The response was predictable; as soon as word got out the president would be making a speech about reducing carbon pollution Republicans flipped back through their folder of poll tested pre-election talking points to "W" for "War on Coal". Update a few numbers and there you have it - President Obama is slowing ruining America and killing jobs with his obsession with having clean, breathable air.
Apparently to these Republicans nothing is more sacrosanct than jobs. And while lives trumped jobs back in the days of lead paint, mercury, and asbestos - at this point it seems the estimated 13,000 lives lost each year due to coal power are less important than the potential 16,000 jobs the president's new initiatives could eliminate.
Of course if Republicans are really serious about increasing employment regardless of the costs, there is plenty of good news available. Outside of passing the American Jobs Act that the president proposed the congress could also reverse the hiring trend in the public sector that has cost the economy over 600,000 jobs since 2009. Additionally it is estimated that the sequester cuts, which are starting to impact the employment status of many, especially those in the defense industry, will eliminate some 750,000 jobs this year.
But even beyond government jobs there are plenty of other opportunities to boost the economy that Republicans should support if jobs are our number one consideration. The recent gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court for instance will induce hundreds of millions of dollars of new economic activity, as well as increasing tax revenue. Perhaps being gay is an abomination in the eyes of the lord but it still creates jobs.
Since 1982 the US has shut down over 1,000 abortion clinics. Obviously the closure of these facilities due to government regulations and red tape, restricting abortions across the country, have cost jobs which we could easily restore with some common sense changes that loosen government restrictions. This may lead to an increase in aborted fetuses but really what's more important here?
We should also consider ending the drug war. According to a report by the Cato Institute the legalization of cannabis alone would generate tens of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue for states. Maybe millions of people will become addicted to drugs they would have never had access to before but personal responsibility right?
And while it may lead to more crime and human trafficking, legalizing prostitution is certain to boost employment and add to government coffers. I think we can all agree that safety should take a back seat to jobs.
Clearly these are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to job creation but if we are serious about fixing the economy, the only possible way to accomplish this goal is to completely abandon the "good of the people" meme that our government operates under and expand job opportunities where ever possible. Otherwise we stand to lose valuable jobs like those in the coal industry that can't just be replaced by some free market clean energy solution.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Insuring corporate profits at the expense of consumers
Across the country as the economy took a turn for the worse in late 2007 many saw an opportunity to reduce the size of government, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut benefits for the most needy. And while these austerity measures were good at putting money in the hands of the rich and big corporations they hurt the middle class and the poor.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Broken bureaucracy bad for education
If you happen to be on Governor Snyder's email list you know he has been talking up his education policy recently. The most recent promotional item being offered up by the governor’s office is the claim that state education spending has increased each year of his term.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
Friday, June 14, 2013
The merit pay disconnect
Given that the Michigan legislature is considering merit pay for public teachers, conservatives are attempting to convince residents that this free market idea is essential to improving educational outcomes. Unfortunately these articles tend to be heavy on opinion and light on data showing that merit pay actually improves educational outcomes.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
Monday, June 10, 2013
How to correct poltical correctness
Much has been made recently of the flippant statement Sergio Garcia made when discussing his squabble with Tiger Woods. While Sergio subsequently apologized for his remarks, the issue of political correctness is a source of much consternation for many conservatives.
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Monday, June 3, 2013
Free market solutions do not equal better educational outcomes
Given the recent Mackinac Conference many people are talking about ways to improve education. My colleague Gary Wolfram took his usual economic view of politics to discuss the meme regarding more education spending leading to better educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
The Merit Pay double standard
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
