointing out that in Michigan since Republicans took control in 2011 there have been two budgets that passed four months early avoiding the government shut downs of the past. What he conveniently fails to mention is that those shut downs were the results of the two parties being forced to compromise. The quick budget resolutions are due to Democrats being shut out of the conversation which is not something the voters of a Democrat leaning state would see as something to celebrate like Mr. Adler does.
He goes one to suggest Republicans have eliminated $20 billion dollars in debt yet the data shows that Republicans just approved a budget that leaves Michigan with the largest debt in its history and that the per person debt in Michigan has gone up every year under Republicans and currently stands at record highs.
Next Mr. Adler touts Michigan Republicans efforts to restock the Rainy Day Fund (Budget Stabilization Fund) from $2 million to $500 million. Ironically this is a thorn in the sides to both parties since Republicans would prefer that taxes be cut instead of government savings while Democrats point out that Republicans cut $1 billion from education and increased taxes on the elderly by $300 million to achieve these gains in the Rainy Day Fund.
And of course no fallacious argument would be complete without a couple of unsubstantiated feel good anecdotal non-facts so Mr. Adler says "moving companies are reporting that people are returning to Michigan" and "we are hearing from many grandparents who are thrilled to see their kids returning, bringing their grandkids with them".
But perhaps the worst argument Ari Adler makes is attributing all the job creation and other economic gains from January 2011 to Republicans. While unemployment has gone down since 2011 it was already on a steady decline before Republicans showed up. Similarly while there has been private sector job creation since January 2011 the Republicans self proclaimed job creating business tax cuts didn't even take effect until 2012.
If you really wanted to understand Michigan’s economic performance over the past decade you need look no further than business to find the answers. For decades Michigan had put all of their eggs in the auto industry basket and as the big three lost ground so did Michigan. Ford for example lost more money in 2006 than at any point in the companies history. Given these huge losses they cut staff, downsized facilities and invested in the next generation of products. Three years later they emerged a profitable company.
Michigan followed a very similar path of cutting, downsizing and investing. Now years late thanks to the resurgence of the automotive industry, a focus on diversification, and years of government cuts paired with tax increases which Republicans have mainly left unchanged - Michigan is making a comeback.
While Ari Adler is long on talking points meant to fool voters into thinking this is solely a Republican recovery he never once mentions a single piece of legislation passed by his boss when talking about these improvements. Make no mistake; this was not an oversight on his part. The reality is Mr. Adler knows Michigan Republicans are just the beneficiaries of hard choices made by the previous administration, smart decisions by the auto industry and a resurging US economy. But if Ari Adler wants to give the new wave a Republicans the credit they deserve he can thank than for setting up Jase Bolger to become the next Minority Leader starting in January 2015.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Regulations: The enemy of no one
A core aspect of the Republican platform over recent years is the desire to eliminate government regulations. The rationale most often associated with this push is the idea that government regulations cost jobs. Unfortunately jobs are really just a red herring in this argument since the actual impetus has more to do with corporate profits and campaign donations than jobs.
The reality is that even if one product is deemed unacceptable, the market demand for that product will still exist and whatever products fills the void should create an equivalent number of jobs. In the past, for example, when it was determined that asbestos and lead paint cost lives, the government, as the protector of the people, stepped in and essentially regulated these products out of business. Luckily at the time corporate money was much less important and the good of the people easily trumped "jobs" or any other misdirection corporations could dream up.
Did the country suddenly slip into a recession because the asbestos and lead paint industries no longer existed? No. Instead other companies that produced better products which were less harmful gain market share.
Today a similar war is being waged over coal, but now corporate money is wagging the dog and the good of the people has taken a backseat.
Employees in the coal industry are nearly seven times a likely to die on the job than similar occupations. They also miss four times as many days of work. Additionally some 24,000 people die each year from the affects of coal. So regardless of how many hypothetical jobs are lost in the conversion to clean energy, as long as another product is available and is less detrimental, we should support that change.
The problem here is that Republicans are portraying regulations as the enemy instead of the public protection devise they really are.
The truth is, regulations only exist because some unscrupulous or ignorant person or corporation messed it up for the rest of us. When congress passed Dodd-Frank is was a result of banks acting badly not some imaginary lust for punishing big business. When a compounding facility in Massachusetts failed to operate within the law - causing a fungal meningitis outbreak that has claimed fifty lives so far - calls to increase regulations are an effort to prevent future issues not an affront to capitalism. And when Congress passed Sarbanes–Oxley it was a direct result of Enron's failure to self-regulate costing many their life savings and thousands of jobs not some socialist government overreach.
The vast majority of Americans would love it if their mortgage documents were a few short pages instead of a Stephen King like horror novel or if they could board a plane without having to take off half of their clothes however the same greed and drive that make capitalism so successful also leads to many doing whatever it takes to increase their share of the pie. Pretending that preventing these deviants from being able to act unimpeded is the main reason for our sluggish economy helps no one but the very corporate despoilers that precipitated the problems in the first place.
The reality is that even if one product is deemed unacceptable, the market demand for that product will still exist and whatever products fills the void should create an equivalent number of jobs. In the past, for example, when it was determined that asbestos and lead paint cost lives, the government, as the protector of the people, stepped in and essentially regulated these products out of business. Luckily at the time corporate money was much less important and the good of the people easily trumped "jobs" or any other misdirection corporations could dream up.
Did the country suddenly slip into a recession because the asbestos and lead paint industries no longer existed? No. Instead other companies that produced better products which were less harmful gain market share.
Today a similar war is being waged over coal, but now corporate money is wagging the dog and the good of the people has taken a backseat.
Employees in the coal industry are nearly seven times a likely to die on the job than similar occupations. They also miss four times as many days of work. Additionally some 24,000 people die each year from the affects of coal. So regardless of how many hypothetical jobs are lost in the conversion to clean energy, as long as another product is available and is less detrimental, we should support that change.
The problem here is that Republicans are portraying regulations as the enemy instead of the public protection devise they really are.
The truth is, regulations only exist because some unscrupulous or ignorant person or corporation messed it up for the rest of us. When congress passed Dodd-Frank is was a result of banks acting badly not some imaginary lust for punishing big business. When a compounding facility in Massachusetts failed to operate within the law - causing a fungal meningitis outbreak that has claimed fifty lives so far - calls to increase regulations are an effort to prevent future issues not an affront to capitalism. And when Congress passed Sarbanes–Oxley it was a direct result of Enron's failure to self-regulate costing many their life savings and thousands of jobs not some socialist government overreach.
The vast majority of Americans would love it if their mortgage documents were a few short pages instead of a Stephen King like horror novel or if they could board a plane without having to take off half of their clothes however the same greed and drive that make capitalism so successful also leads to many doing whatever it takes to increase their share of the pie. Pretending that preventing these deviants from being able to act unimpeded is the main reason for our sluggish economy helps no one but the very corporate despoilers that precipitated the problems in the first place.
Friday, April 5, 2013
The government and market greed
In an effort to extol the virtues of capitalism my colleague Gary Wolfram a piece in which he blames government cost controls for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Choosing money over life is un-American
In an attempt to drum up fear, the oil industry recently released data suggesting new EPA rules meant to clean up sulfur pollution from gasoline will add as much as $0.09 per gallon to the cost of fuel for your car. The EPA however feels the cost would be closer to $0.01 per gallon since refineries are already producing gasoline with the same specs for other countries.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
Gay Marriage, Bestiality and Polygamy - one of these things is not like the others
One of the queerest arguments I've heard against gay marriage is the slippery slope idea that if gays are allowed to get married then a man marrying an animal or a man having multiple wives is next.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Obama has time for NCAA bracket but not Federal Budget
Last week the good folks over at Breitbart.com and Fox News trotted out their latest in faux outrage - Obama filled out an NCAA bracket but didn't submit a Federal Budget. And of course good soldiers like Representative Tim Walberg were more than happy to fall in line and tweet their enmity.
I'm not sure how many brackets these people have filled out but if they are spending as much time on their NCAA brackets as they would a Federal Budget they are either investing way too much time on their bracket or way too little time on a Federal Budget.
Having said that, seeing someone like Tim Walberg call out the President for wasting time, is laughably ironic. 36 times now Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a vote that if successful would have to get by a presidential veto from the same guy have championed the legislation in the first place. And this doesn't just waste the time of one person. This involves valuable legislative time.
Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg. Rather than having substantive meetings working out meaningful compromises, Congress has become one big political advertisement where votes are mainly held to put the views of legislators on record. These include such symbolic votes as the Ryan budget, the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to increasing the D=debt-limit, the Bush tax cuts, internet sales tax, ban on abortions for "gender-selection", cutting DOJ salaries, and defunding Planned Parenthood, PBS, and NPR.
Not surprisingly, the complaints about what the president spends his time on are equally as symbolic since the issues surrounding the Federal Budget are significantly more involved than can possibly be explained in a tweet. But this is a sign of the times and a large part of the reason why congressional approval continues to hover in the teens. Politicians are constantly running for office which has forced them to treat members of the opposite party as combatants instead of colleagues. They have essentially become power hungry used car salesmen - willing to do anything to seal the deal.
I'm not sure how many brackets these people have filled out but if they are spending as much time on their NCAA brackets as they would a Federal Budget they are either investing way too much time on their bracket or way too little time on a Federal Budget.
Having said that, seeing someone like Tim Walberg call out the President for wasting time, is laughably ironic. 36 times now Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a vote that if successful would have to get by a presidential veto from the same guy have championed the legislation in the first place. And this doesn't just waste the time of one person. This involves valuable legislative time.
Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg. Rather than having substantive meetings working out meaningful compromises, Congress has become one big political advertisement where votes are mainly held to put the views of legislators on record. These include such symbolic votes as the Ryan budget, the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to increasing the D=debt-limit, the Bush tax cuts, internet sales tax, ban on abortions for "gender-selection", cutting DOJ salaries, and defunding Planned Parenthood, PBS, and NPR.
Not surprisingly, the complaints about what the president spends his time on are equally as symbolic since the issues surrounding the Federal Budget are significantly more involved than can possibly be explained in a tweet. But this is a sign of the times and a large part of the reason why congressional approval continues to hover in the teens. Politicians are constantly running for office which has forced them to treat members of the opposite party as combatants instead of colleagues. They have essentially become power hungry used car salesmen - willing to do anything to seal the deal.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Republican hypocrisy on Emergency Manager Protest
Republicans have got themselves whipped up into a frenzy over the protests Jesse Jackson has organized in opposition to the takeover of Detroit by the governor appointed Emergency Manager.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Better education requires smarter politicians.
When it comes to education the goal for changes we make to the system should be based on improvement. Unfortunately the Republican solutions seem to value privatization over all else.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
Climate change will kill us all!
Every time the weather gets a little colder that usual conservative conspiracy theories come out of the woodworks, thumping their chests and claiming the "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are just some liberal media hoax imagined by Al Gore and his posse of green corporate pirates (also known as "job creators" when lead by Republicans). And rather than supply anything that counters the litany of data that exists in opposition to their position they pretend that because they have to put on a winter hat and jacket they are suddenly experts in science.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The New Host Of UP?
There was something of a bombshell dropped last Wednesday night (3/13/13) when Ed Schultz abruptly, at least to the non-insider, announced he was abandoning the 8pm slot (M-F) in the MSNBC lineup. This announcement put the preimo time slot up for grabs (even if the show is likely destined to lose to Fox blowhard, Bill O'Reilly).
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Congress is the Post Office's biggest problem
If you watched any television this weekend you probably saw the National Association of Letter Carriers ad extolling the virtues of the US Postal service while spreading the fear of the diminished service Americans can expect from reduced hours and staff.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
