Many Republicans have been concerned about the federal deficit since George W. Bush turned a surplus into a deficit with increased spending and tax cuts but as soon as Barack Obama was elected president this concern quickly transformed into an obsession.
To many, this has become such a dire situation that 20 states are now calling for a constitutional convention to include a balanced budget amendment into the US constitution. The most recent state to add fuel to this balanced budget fire is Michigan where Republican Governor Rick Snyder stated in his state of the state address "Hey we balance our budget at home, we balance our budget at work, why can't the federal government balance theirs?"
While most Republicans would probably agree with the governor's statement, the reality is this just isn't true. Companies and households do not balance their budgets. Of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 only 23 are debt free. The same is true of households, where 69 % hold some form of debt. So if the truth is that neither companies nor households balance their budgets then using the Republicans own logic it follows that the government doesn't need to either.
The real question shouldn't be about a balanced budget but rather how the money is spent. As the CNBC article on corporate debt explains "Wall Street doesn't seem to care if companies are carrying debt on their balance sheets – as long as they are putting that money to work." Smart companies will incur debt if that debt has a return on investment. This is also the case with the government.
In the 80's Ronald Reagan oversaw a 3.1 increase in government jobs which stands in stark contrast to the 2.7 reduction in government jobs under President Obama. Regan also increased the national debt by 186% which dwarfs the 44% increase by Barack Obama, the 101% increase by George W. Bush and the 32% increase by Bill Clinton.
What Reagan understood was that during down times investments in government jobs, even at the expense of the national debt, keeps more people working and spending money which prevents the private sector jobs losses that compound the problem.
Of course many Republicans act like there is only one side to the government balance sheet. Since 2000 real government revenues have fallen by $249 billion. Similarly since 2009 real government spending has fallen by $226 billion.
The data shows that the Bush tax cuts cost the government $2.8 trillion. Studies also show that tax cuts, not hikes, cause an increase in the size of government and the national debt. These real world realities run 100% counter to the talking point Republicans continue to try and sell year after year. Perhaps the real problem isn't the money the government spends but the lack of money the government collects.
Additionally, Republicans supported nearly unlimited funding to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any of the tax increases associated with past wars or spending cuts that they insist are required currently for any new spending. These wars have already cost US taxpayers $2 trillion and are expected to cost another $2 to $4 trillion.
Does anyone really think that a balanced budget amendment would have stopped George W. Bush from going to war? After all everyone seems to agree that "in case of emergency" the government could simply ignore the balanced budget requirement of any balanced budget amendment.
This possibility is one of the biggest problems with a balanced budget amendment. Republicans think we must have this amendment because we can't trust congress to act responsibly yet who are the architects of the balanced budget amendment that 20 states want enshrined into the constitution? The very same congress that can't be trusted in the first place. Also, does anyone seriously think that these big spending politicians with a 10% approval rating aren't going to find loopholes that will render this amendment moot?
No one argues that the government shouldn't be more prudent with its money, but a balanced budget amendment does almost nothing to address the underlying problems that lead to wasteful spending. Make an amendment that prevents the typical quid pro quo between politicians and large donors, keeps the military from paying $1,000 for a hammer, stops fraud in government services, cuts medical costs to match world norms, eliminates corporate welfare, and ends the billions in cost overruns.
Odds are, such an amendment still wouldn't pass since there is way too much money at stake, but the reality is that Republicans really don't want a balanced budget because if they couldn't feign concern for the national debt when Democrats were in charge they would be stuck talking about immigration, women's rights, marriage equality and a host of other topics that exposes the bigotry of their core values.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Can Michigan really trust Rick Snyder?
For two years Rick Snyder claimed "Right to work" legislation was too divisive and not on his agenda. Shortly after the 2012 elections Rick Snyder changed his mind. Given how divisive "Right to work" would be, it should come as no surprise that the governor would want to insulate Republican members of the state house and senate from taking a potentially damaging vote that would expose their true intentions shortly before an election. The governor however tells a different story.
In the governor's mind he was essentially forced to consider "Right to work" after unions attempted to enshrine their rights in the states constitution. Never mind that the measure was defeated which meant union rights in the state were no different than the previous two year when Rick Snyder was against "right to work". No, by even asking residents to consider a small measure of certainty for unions, Governor Snyder was required to retaliate. What other choice did he have?
So there you have it - if you mess with Rick Snyder there will be hell to pay. Either you work with the governor and bend to his will or he will forced to change his opinion in the name of retribution.
This means that anyone that pushed the voter ID law that the governor opposed is now on notice. So too are other groups like the NRA who attempted to get concealed weapons in schools even though Rick Snyder dismissed such a measure previously, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce who supported a bill that would make it harder for the Michigan treasury to collect unpaid business taxes, and the Moroun family, who own the Ambassador bridge and backed a proposal that would prevent the governor from building a second Detroit to Windsor bridge.
While we can only assume the governor is taking his time to determine the proper punishment for these dissenters, the group that should really be most concerned about experiencing the wrath of Rick Snyder are Right to Life. Not only did they push for legislation that the governor eventually vetoed - they refused to accept the governor's decision and launched a petition drive to get new abortion restrictions put in place. After gathering signatures from only 3% of Michigan residents, RTL were able to bypass Rick Snyder and enact the very law the governor opposed.
If the disobedience of unions meant an immediate 180 degree change for the governor, one can only imagine the fire and brimstone that will soon shower Right to Life since not only did they disobey his wishes, but they also publicly embarrassed him by turning one tough nerd into one irrelevant bystander.
Of course it's possible that "Right to work" had nothing to do with Proposal 2 and that the governor was being disingenuous when he suggested this legislation was just a natural counteraction to the unions actions, but really, when has there ever been a powerful businessman that was willing to lie to get his way?
In the governor's mind he was essentially forced to consider "Right to work" after unions attempted to enshrine their rights in the states constitution. Never mind that the measure was defeated which meant union rights in the state were no different than the previous two year when Rick Snyder was against "right to work". No, by even asking residents to consider a small measure of certainty for unions, Governor Snyder was required to retaliate. What other choice did he have?
So there you have it - if you mess with Rick Snyder there will be hell to pay. Either you work with the governor and bend to his will or he will forced to change his opinion in the name of retribution.
This means that anyone that pushed the voter ID law that the governor opposed is now on notice. So too are other groups like the NRA who attempted to get concealed weapons in schools even though Rick Snyder dismissed such a measure previously, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce who supported a bill that would make it harder for the Michigan treasury to collect unpaid business taxes, and the Moroun family, who own the Ambassador bridge and backed a proposal that would prevent the governor from building a second Detroit to Windsor bridge.
While we can only assume the governor is taking his time to determine the proper punishment for these dissenters, the group that should really be most concerned about experiencing the wrath of Rick Snyder are Right to Life. Not only did they push for legislation that the governor eventually vetoed - they refused to accept the governor's decision and launched a petition drive to get new abortion restrictions put in place. After gathering signatures from only 3% of Michigan residents, RTL were able to bypass Rick Snyder and enact the very law the governor opposed.
If the disobedience of unions meant an immediate 180 degree change for the governor, one can only imagine the fire and brimstone that will soon shower Right to Life since not only did they disobey his wishes, but they also publicly embarrassed him by turning one tough nerd into one irrelevant bystander.
Of course it's possible that "Right to work" had nothing to do with Proposal 2 and that the governor was being disingenuous when he suggested this legislation was just a natural counteraction to the unions actions, but really, when has there ever been a powerful businessman that was willing to lie to get his way?
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Military pension cuts prove hypocrisy of Republicans
Over the past few decades the attitude towards military personnel has shifted to the point where now individuals of all political ideologies consider our military personnel as inviolable. Polls show that the military favorability rating has nearly doubled compared to the last 30 years of the 20th century.
With this in mind it should come as no surprise that after learning the details of the new budget deal agreed to by congress Veterans groups as well as many politicians voiced their displeasure with the cuts to military pensions. While the concern from past and present service members is completely understandable the complaints from Republican legislators is peculiar.
Since the start of the great recession the public sector has taken pay cuts or had their pay frozen, asked to pay a higher portion of their retirement and health care costs, while also losing 750,000 jobs. Conversely military personnel have not been asked to take a pay cut, do not contribute to their pensions and have seen an increase in their numbers.
It should also be noted that one of the biggest complaints from conservatives about public sector jobs is that many require union membership. While the military is not officially a union it certainly operates an awful lot like a union. For example if you want to defend your country from bad guys the government has a monopoly on this work and regardless of how good you are at your job you will make no more or no less than your peers. The military also has a history of protecting their members, who have committed unlawful acts, from losing their jobs.
Additionally according to TodaysMilitary.com servicemen make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts while also being able to retire with only 20 years of service. This means you could be done working and receive retirement pay for life by age 38. Of course not only will they get paid for life they will also receive healthcare for life at absurdly low rates.
If not getting paid based on your abilities, having great benefits, and higher pay than the private sector are problems for public sector unions, why are they not also troubling when it comes to the military?
Most will justify these benefits by suggesting that military jobs are dangerous yet 91% of military jobs don't involved direct combat operations. There is no adjustment in retirement benefits based on the time spent in combat. All military personnel get the same package regardless of the risk associated with their position.
But even if danger was a reason for good pay, great benefits, and public adoration there are certainly other jobs, such as fishing and logging workers, that have higher mortality rates then the general service member. Where is the concern from congress for the wages and benefits of these professions?
We also have a number of public sector jobs, such as policemen and firefighters, where people risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of this country, yet their pay and benefits have not been shielded from the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric many politicians used to attack public sector workers.
The reality is most people would probably agree with the words of Senator Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi when he said "It is unfair to make a promise to members of our military and then – after they have honorably fulfilled every part of their obligation – have their government fail to live up to its part of the bargain,". But the question the Republicans who are fighting to restore the cuts to military pensions really need to answer is what makes all of these other brave men and women that work for the government less deserving of good pay, great benefits, and public adoration?
With this in mind it should come as no surprise that after learning the details of the new budget deal agreed to by congress Veterans groups as well as many politicians voiced their displeasure with the cuts to military pensions. While the concern from past and present service members is completely understandable the complaints from Republican legislators is peculiar.
Since the start of the great recession the public sector has taken pay cuts or had their pay frozen, asked to pay a higher portion of their retirement and health care costs, while also losing 750,000 jobs. Conversely military personnel have not been asked to take a pay cut, do not contribute to their pensions and have seen an increase in their numbers.
It should also be noted that one of the biggest complaints from conservatives about public sector jobs is that many require union membership. While the military is not officially a union it certainly operates an awful lot like a union. For example if you want to defend your country from bad guys the government has a monopoly on this work and regardless of how good you are at your job you will make no more or no less than your peers. The military also has a history of protecting their members, who have committed unlawful acts, from losing their jobs.
Additionally according to TodaysMilitary.com servicemen make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts while also being able to retire with only 20 years of service. This means you could be done working and receive retirement pay for life by age 38. Of course not only will they get paid for life they will also receive healthcare for life at absurdly low rates.
If not getting paid based on your abilities, having great benefits, and higher pay than the private sector are problems for public sector unions, why are they not also troubling when it comes to the military?
Most will justify these benefits by suggesting that military jobs are dangerous yet 91% of military jobs don't involved direct combat operations. There is no adjustment in retirement benefits based on the time spent in combat. All military personnel get the same package regardless of the risk associated with their position.
But even if danger was a reason for good pay, great benefits, and public adoration there are certainly other jobs, such as fishing and logging workers, that have higher mortality rates then the general service member. Where is the concern from congress for the wages and benefits of these professions?
We also have a number of public sector jobs, such as policemen and firefighters, where people risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of this country, yet their pay and benefits have not been shielded from the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric many politicians used to attack public sector workers.
The reality is most people would probably agree with the words of Senator Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi when he said "It is unfair to make a promise to members of our military and then – after they have honorably fulfilled every part of their obligation – have their government fail to live up to its part of the bargain,". But the question the Republicans who are fighting to restore the cuts to military pensions really need to answer is what makes all of these other brave men and women that work for the government less deserving of good pay, great benefits, and public adoration?
Friday, January 17, 2014
The NSA is scary good
Since June of 2013 when Edward Snowden released government documents confirming the existence of various data gathering methods used by the NSA there has been a lot of discussions surrounding the value of these programs. Many of these same conversations also occurred in 2006 when it was reveled that the NSA was collecting data from billions of phone call made by normal citizens. Curiously the support for these programs seems to be very closely tied to the political leanings of the commander and chief. For example in 2006 with a Republican in office 71% of Republicans supported the actions of the NSA. Conversely with a Democrat in office Republican approval plummeted to 32%.
While bringing to light the nefarious actions of the NSA exposed the depth of partisan politics as well as the extent to which government officials value data over privacy it also unveiled the fallacy of a popular political meme.
For years now many have decried the incompetence of government entities. This perceived incompetence is often the rationale used by many political pundits and politicians advocate for converting public sector jobs to private sector functions. While studies have shown that for the vast majority of jobs the private sector actually costs more than the public sector the NSA scandal shows just how advanced our government can be.
The US has a long history of technological achievements which originated with the government. These inventions include microprocessors; RAM memory; hard disk drives; liquid-crystal displays; lithium batteries; the Internet; cellular technology and networks; global positioning system (GPS); multi-touch screens. Now we also find out that many of the bastions of technology in the private sector were unable to prevent the data mining activities of the government.
These companies had built up security to thwart the attacks of expert hackers and then doubled their efforts to protect against Chinese cyber espionage but they were oblivious to the backdoor access the US government had been exploiting as far back as 2008.
Perhaps the greatest trick our government ever pulled was convincing vast sums of Americans that they were incompetent. No matter how many examples that exist exposing this fallacy, having a faithful congregation devoted to this belief is paramount to the corporate elites who profit from such a meme.
Snowden proved just how scary good our government can be. But it's the people who chose to ignore that reality that pose the biggest danger.
While bringing to light the nefarious actions of the NSA exposed the depth of partisan politics as well as the extent to which government officials value data over privacy it also unveiled the fallacy of a popular political meme.
For years now many have decried the incompetence of government entities. This perceived incompetence is often the rationale used by many political pundits and politicians advocate for converting public sector jobs to private sector functions. While studies have shown that for the vast majority of jobs the private sector actually costs more than the public sector the NSA scandal shows just how advanced our government can be.
The US has a long history of technological achievements which originated with the government. These inventions include microprocessors; RAM memory; hard disk drives; liquid-crystal displays; lithium batteries; the Internet; cellular technology and networks; global positioning system (GPS); multi-touch screens. Now we also find out that many of the bastions of technology in the private sector were unable to prevent the data mining activities of the government.
These companies had built up security to thwart the attacks of expert hackers and then doubled their efforts to protect against Chinese cyber espionage but they were oblivious to the backdoor access the US government had been exploiting as far back as 2008.
Perhaps the greatest trick our government ever pulled was convincing vast sums of Americans that they were incompetent. No matter how many examples that exist exposing this fallacy, having a faithful congregation devoted to this belief is paramount to the corporate elites who profit from such a meme.
Snowden proved just how scary good our government can be. But it's the people who chose to ignore that reality that pose the biggest danger.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Chris Christie unabridged and unpresidential
Not too long ago the right was up in arms over a scandal at the IRS. To them it exposed a litany of truths they had long believed about the Obama administration. It proved they would use the power of the office to punish the opposition. It proved they were arrogant. It proved they were Chicago style thugs. It proved that they were liars. And to some it proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president.
If conservatives find this type of behavior concerning they might want to take a closer look at the recent scandal surrounding the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President, Chris Christie.
Apparently some of the governors top officials worked with a few close political allies at the port authority to shut down a number of access lanes for the George Washington bridge as political retribution. While the port authority employees involved resigned weeks ago Chris Christie and his staff continued to proclaim their innocence up until a few days ago when emails were released showing the involvement of some Christie staffers.
Using political power to punish the opposition - Check.
Arrogantly believing these indiscretions would never see the light of day - Check.
Acting like thugs - Check.
Lying - Check.
Many believed Barack Obama had ordered the additional scrutiny delivered by the IRS and found the presidents denials completely unbelievable. There were more than a few articles which claimed the president was either lying or incompetent. Obviously the same logic applies for Chris Christie. Are we supposed to believe he was completely unaware of the actions of his Deputy Chief of staff? Assuming he is not lying about his involvement there are litany of other questions that suggest incompetence on his part.
This incident occurred more than a month ago yet Chris Christie took no action until emails were released proving the involvement of his staff. Was he lying to protect his Deputy Chief of staff or was he that oblivious as to the actions of the person he hired as one of his top officials? Having that little control over his employees certainly wouldn't suggest Chris Christie is ready to be the leader of the free world.
While many will probably attempt to dismiss this scandal as the actions of one rogue or misguided staffer Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote on Fox News that this sort of brazen political activity was not an anomaly for the Christie administration. In fact it could be considered the hallmark of his governing style.
The disappointing reality is that people in power do lots of unscrupulous things. Be it manipulating the mortgage market to increase profits or using political power to stay in power. The people deserve better. But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that most of those who thought the IRS scandal proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president will find a way to dismiss the bridge scandal as an aberration while others will undoubtedly suggest that not only is this a non story but that it actually proves just how presidential Chris Christies is.
If conservatives find this type of behavior concerning they might want to take a closer look at the recent scandal surrounding the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President, Chris Christie.
Apparently some of the governors top officials worked with a few close political allies at the port authority to shut down a number of access lanes for the George Washington bridge as political retribution. While the port authority employees involved resigned weeks ago Chris Christie and his staff continued to proclaim their innocence up until a few days ago when emails were released showing the involvement of some Christie staffers.
Using political power to punish the opposition - Check.
Arrogantly believing these indiscretions would never see the light of day - Check.
Acting like thugs - Check.
Lying - Check.
Many believed Barack Obama had ordered the additional scrutiny delivered by the IRS and found the presidents denials completely unbelievable. There were more than a few articles which claimed the president was either lying or incompetent. Obviously the same logic applies for Chris Christie. Are we supposed to believe he was completely unaware of the actions of his Deputy Chief of staff? Assuming he is not lying about his involvement there are litany of other questions that suggest incompetence on his part.
This incident occurred more than a month ago yet Chris Christie took no action until emails were released proving the involvement of his staff. Was he lying to protect his Deputy Chief of staff or was he that oblivious as to the actions of the person he hired as one of his top officials? Having that little control over his employees certainly wouldn't suggest Chris Christie is ready to be the leader of the free world.
While many will probably attempt to dismiss this scandal as the actions of one rogue or misguided staffer Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote on Fox News that this sort of brazen political activity was not an anomaly for the Christie administration. In fact it could be considered the hallmark of his governing style.
The disappointing reality is that people in power do lots of unscrupulous things. Be it manipulating the mortgage market to increase profits or using political power to stay in power. The people deserve better. But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that most of those who thought the IRS scandal proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president will find a way to dismiss the bridge scandal as an aberration while others will undoubtedly suggest that not only is this a non story but that it actually proves just how presidential Chris Christies is.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Fixing the economy through collective bargaining
Much of this past year workers in the fast food industry have been taking action to get better wages. While there is certainly a debate as to whether an increase in the minimum wage is the proper vehicle to facilitate this change there is little denying the fact that income inequality is on the rise and hurting the entire economy.
Data shows that corporations are bringing in record profits while wages are at an all time low. Additionally, while wages for the middle class are essentially stagnate the top 10% set a new record as they now bring in more than half of the countries income yet spend a much lower portion of their income. Studies show that the rich save a greater percentage of their income while simultaneously putting less back into the economy.
Trickledown economics only works if the rich spend their money or if corporations use profits to hire more people. Unfortunately both of these things are decreasing instead of increasing as a greater portion of company profits heads towards top executives and away from other employees.
A giant stumbling block in lowering income equality is the American dream. In the past it was believed anyone could rise from the bottom and become successful in the US. Unfortunately the US is no longer the world leader when it comes to social mobility. As a matter of fact children of wealthy parents who don't attend college are 2.5 times more likely to be wealthy than children of poor parents who follow the "work hard" tenant of the American dream and get a college degree. Essentially regardless of the amount of hard work you put in it is extremely difficult to move from the bottom to the top.
But this reality doesn't stop many at the top from perpetuating this fallacy for their own benefit. Instead, this sleight of hand is used to justify the outrageous gains those at the top have made suggesting that if you work hard you too can become a millionaire. Thanks to this meme the average American believes that the US is filled with nearly four times as many millionaires as there really are.
The reality is that there are fewer rich people in the US then many would have you believe and regardless of effort the majority of those that make it big already had a seat reserved by their parents before they got there.
The solution to these problems is to get the average working class citizen a greater piece of the pie. This can be done with government mandates like minimum wage and redistribution via taxes however those are not necessarily the most effective methods and can potentially negatively affect businesses. The best course of action for these fast food workers is to unionize. Data shows that the higher the percentage of workers that are in unions the lower the income equality is.
By coordinating a strike these workers have already taken a first step to organizing. Once organized these workers would be able to hire profession negotiators to sit down at the table and find a common ground that benefits the employees and the companies they work for.
A common belief among those who oppose unions is that each employee should negotiate for themselves however while many union employees are highly skilled at the jobs they perform they are not trained negotiators. Suggesting that individual employees handle the negotiations of their benefits and pay with fortune 500 companies is not much different than expecting people to act as their own attorney. Sure you can do it but most people would be better off hiring a professional.
Contrary to popular talking points unions are not out to fleece the companies they work with. Ask any high ranking union official and they will tell you they want the company to be successful because in the end, any agreement should benefit both parties. As Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a recent interview "both the management and the unions signed these agreements over the years and we ended up not being competitive. In Fords case we worked together, we redid all the agreements and that's why we are now bringing products back to the United States".
Greater union membership would also alleviate a number of Republican's concerns as well. They complain that the rich pay too much tax. Luckily unions are adept at helping employees get a greater share of company profits. This means that the people at the top would have less taxable income. Republicans also feel that too few individuals contribute to the US tax system and want to broaden the base. Again, since unions make sure workers bring home more of the profits they help their companies achieve they also make sure that less people "pay no taxes".
In the end the best way for American workers to get their fair share is to avoid government intervention and instead rely on free market principles. No individual can match the power of a corporation, but an organized collection of individuals can work with these corporations to create an environment where everyone wins.
Data shows that corporations are bringing in record profits while wages are at an all time low. Additionally, while wages for the middle class are essentially stagnate the top 10% set a new record as they now bring in more than half of the countries income yet spend a much lower portion of their income. Studies show that the rich save a greater percentage of their income while simultaneously putting less back into the economy.
Trickledown economics only works if the rich spend their money or if corporations use profits to hire more people. Unfortunately both of these things are decreasing instead of increasing as a greater portion of company profits heads towards top executives and away from other employees.
A giant stumbling block in lowering income equality is the American dream. In the past it was believed anyone could rise from the bottom and become successful in the US. Unfortunately the US is no longer the world leader when it comes to social mobility. As a matter of fact children of wealthy parents who don't attend college are 2.5 times more likely to be wealthy than children of poor parents who follow the "work hard" tenant of the American dream and get a college degree. Essentially regardless of the amount of hard work you put in it is extremely difficult to move from the bottom to the top.
But this reality doesn't stop many at the top from perpetuating this fallacy for their own benefit. Instead, this sleight of hand is used to justify the outrageous gains those at the top have made suggesting that if you work hard you too can become a millionaire. Thanks to this meme the average American believes that the US is filled with nearly four times as many millionaires as there really are.
The reality is that there are fewer rich people in the US then many would have you believe and regardless of effort the majority of those that make it big already had a seat reserved by their parents before they got there.
The solution to these problems is to get the average working class citizen a greater piece of the pie. This can be done with government mandates like minimum wage and redistribution via taxes however those are not necessarily the most effective methods and can potentially negatively affect businesses. The best course of action for these fast food workers is to unionize. Data shows that the higher the percentage of workers that are in unions the lower the income equality is.
By coordinating a strike these workers have already taken a first step to organizing. Once organized these workers would be able to hire profession negotiators to sit down at the table and find a common ground that benefits the employees and the companies they work for.
A common belief among those who oppose unions is that each employee should negotiate for themselves however while many union employees are highly skilled at the jobs they perform they are not trained negotiators. Suggesting that individual employees handle the negotiations of their benefits and pay with fortune 500 companies is not much different than expecting people to act as their own attorney. Sure you can do it but most people would be better off hiring a professional.
Contrary to popular talking points unions are not out to fleece the companies they work with. Ask any high ranking union official and they will tell you they want the company to be successful because in the end, any agreement should benefit both parties. As Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a recent interview "both the management and the unions signed these agreements over the years and we ended up not being competitive. In Fords case we worked together, we redid all the agreements and that's why we are now bringing products back to the United States".
Greater union membership would also alleviate a number of Republican's concerns as well. They complain that the rich pay too much tax. Luckily unions are adept at helping employees get a greater share of company profits. This means that the people at the top would have less taxable income. Republicans also feel that too few individuals contribute to the US tax system and want to broaden the base. Again, since unions make sure workers bring home more of the profits they help their companies achieve they also make sure that less people "pay no taxes".
In the end the best way for American workers to get their fair share is to avoid government intervention and instead rely on free market principles. No individual can match the power of a corporation, but an organized collection of individuals can work with these corporations to create an environment where everyone wins.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The hypocrisy of the "War on Christmas"
It's that time of year again - time for all Fox News contributors to feign outrage at every person, place or thing that doesn't overtly include Christ in their holiday experience.
While the finger is often pointed at atheists a large number of complaints from the right involve corporations. Yet the motivation for these corporations to shun Christianity and say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is capitalism and the free market. If using the term "Merry Christmas" moved more product every company would do so. Given that many do not, research must show that these businesses are better off using the term "Happy Holidays". The only god these corporate "people" worship is the all mighty dollar. Fox News can shame them as much as they want but unless the economics of "Merry Christmas" change, companies will continue to use data, not faith to define their message.
Having said that, the question of religious freedom is certainly not one that Christians have shied away from recently.
For example a number of "Christians" have argued that due to their religious freedom they should be able to deny their employees birth control as part of the health insurance. Some have suggested that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to certain individuals because doing so would be against their religious beliefs. Others have fought to keep same sex couples from getting married because their interpretation of the bible says this is wrong. There have also been those that claim a doctor should be able to turn away certain patients if the procedure they require conflicts with the doctor's religious convictions.
One would think that a group of people who are so cognizant of every possible situation where their religious rights might be infringed upon would be more aware of the religious rights of those who they foist their religious symbols and prose upon each holiday season.
Ironically this is an eye for eye situation. The more Christian groups use "religious freedom" as the impetus to perpetrate perceived discrimination the more push back they are going to get from non-Christians about having Christian symbols or gatherings at government buildings.
By and large the majority of non-Christians really don't care how much Christ Christians put in Christmas. If a life size manger display gets you in the Christmas spirit, by all means set one up in your yard. If acknowledging the birth of Jesus Christ in your celebration gives you that yuletide feeling then "Merry Christmas" to everyone you see. But recognize that not everyone has the same beliefs and regardless of how many of these people there are, their right to religious freedom is no less important than that of Christians.
If only there was a trusted voice that these well meaning Christians could turn to as an example of how to proceed in such a situation. The only thing that comes to mind is a quote from a good book that says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you". Because apparently even two thousand years ago, hubris made it difficult for many to perceive the hypocrisy of their own actions.
While the finger is often pointed at atheists a large number of complaints from the right involve corporations. Yet the motivation for these corporations to shun Christianity and say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is capitalism and the free market. If using the term "Merry Christmas" moved more product every company would do so. Given that many do not, research must show that these businesses are better off using the term "Happy Holidays". The only god these corporate "people" worship is the all mighty dollar. Fox News can shame them as much as they want but unless the economics of "Merry Christmas" change, companies will continue to use data, not faith to define their message.
Having said that, the question of religious freedom is certainly not one that Christians have shied away from recently.
For example a number of "Christians" have argued that due to their religious freedom they should be able to deny their employees birth control as part of the health insurance. Some have suggested that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to certain individuals because doing so would be against their religious beliefs. Others have fought to keep same sex couples from getting married because their interpretation of the bible says this is wrong. There have also been those that claim a doctor should be able to turn away certain patients if the procedure they require conflicts with the doctor's religious convictions.
One would think that a group of people who are so cognizant of every possible situation where their religious rights might be infringed upon would be more aware of the religious rights of those who they foist their religious symbols and prose upon each holiday season.
Ironically this is an eye for eye situation. The more Christian groups use "religious freedom" as the impetus to perpetrate perceived discrimination the more push back they are going to get from non-Christians about having Christian symbols or gatherings at government buildings.
By and large the majority of non-Christians really don't care how much Christ Christians put in Christmas. If a life size manger display gets you in the Christmas spirit, by all means set one up in your yard. If acknowledging the birth of Jesus Christ in your celebration gives you that yuletide feeling then "Merry Christmas" to everyone you see. But recognize that not everyone has the same beliefs and regardless of how many of these people there are, their right to religious freedom is no less important than that of Christians.
If only there was a trusted voice that these well meaning Christians could turn to as an example of how to proceed in such a situation. The only thing that comes to mind is a quote from a good book that says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you". Because apparently even two thousand years ago, hubris made it difficult for many to perceive the hypocrisy of their own actions.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Problems with Obamacare don't prove private sector superiority
The main stream media has been very focused recently on every problem with the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare). There are plenty of things not to like about the ACA and in particular the website launch but many in the media have taken this as an opportunity to push as common conservative platitude - anything the public sector can do the private sector can do better.
While prevalent, there is example after example after example where this meme has been proven wrong.
Of course we need look no further than our most recent financial crisis to see an illustration of the kind of wide spread disaster the public sector can create.
One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is the failure of the website to function properly. Due to this failure few have been able to actually obtain the insurance they were promised. On the other hand the mortgage banks set up such a complicated system that they lost promissory notes that gives them ownership of a mortgage. If you believe Republican talking points losing the document necessary to uphold the terms of an agreement is something only the government would do.
Another issue with the ACA is that some people are losing the insurance they had even after the President said they could keep it. On the other hand the mortgage banks errantly foreclosed on some 4 million Americans. By comparison the inconvenience of being falsely forcibly removed from your home seems a tad bit worse than having your inadequate insurance policy canceled.
Also a concern about the ACA is the additional burden it puts on young Americans with higher premium rates. On the other hand mortgage rates jumped without any corresponding increase in the loan rate from the Federal Government. Over a 12 month period the profit margin for new mortgages nearly doubled. This rise in profits for the mortgage banks has resulted in higher costs for new home buyers while negatively affecting the home sales market. At least the extra cost of health care gets you better coverage and saves you money on the back end.
Partially based on these problems and the distain for the ACA, House Republicans met to discuss possible impeachment hearings for the President. On the other hand a company called Blackstone Group recently used the same credit default swaps some consider the reason for the mortgage crisis to bilk another company out of over $15 million. Lesser acts of cheating would get you arrested in Vegas. The response to this possibly illegal and definitely immoral activity? Nothing. No hearings. No new regulations. No arrests. No one held accountable.
For all the good the free market can do the bottom line in the private sector is profits and this goal is typically at odds with doing what is best for the public good. The public sector is far from a perfect entity but however flawed it may be it pales in to the comparison to those who believe that simply converting public sector programs on to private sector payrolls will suddenly solve the problems.
While prevalent, there is example after example after example where this meme has been proven wrong.
Of course we need look no further than our most recent financial crisis to see an illustration of the kind of wide spread disaster the public sector can create.
One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is the failure of the website to function properly. Due to this failure few have been able to actually obtain the insurance they were promised. On the other hand the mortgage banks set up such a complicated system that they lost promissory notes that gives them ownership of a mortgage. If you believe Republican talking points losing the document necessary to uphold the terms of an agreement is something only the government would do.
Another issue with the ACA is that some people are losing the insurance they had even after the President said they could keep it. On the other hand the mortgage banks errantly foreclosed on some 4 million Americans. By comparison the inconvenience of being falsely forcibly removed from your home seems a tad bit worse than having your inadequate insurance policy canceled.
Also a concern about the ACA is the additional burden it puts on young Americans with higher premium rates. On the other hand mortgage rates jumped without any corresponding increase in the loan rate from the Federal Government. Over a 12 month period the profit margin for new mortgages nearly doubled. This rise in profits for the mortgage banks has resulted in higher costs for new home buyers while negatively affecting the home sales market. At least the extra cost of health care gets you better coverage and saves you money on the back end.
Partially based on these problems and the distain for the ACA, House Republicans met to discuss possible impeachment hearings for the President. On the other hand a company called Blackstone Group recently used the same credit default swaps some consider the reason for the mortgage crisis to bilk another company out of over $15 million. Lesser acts of cheating would get you arrested in Vegas. The response to this possibly illegal and definitely immoral activity? Nothing. No hearings. No new regulations. No arrests. No one held accountable.
For all the good the free market can do the bottom line in the private sector is profits and this goal is typically at odds with doing what is best for the public good. The public sector is far from a perfect entity but however flawed it may be it pales in to the comparison to those who believe that simply converting public sector programs on to private sector payrolls will suddenly solve the problems.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Conservatives unpatriotically rooting for Obamacare failure
The main stream media has been obsessed with comparing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) with various failures by the previous administration. The comparisons have included "the ACA is Obama's" - 9/11, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, or Medicare part D. But the most popular of these analogies seems to be Hurricane Katrina.
And while there is a litany of problems with this talking point the most disturbing point is how many conservatives are rooting for the failure of the ACA and humbly declaring victory with every set back.
Just imagine if people in the 1990's who thought the government wasn't paying enough attention to terrorist organizations came out after the 9/11 attacks and celebrated the successful attacks because it proved they were right.
Before we invaded Iraq there were certainly those that argued against such an action. Conservatives would have howled that using the deaths of American soldiers as an opportunity to say "I told you so" was at the very least unpatriotic if not treasonous.
What if those who had been urging the government to consider additional reinforcement for the levies in New Orleans before Katrina went on television after the levies broke and declared this a victory because it showed they were right?
For a group that was furious that the president supposedly "spiked the ball" on certain occasions this gloating is embarrassingly hypocritical. Perhaps their hubris would be more palatable if they had a better plan - or a plan at all for that matter.
Of course not only do they not have a plan they are also willfully standing in the way of progress. Much has been made about those whose insurance policies are being canceled due to the ACA however it should be noted that thanks to provisions in the bill all of these people can get a more robust policy which may or may not cost more money. The same cannot be said for the nearly 5 million Americans that will not be covered under the ACA's Medicaid expansion thanks to a number of Republican governors who refuse to accept this change for their state.
The main reason for their rejection - money. Of course denying this change will not stop these individuals from going to the hospital for treatment nor will it reduce the ever increasing costs of medical care. All it really does is prohibit poor men, women, and children from having a regular doctor and seeing them on a routine basis to prevent more costly ER visits later. It may make their state budgets look better but in the end it doesn't lower the cost of care, it just shifts the burden from the state to the insured that will pick up the tab for these ER visits.
The reality is that as a country 18 percent of our spending goes towards healthcare – which is three and a half times as much as we spend on Social Security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. We have a crisis in healthcare. Taking a victory lap at preventing less fortunate Americans from having the security of health insurance or celebrating any problems with the ACA as a triumph for America is an astoundingly callous missing the forest for the trees situation.
And while there is a litany of problems with this talking point the most disturbing point is how many conservatives are rooting for the failure of the ACA and humbly declaring victory with every set back.
Just imagine if people in the 1990's who thought the government wasn't paying enough attention to terrorist organizations came out after the 9/11 attacks and celebrated the successful attacks because it proved they were right.
Before we invaded Iraq there were certainly those that argued against such an action. Conservatives would have howled that using the deaths of American soldiers as an opportunity to say "I told you so" was at the very least unpatriotic if not treasonous.
What if those who had been urging the government to consider additional reinforcement for the levies in New Orleans before Katrina went on television after the levies broke and declared this a victory because it showed they were right?
For a group that was furious that the president supposedly "spiked the ball" on certain occasions this gloating is embarrassingly hypocritical. Perhaps their hubris would be more palatable if they had a better plan - or a plan at all for that matter.
Of course not only do they not have a plan they are also willfully standing in the way of progress. Much has been made about those whose insurance policies are being canceled due to the ACA however it should be noted that thanks to provisions in the bill all of these people can get a more robust policy which may or may not cost more money. The same cannot be said for the nearly 5 million Americans that will not be covered under the ACA's Medicaid expansion thanks to a number of Republican governors who refuse to accept this change for their state.
The main reason for their rejection - money. Of course denying this change will not stop these individuals from going to the hospital for treatment nor will it reduce the ever increasing costs of medical care. All it really does is prohibit poor men, women, and children from having a regular doctor and seeing them on a routine basis to prevent more costly ER visits later. It may make their state budgets look better but in the end it doesn't lower the cost of care, it just shifts the burden from the state to the insured that will pick up the tab for these ER visits.
The reality is that as a country 18 percent of our spending goes towards healthcare – which is three and a half times as much as we spend on Social Security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. We have a crisis in healthcare. Taking a victory lap at preventing less fortunate Americans from having the security of health insurance or celebrating any problems with the ACA as a triumph for America is an astoundingly callous missing the forest for the trees situation.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
There's nothing nuclear about the nuclear option
Harry Reid and Senate Democrats made waves last week when they detonated the "nuclear option". Thanks to this change in Senate rules, ending debate on judicial nominees will only require 51 votes instead of the previous 60 vote requirement.
It should be noted this change does not affect the typical Senate filibuster we have all come to know and love. So Mitch McConnell and company are free to continue to block every piece of legislation brought before the chamber and will likely use the threat of filibuster on legislation as a proxy filibuster for judicial nominees.
Not too long ago this was called the "Constitutional Option" by Rush Limbaugh and the "path to a military state" by the Daily Kos. Unfortunately Congress has become just another step in getting re-elected so voting or not voting now has more to do with establishing a Congressman's partisan cred than actually accomplishing any legislative priorities.
As an example in the debate before the nuclear option was passed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "You'll regret this and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” but if this change was so immoral and unconscionable wouldn't Republicans just take the high ground and stand on the side of righteousness by changing the rules back the first chance they get? You don't get to complain about something being borderline illegal or unconstitutional, pretend to be the party of adults, and then threaten retaliation because hey, "they did it first".
The reality is that if Democrats had blocked this many of President Romney's judicial nominees, Republicans would have changed the rules as well.
But this is certainly not the only affront to democracy that this country has experienced recently.
In Michigan the Governor has the power to essentially invalidate local elections by appointing and Emergency Manager. While the electorate voted down this power, the Republican legislature devised a new EM bill and made it impossible for voters to repeal.
Across the country Republican legislatures are making it more difficult to vote by changing polling locations, shortening the voting period and requiring additional documentation. For some the goal is to disenfranchise voters and stack the deck in their favor.
In many southern states the laws for women considering an abortion are slowly eroding women's rights with many states attempting to force women to endure invasive and unnecessary procedures.
29 states amended their constitution to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.
In New York Hispanic and African American individuals have been subjected to unconstitutionally discriminatory searches of their person.
If concerns over the democratic process or the rights of citizens are the basis for complaints about this parliamentary procedure then there is no shortage of actions Republicans could rhetorically point to as "nuclear options". But if congress ever wonders why it's ratings are so low all they have to do is look at the "sky is falling" hyperbole they use to describe something as mundane as changing the debate rules on judicial nominees from super majority to a simple majority and they will quickly see why few take Congressman seriously anymore.
It should be noted this change does not affect the typical Senate filibuster we have all come to know and love. So Mitch McConnell and company are free to continue to block every piece of legislation brought before the chamber and will likely use the threat of filibuster on legislation as a proxy filibuster for judicial nominees.
Not too long ago this was called the "Constitutional Option" by Rush Limbaugh and the "path to a military state" by the Daily Kos. Unfortunately Congress has become just another step in getting re-elected so voting or not voting now has more to do with establishing a Congressman's partisan cred than actually accomplishing any legislative priorities.
As an example in the debate before the nuclear option was passed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "You'll regret this and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” but if this change was so immoral and unconscionable wouldn't Republicans just take the high ground and stand on the side of righteousness by changing the rules back the first chance they get? You don't get to complain about something being borderline illegal or unconstitutional, pretend to be the party of adults, and then threaten retaliation because hey, "they did it first".
The reality is that if Democrats had blocked this many of President Romney's judicial nominees, Republicans would have changed the rules as well.
But this is certainly not the only affront to democracy that this country has experienced recently.
In Michigan the Governor has the power to essentially invalidate local elections by appointing and Emergency Manager. While the electorate voted down this power, the Republican legislature devised a new EM bill and made it impossible for voters to repeal.
Across the country Republican legislatures are making it more difficult to vote by changing polling locations, shortening the voting period and requiring additional documentation. For some the goal is to disenfranchise voters and stack the deck in their favor.
In many southern states the laws for women considering an abortion are slowly eroding women's rights with many states attempting to force women to endure invasive and unnecessary procedures.
29 states amended their constitution to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.
In New York Hispanic and African American individuals have been subjected to unconstitutionally discriminatory searches of their person.
If concerns over the democratic process or the rights of citizens are the basis for complaints about this parliamentary procedure then there is no shortage of actions Republicans could rhetorically point to as "nuclear options". But if congress ever wonders why it's ratings are so low all they have to do is look at the "sky is falling" hyperbole they use to describe something as mundane as changing the debate rules on judicial nominees from super majority to a simple majority and they will quickly see why few take Congressman seriously anymore.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Illiteracy rate: A serious problem for many - political hackery for others
My Colleague Gary Wolfram asked an important question recently - "Why are 47 percent of the adult population of Detroit functionally illiterate?” While it should be noted that this statistic is essentially fabricated out of thin air from a report that is now 20 years old the question of literacy is certainly worthy of further discussion.
Many like Gary simply use statistics like this to push a common conservative platitude that we need free market more involved in education even thought data shows that 75% of Charter schools produce no better or worse results than their local public school counterpart.
The reality is that this problem is not a public versus private question. A study by the University of Texas found that the answer to the long standing question of why more girls aren't becoming scientists is simply community make up. In communities where a high percentage of women were in science, math, technology and engineering jobs there was a corresponding increase in girls who studied those topics in school. Essentially it was a question of role models.
Similarly in the case of illiteracy data shows that children who are raised in a home with at least one illiterate parent are twice as likely to be illiterate. Additionally the US department of Education found that the most important determiner of early success for children is an introduction to books at home while the National Adult Literacy Survey found that children who enter school without basic literacy skills are three to four times more likely to drop out of school. So while blaming schools or teachers for illiteracy may be good for asserting more banal politically motivated change the data shows this to be an ironically uneducated position.
Regardless of the education system, there is little a school can do to change the circumstances of their students and provide the types of at home role models or resources that children need to alter their path to end the vicious cycle of illiteracy.
Reports show that "adult illiteracy costs society an estimated $240 billion each year in lost industrial productivity, unrealized tax revenues, welfare, crime, poverty, and related social ills". This occurs because 20% of adults in the US are functionally illiterate.
The reality is that if we truly care about addressing illiteracy, using politically motivated rhetoric is the absolute worst course of action. Children obviously need a robust education system to foster their reading skills however the vast majority of schools both public and private already provide this. The real answer to improving the literacy rate in the US requires a focus on adults. While seeking help can be a difficult and embarrassing situation for illiterate individuals the joy of learning to read and the opportunities that such learning creates are nearly immeasurable.
The good news is that there are plenty of organizations available to help. They are always looking for volunteers, additional funding and other support. But most of all they are looking for brave adults who want to provide a better life for themselves and their families. To find out how you can help or help someone you know that struggles with reading, search for a literacy program in your area or click any of the links below.
Washtenaw Literacy
Capital Area Literacy Coalition
Detroit Reads
Proliteracy Detroit
Or any of the county run programs listed on the Michigan.gov website
Many like Gary simply use statistics like this to push a common conservative platitude that we need free market more involved in education even thought data shows that 75% of Charter schools produce no better or worse results than their local public school counterpart.
The reality is that this problem is not a public versus private question. A study by the University of Texas found that the answer to the long standing question of why more girls aren't becoming scientists is simply community make up. In communities where a high percentage of women were in science, math, technology and engineering jobs there was a corresponding increase in girls who studied those topics in school. Essentially it was a question of role models.
Similarly in the case of illiteracy data shows that children who are raised in a home with at least one illiterate parent are twice as likely to be illiterate. Additionally the US department of Education found that the most important determiner of early success for children is an introduction to books at home while the National Adult Literacy Survey found that children who enter school without basic literacy skills are three to four times more likely to drop out of school. So while blaming schools or teachers for illiteracy may be good for asserting more banal politically motivated change the data shows this to be an ironically uneducated position.
Regardless of the education system, there is little a school can do to change the circumstances of their students and provide the types of at home role models or resources that children need to alter their path to end the vicious cycle of illiteracy.
Reports show that "adult illiteracy costs society an estimated $240 billion each year in lost industrial productivity, unrealized tax revenues, welfare, crime, poverty, and related social ills". This occurs because 20% of adults in the US are functionally illiterate.
The reality is that if we truly care about addressing illiteracy, using politically motivated rhetoric is the absolute worst course of action. Children obviously need a robust education system to foster their reading skills however the vast majority of schools both public and private already provide this. The real answer to improving the literacy rate in the US requires a focus on adults. While seeking help can be a difficult and embarrassing situation for illiterate individuals the joy of learning to read and the opportunities that such learning creates are nearly immeasurable.
The good news is that there are plenty of organizations available to help. They are always looking for volunteers, additional funding and other support. But most of all they are looking for brave adults who want to provide a better life for themselves and their families. To find out how you can help or help someone you know that struggles with reading, search for a literacy program in your area or click any of the links below.
Washtenaw Literacy
Capital Area Literacy Coalition
Detroit Reads
Proliteracy Detroit
Or any of the county run programs listed on the Michigan.gov website
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
How to solve the problem of “black on black crime”
After the George Zimmerman verdict was announced earlier this year the main stream media suddenly became very interested in "black on black crime". If you believe some of the talking heads that made this a staple of their programs for a few week period, they were genuinely concerned about the number of African American men that were murdered on a daily - weekly - yearly basis. Oddly however that concern seems exclusively tied to the defense of George Zimmerman since the fair and balanced news sources have ironically gone dark on this topic for the past few months.
The reality is that most of the people discussing this issue did so to portray African American men as inherently violent and dangerous since the data shows that "white on white crime" occurs at nearly the same rate as "black on black crime" and that crime is much more associated with socioeconomic status than skin color or heritage.
Regardless of this reality, many media personalities insist we pay attention since statistics show that nearly 50% of all murders were committed by African Americans. Given that blacks make up a much smaller portion of the population these statistics point to an epidemic that must be addressed.
Of course if a small segment of the population being involved in a an inordinate portion of the murders is cause for action it should be noted that only around 30% of Americans own a gun yet guns account for around 67% of murders each year. A far greater percentage of the population has access to knives yet such instruments only represent 12% of the murders per year.
If statistics surrounding “black on black crime” indicates an endemic problem then statistics on gun violence should have a similarly damning affect.
And while many in the main stream media have supported the NRA’s proposed solutions for the disproportionately high number of gun deaths - more guns - their only interest when it comes to "black on black crime" seems to be pointing out as many different statistics as possible to prove murders are really a black problem.
For some reason these ivory tower pundits have never proposed the obvious common sense answer to this dilemma - more guns for black men. After all if black men are more likely to be murdered by a gun and the paragon of safety from gun violence is more guns then the obvious solution to solve the problem of “black on black crime” is to make sure that all black men own guns and are trained to use them properly.
Problem solved!
The reality is that most of the people discussing this issue did so to portray African American men as inherently violent and dangerous since the data shows that "white on white crime" occurs at nearly the same rate as "black on black crime" and that crime is much more associated with socioeconomic status than skin color or heritage.
Regardless of this reality, many media personalities insist we pay attention since statistics show that nearly 50% of all murders were committed by African Americans. Given that blacks make up a much smaller portion of the population these statistics point to an epidemic that must be addressed.
Of course if a small segment of the population being involved in a an inordinate portion of the murders is cause for action it should be noted that only around 30% of Americans own a gun yet guns account for around 67% of murders each year. A far greater percentage of the population has access to knives yet such instruments only represent 12% of the murders per year.
If statistics surrounding “black on black crime” indicates an endemic problem then statistics on gun violence should have a similarly damning affect.
And while many in the main stream media have supported the NRA’s proposed solutions for the disproportionately high number of gun deaths - more guns - their only interest when it comes to "black on black crime" seems to be pointing out as many different statistics as possible to prove murders are really a black problem.
For some reason these ivory tower pundits have never proposed the obvious common sense answer to this dilemma - more guns for black men. After all if black men are more likely to be murdered by a gun and the paragon of safety from gun violence is more guns then the obvious solution to solve the problem of “black on black crime” is to make sure that all black men own guns and are trained to use them properly.
Problem solved!
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Republicans have health insurance amnesia
The main stream media has been very focused recently on various aspects of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare). While the problems are legitimate the sudden concern from the right over the cost of premiums and paying for more than you need seem disingenuous.
Thanks to the ACA millions more Americans will have health insurance. For some that means an increase in their premium for others it means a reduction. But our system before the ACA wasn't any better. From 1999 to 2009 the cost of health insurance premiums rose 131%. And while a rise in premiums under the ACA helped to cover an additional 20 million Americans the prior 131% increase left around 7 million more American uninsured than before.
If large increases in cost are a big concern we should also expect some congressional action on the cost of gas which rose around 140% from 1999 to 2008, over the past 35 years CEO pay has risen by 725%, and the cost of a private college education has increased by 128% over the past 30 years which is a heavy lift for many, considering that over the past 40 years the number of jobs requiring a college degree went from 26% to a whopping 60%.
Much has also been made of the president’s statement that if you like your policy you can keep it. Certainly insurance companies have decided to drop plans and increase their profit but it should be noted that only 17% of Americans in the individual market maintain their policy for more than 2 years. While the media has made it sound unprecedented and catastrophic the reality is that very few people would retain their current policy for more than a couple years anyway. Of course the previous system wasn’t necessarily any better. Insurance companies were found to drop policies of sick individuals to boost profits. At least under the ACA these people cannot be denied insurance as they were under the old system.
Yet another complaint is that people are paying for services they will not use or do not want. But this has been happening in the free market for years. Your cable provider doesn't let you pick and choose which channels you want. They offer a package and you end up paying for a bunch of channels you do not want and never use. When you purchase a car there is a list of "included features". Whether you want them or not they are included and you pay for them. If you purchase a computer, it comes installed with programs you may not want. It doesn't matter if you use them or not the cost of these programs are still included in your purchase.
Of course these complaints all rest on the case that the government is forcing you to buy something you do not want however Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that there is no real enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you don't want to pay the penalty, it turns out there isn't very much the IRS can do to force you to do so.
The one thing you certainly won't hear the main stream media talking about is the Republican solutions to fix these problems. Their only real offer so far is a complete repeal but is anyone happy with the fact that as a nation we spend twice as much as on health care as every other country in the world and get worse results? Are we really OK with having millions of people without insurance because they have a preexisting condition? Do we really want the most important statistic about our insurance industry to be the earnings per share? Does anyone actually believe the old system was the best we can do?
For as much as Republicans dislike the ACA it should be noted that this was not the system Democrats supported either. Democrats favored a single payer plan. The ACA was a compromise that many on the left were willing to stomach due the myriad of problems with the private based system. So if Republicans want a full repeal, many Democrats would be happy to oblige. All they would ask in return is a few Republican votes in the House and the Senate to put all of the problems with the ACA behind us and join the rest of the world by insuring all citizens.
Thanks to the ACA millions more Americans will have health insurance. For some that means an increase in their premium for others it means a reduction. But our system before the ACA wasn't any better. From 1999 to 2009 the cost of health insurance premiums rose 131%. And while a rise in premiums under the ACA helped to cover an additional 20 million Americans the prior 131% increase left around 7 million more American uninsured than before.
.JPG){kind=link}
If large increases in cost are a big concern we should also expect some congressional action on the cost of gas which rose around 140% from 1999 to 2008, over the past 35 years CEO pay has risen by 725%, and the cost of a private college education has increased by 128% over the past 30 years which is a heavy lift for many, considering that over the past 40 years the number of jobs requiring a college degree went from 26% to a whopping 60%.
Much has also been made of the president’s statement that if you like your policy you can keep it. Certainly insurance companies have decided to drop plans and increase their profit but it should be noted that only 17% of Americans in the individual market maintain their policy for more than 2 years. While the media has made it sound unprecedented and catastrophic the reality is that very few people would retain their current policy for more than a couple years anyway. Of course the previous system wasn’t necessarily any better. Insurance companies were found to drop policies of sick individuals to boost profits. At least under the ACA these people cannot be denied insurance as they were under the old system.
Yet another complaint is that people are paying for services they will not use or do not want. But this has been happening in the free market for years. Your cable provider doesn't let you pick and choose which channels you want. They offer a package and you end up paying for a bunch of channels you do not want and never use. When you purchase a car there is a list of "included features". Whether you want them or not they are included and you pay for them. If you purchase a computer, it comes installed with programs you may not want. It doesn't matter if you use them or not the cost of these programs are still included in your purchase.
Of course these complaints all rest on the case that the government is forcing you to buy something you do not want however Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that there is no real enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you don't want to pay the penalty, it turns out there isn't very much the IRS can do to force you to do so.
The one thing you certainly won't hear the main stream media talking about is the Republican solutions to fix these problems. Their only real offer so far is a complete repeal but is anyone happy with the fact that as a nation we spend twice as much as on health care as every other country in the world and get worse results? Are we really OK with having millions of people without insurance because they have a preexisting condition? Do we really want the most important statistic about our insurance industry to be the earnings per share? Does anyone actually believe the old system was the best we can do?
For as much as Republicans dislike the ACA it should be noted that this was not the system Democrats supported either. Democrats favored a single payer plan. The ACA was a compromise that many on the left were willing to stomach due the myriad of problems with the private based system. So if Republicans want a full repeal, many Democrats would be happy to oblige. All they would ask in return is a few Republican votes in the House and the Senate to put all of the problems with the ACA behind us and join the rest of the world by insuring all citizens.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Republicans wouldn't like a government run like a business
A common talking point in today's political discussions is the belief that the government should be run like a business. While this is a really awful idea, there are certainly those who believe in this nostrum.
So how exactly would a company run the government? Well the Chamber of Commerce whose tag line is "Standing Up for American Enterprise" has a few items on their wish list and who better to tell us how a business would run the government than a group described as an "organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses".
On that list would be an increase in the Federal fuel tax. Yes, a tax at the federal level which would affect hundreds of millions of Americans is deemed important and necessary by the Chamber of Commerce. Such a tax would not be popular with the vast majority of tax payers however what business takes a poll of likely buyers to determine if they are going to increase the cost of their products?
Also on that list is immigration reform. They believe that the idea that immigrants are stealing our jobs is a myth. They also feel that immigrants are important for job creation. Perhaps they didn't get the memo about how damaging immigrants are to the economy because of all their freeloading.
Additionally the Chamber of Commerce supports common core for education, has "advocated vociferously for increased use of renewable energy and renewable energy technologies", was against the government shutdown and would like to change policy to make sure it doesn't happen again, and has championed various increases in sales tax across the country.
But perhaps most interesting is how the largest organization of businesses would proceed when it comes to health care reform. The rhetoric from many who claim to support running the country like a business suggests that the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is incompatible with their beliefs and thus should be discarded completely.
However it should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce does not argue for repealing the ACA. Instead they are for "promoting strategies and solutions to encourage health care reform that lowers cost, improves quality, expands access to health care, and protects American jobs". Essentially the chamber would like to use the ACA as a starting point and enact changes to improve it.
Those changes would include attacking "Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse" which happens to already be part of the ACA. Improve health and productivity with wellness programs which is also already part of the ACA. "Foster the use of health care IT to improve efficiency, lower costs, and reduce medical errors" which is of course already part of the ACA. "Pool risk and purchase coverage at an affordable price" which everyone knows is already part of the ACA. "Reward providers for quality" which, you guessed it, is part of the ACA.
In essence if we ran the country like a business the ACA would be the type of health care reform we could expect.
The problem is that many believe this logic to be apodictic and never consider the yin and yang relationship between the public and private sector that propelled the US to prominence in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to cut wasteful spending or exhibit fiscal prudence but the reality is that the purpose of government is antithetical to that of a business and wanting government to run like a business is just a poorly constructed analogy fraught with unsagacious thinking.
So how exactly would a company run the government? Well the Chamber of Commerce whose tag line is "Standing Up for American Enterprise" has a few items on their wish list and who better to tell us how a business would run the government than a group described as an "organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses".
On that list would be an increase in the Federal fuel tax. Yes, a tax at the federal level which would affect hundreds of millions of Americans is deemed important and necessary by the Chamber of Commerce. Such a tax would not be popular with the vast majority of tax payers however what business takes a poll of likely buyers to determine if they are going to increase the cost of their products?
Also on that list is immigration reform. They believe that the idea that immigrants are stealing our jobs is a myth. They also feel that immigrants are important for job creation. Perhaps they didn't get the memo about how damaging immigrants are to the economy because of all their freeloading.
Additionally the Chamber of Commerce supports common core for education, has "advocated vociferously for increased use of renewable energy and renewable energy technologies", was against the government shutdown and would like to change policy to make sure it doesn't happen again, and has championed various increases in sales tax across the country.
But perhaps most interesting is how the largest organization of businesses would proceed when it comes to health care reform. The rhetoric from many who claim to support running the country like a business suggests that the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is incompatible with their beliefs and thus should be discarded completely.
However it should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce does not argue for repealing the ACA. Instead they are for "promoting strategies and solutions to encourage health care reform that lowers cost, improves quality, expands access to health care, and protects American jobs". Essentially the chamber would like to use the ACA as a starting point and enact changes to improve it.
Those changes would include attacking "Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse" which happens to already be part of the ACA. Improve health and productivity with wellness programs which is also already part of the ACA. "Foster the use of health care IT to improve efficiency, lower costs, and reduce medical errors" which is of course already part of the ACA. "Pool risk and purchase coverage at an affordable price" which everyone knows is already part of the ACA. "Reward providers for quality" which, you guessed it, is part of the ACA.
In essence if we ran the country like a business the ACA would be the type of health care reform we could expect.
The problem is that many believe this logic to be apodictic and never consider the yin and yang relationship between the public and private sector that propelled the US to prominence in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to cut wasteful spending or exhibit fiscal prudence but the reality is that the purpose of government is antithetical to that of a business and wanting government to run like a business is just a poorly constructed analogy fraught with unsagacious thinking.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Obama should adopt tort reform
Republicans, while opposed to the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare), have spent a lot of time trying to devise and alternative plan. The problem is so much of what makes up the ACA was originated by conservatives and Republicans that they are struggling to come up with a plan that they like that also is significantly different from the ACA.
Having said that, there are a few ideas that don't have Obama-cooties which Republicans continue to offer as the health care catholicon.
The most prominent of these ideas is tort reform. The argument goes that the price of health care is so high because doctors practice "defensive medicine" by ordering unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid litigation. Given their recent history we can assume that as soon as Democrats, and in particular Barack Obama, embrace tort reform, Republicans will turn against it.
The first problem with tort reform that will cause Republicans to turn against it is the fact that it is just more job killing regulations. How many lawyers have to lose their jobs before we stop the madness? Not only does tort reform mean more regulations but it also interferes in the natural order of things - also known as the free market. If there are doctors who are bad at their jobs they should be sued and hospitals should fire them. Free market style natural selection. Do we really want the government telling us what we can and cannot sue for? Every Republican knows that this will cost us our freedom on the eventual path to complete and total socialism.
Beyond that, tort reform removes the personal responsibility of Doctors. If they aren't held accountable for their actions what incentive will they have to improve their performance. Just imagine if car companies had negotiated a tort reform deal with the government. Consider the case of the Ford Pinto. In the 70's the car had a defect that caused it to burst into flames in a rear collision due to poor placement of the gas tank. Ford did the math and decided that around 180 people might die and another 180 would have serious burns. They calculated the cost of settling these suits to be less than half of the cost of fixing the problem. To no one's surprise Ford chose to save money over saving lives. It wasn't until the court system awarded a victim of a Pinto fire more than 10 times what Ford had anticipated that they were really compelled to act. Losing millions is a powerful motivator to improve your product or service.
If we just look the other way and don't require Doctors to be responsible for their own actions doesn't that essentially make us just like Nazi Germany? - is what Ted Cruz would probably say after Democrats adopt tort reform.
Of course holding doctors responsible means some are going to be fired. The good news is this will help stamp out another couple systems that Republicans hate - unions and quotas. The American Medical Association union of doctors convinced congress to set a quota for the number of residents that are created each year. By artificially lowering the number of individuals in these programs the AMA is able to manipulate the supply and demand curve which nets their members a premium for their services. This "doctor quota" will certainly lead to health care rationing and no one wants that. What will these lazy union workers demand next - end of life counseling, so they can kill grandma and save a few bucks?
Having the Democrat stamp of approval will also help Republicans find data that shows tort reform doesn't work and perhaps most damning the courts have determined it to be unconstitutional. Many Republicans believe the ACA is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. Just imagine how mad they will be to find out that tort reform actually is unconstitutional?
It is also important to remember that ACORN has most likely been linked to tort reform as evidenced by the photo below.
So Mr. President I urge you to come out in support of tort reform as soon as possible. Conservatives already have plenty of reasons to hate this government overreach but much like immigration reform, cap and trade, the NSA spying program and the START treaty your approval will be the light they need to see the error of their ways.
Having said that, there are a few ideas that don't have Obama-cooties which Republicans continue to offer as the health care catholicon.
The most prominent of these ideas is tort reform. The argument goes that the price of health care is so high because doctors practice "defensive medicine" by ordering unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid litigation. Given their recent history we can assume that as soon as Democrats, and in particular Barack Obama, embrace tort reform, Republicans will turn against it.
The first problem with tort reform that will cause Republicans to turn against it is the fact that it is just more job killing regulations. How many lawyers have to lose their jobs before we stop the madness? Not only does tort reform mean more regulations but it also interferes in the natural order of things - also known as the free market. If there are doctors who are bad at their jobs they should be sued and hospitals should fire them. Free market style natural selection. Do we really want the government telling us what we can and cannot sue for? Every Republican knows that this will cost us our freedom on the eventual path to complete and total socialism.
Beyond that, tort reform removes the personal responsibility of Doctors. If they aren't held accountable for their actions what incentive will they have to improve their performance. Just imagine if car companies had negotiated a tort reform deal with the government. Consider the case of the Ford Pinto. In the 70's the car had a defect that caused it to burst into flames in a rear collision due to poor placement of the gas tank. Ford did the math and decided that around 180 people might die and another 180 would have serious burns. They calculated the cost of settling these suits to be less than half of the cost of fixing the problem. To no one's surprise Ford chose to save money over saving lives. It wasn't until the court system awarded a victim of a Pinto fire more than 10 times what Ford had anticipated that they were really compelled to act. Losing millions is a powerful motivator to improve your product or service.
If we just look the other way and don't require Doctors to be responsible for their own actions doesn't that essentially make us just like Nazi Germany? - is what Ted Cruz would probably say after Democrats adopt tort reform.
Of course holding doctors responsible means some are going to be fired. The good news is this will help stamp out another couple systems that Republicans hate - unions and quotas. The American Medical Association union of doctors convinced congress to set a quota for the number of residents that are created each year. By artificially lowering the number of individuals in these programs the AMA is able to manipulate the supply and demand curve which nets their members a premium for their services. This "doctor quota" will certainly lead to health care rationing and no one wants that. What will these lazy union workers demand next - end of life counseling, so they can kill grandma and save a few bucks?
Having the Democrat stamp of approval will also help Republicans find data that shows tort reform doesn't work and perhaps most damning the courts have determined it to be unconstitutional. Many Republicans believe the ACA is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. Just imagine how mad they will be to find out that tort reform actually is unconstitutional?
It is also important to remember that ACORN has most likely been linked to tort reform as evidenced by the photo below.
So Mr. President I urge you to come out in support of tort reform as soon as possible. Conservatives already have plenty of reasons to hate this government overreach but much like immigration reform, cap and trade, the NSA spying program and the START treaty your approval will be the light they need to see the error of their ways.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Help Wanted: Republicans required to fix Obamacare
As the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) struggles to get off the ground, conservative's are showing that their devotion to making the president look bad far exceeds their interest in cutting deficits, curbing out of control spending, and eliminating the moochers. At this point they have become the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacks - in the past they clamored for market competition, an individual mandate, cuts to Medicare payments and an Independent Payment Advisory Board and now that their vision has become reality they hate it.
The problem is that as much as Republicans dislike the ACA, complain about where it falls short, and disavow any association with it - it can't be fixed, improved or changed in any fashion without Republican support. Even if every Democrat across the nation coalesced around a set of solutions absolutely nothing will happen if Republicans only participation involves "I told you so".
The ACA website has been a huge disappointment so far, and perhaps contractors need to be held accountable, or Kathleen Sebelius needs to be fired or the President needs to accept that getting elected trumped a successful launch, but none of that improves the functionality of the website. Watching the ACA flounder doesn't get it repealed, reduce premiums or get more people insured so rather than whining, now is the perfect time to step up and offer support in exchange for improvements - you know compromise.
At some point many of our nation’s critical systems are going to meet a similar fate as our health care system and need to be brought into the 21st century. The ACA provides politicians with a chance to learn from their mistakes so we don't repeat them when we attempt to modernize our electrical grid, the Federal Aviation Administration, or other public services.
The United Kingdom went through a similar transformation recently and found that with the proper investment not only do services improve but costs come down as well. The focus by conservatives on scoring political points in the short term puts us at odds with creating a government structure that not only helps us succeed with future IT projects but reestablishes the US as the technological leader in the long run.
Of course beyond the troubles with the ACA website there are far more important issues that the right is ignoring. For example the ACA doesn't cover all Americans. This means there are still people who will be forced to use the emergency room as their only doctors visits - a plan that has been shown to be costly for both the insured and uninsured as well as bad for individuals overall health. Who thinks this is a good idea? There are also a number of people who are being kicked off Medicaid because of the ACA's state Medicaid expansion. Unfortunately a number of states have decided to not participate, leaving millions of previously insured Americans uninsured. Are there no solutions better than punishing hard working people in favor of partisan posturing?
So while Republican leaders like John Boehner have spent much of the past few years suggesting that we need to have an "adult conversation", the conservative "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude of obstruct and complain hardly seems to exemplify the type of leadership they believe is missing in today's discourse. How many Republican votes the ACA received initially, doesn't absolve Republicans of their ongoing responsibility for this legislation. They won the House and should be expected to participate in democracy not retard it.
In the end, all of the complaints won't change the past. The ACA was passed and Barack Obama was reelected. Even our nation's most sacred document has been updated 27 times. Are we really supposed to believe that the ACA is an all or nothing proposition?
The reality is that for the entire 2012 election cycle Republicans begged for the power to change the ACA. Now that they have it they don't get to pretend there is nothing they can do.
The problem is that as much as Republicans dislike the ACA, complain about where it falls short, and disavow any association with it - it can't be fixed, improved or changed in any fashion without Republican support. Even if every Democrat across the nation coalesced around a set of solutions absolutely nothing will happen if Republicans only participation involves "I told you so".
The ACA website has been a huge disappointment so far, and perhaps contractors need to be held accountable, or Kathleen Sebelius needs to be fired or the President needs to accept that getting elected trumped a successful launch, but none of that improves the functionality of the website. Watching the ACA flounder doesn't get it repealed, reduce premiums or get more people insured so rather than whining, now is the perfect time to step up and offer support in exchange for improvements - you know compromise.
At some point many of our nation’s critical systems are going to meet a similar fate as our health care system and need to be brought into the 21st century. The ACA provides politicians with a chance to learn from their mistakes so we don't repeat them when we attempt to modernize our electrical grid, the Federal Aviation Administration, or other public services.
The United Kingdom went through a similar transformation recently and found that with the proper investment not only do services improve but costs come down as well. The focus by conservatives on scoring political points in the short term puts us at odds with creating a government structure that not only helps us succeed with future IT projects but reestablishes the US as the technological leader in the long run.
Of course beyond the troubles with the ACA website there are far more important issues that the right is ignoring. For example the ACA doesn't cover all Americans. This means there are still people who will be forced to use the emergency room as their only doctors visits - a plan that has been shown to be costly for both the insured and uninsured as well as bad for individuals overall health. Who thinks this is a good idea? There are also a number of people who are being kicked off Medicaid because of the ACA's state Medicaid expansion. Unfortunately a number of states have decided to not participate, leaving millions of previously insured Americans uninsured. Are there no solutions better than punishing hard working people in favor of partisan posturing?
So while Republican leaders like John Boehner have spent much of the past few years suggesting that we need to have an "adult conversation", the conservative "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude of obstruct and complain hardly seems to exemplify the type of leadership they believe is missing in today's discourse. How many Republican votes the ACA received initially, doesn't absolve Republicans of their ongoing responsibility for this legislation. They won the House and should be expected to participate in democracy not retard it.
In the end, all of the complaints won't change the past. The ACA was passed and Barack Obama was reelected. Even our nation's most sacred document has been updated 27 times. Are we really supposed to believe that the ACA is an all or nothing proposition?
The reality is that for the entire 2012 election cycle Republicans begged for the power to change the ACA. Now that they have it they don't get to pretend there is nothing they can do.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Conservative's contribute to fallacy about union power
The recent strike by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has again put public sector unions squarely in the crosshairs of conservatives. While there is plenty of good debates to be had regarding these unions one of the weirdest talking points suggests that public sector unions have an unfair advantage since they negotiate with officials they may have helped get elected. The idea being that the money spent on these officials earns them political favors or better contracts in return.
If we are to assume that these elected officials are providing a return on investment for the unions, which certainly may be true, it is odd that conservatives main concern is how money from unions affects outcomes rather than questioning the entire system.
For example Businesses outspend labor unions by an astonishing 15 to 1 margin. Are we to believe that when a union helps get a person elected they receive favors while the same help from the business community is completely altruistic? Does anyone really think that the nearly $110 million in contributions the Pharmaceutical industry made over the last three election cycles had no impact on the Affordable Care Act? Would we really be as focused on the events in Israel were it not for the $67 million in contributions from Pro-Israeli groups?
If money in politics is a problem, then it is a system wide problem with the heaviest hitters coming from the business community.
Of course the complaint is that contributions from these industry sources have less impact since they aren't directly dealing with the decision makers. Yet it could easily be argued that the $209 million that lawyers and law firms contributed in the 2012 election cycle, of which it seems a significant portion went to getting local judges elected, would have a direct impact on the outcome of cases these lawyers bring before the judges they helped get elected.
It also wouldn't be a stretch to think that the $73 million in contributions from the oil industry in the last election cycle has something to do with the $4 billion in subsidies they receive even though they had around $120 billion in profits.
And who would be surprised to find out that some of the nearly $30 million in contributions from the Defense Industry influenced the outcomes of the government contracts that were awarded?
But even beyond that what proof do these conservatives offer that public sector unions are getting sweetheart deals in exchange for their contributions? Census data shows that between 2009 and 2011 in the 25 states controlled by Republicans, public sector jobs increased in 15 states. Conversely only 5 of the 18 states controlled by Democrats added public sector jobs. This means Republican held states were twice as likely to add public sector jobs as Democrat held states.
Additionally the states with the lowest percentage of union members happened to add more public sector jobs than the states with the highest union membership levels. If public unions were getting such a great deal on their contributions one would expect this data to skew in the opposite direction.
Political parties and their corporate sponsors have made unsubstantiated hysteria the new norm in political discourse. Unfortunately this means that we get entire groups of people devoted to a narrative that is not supported by data. The reality is that the election buying freedom killing power of unions pales considerably in comparison with their corporate counterparts and while money in politics is probably a bad thing, making unions the basis for this argument shows just how disingenuous some conservatives are in their supposed concern.
If we are to assume that these elected officials are providing a return on investment for the unions, which certainly may be true, it is odd that conservatives main concern is how money from unions affects outcomes rather than questioning the entire system.
For example Businesses outspend labor unions by an astonishing 15 to 1 margin. Are we to believe that when a union helps get a person elected they receive favors while the same help from the business community is completely altruistic? Does anyone really think that the nearly $110 million in contributions the Pharmaceutical industry made over the last three election cycles had no impact on the Affordable Care Act? Would we really be as focused on the events in Israel were it not for the $67 million in contributions from Pro-Israeli groups?
If money in politics is a problem, then it is a system wide problem with the heaviest hitters coming from the business community.
Of course the complaint is that contributions from these industry sources have less impact since they aren't directly dealing with the decision makers. Yet it could easily be argued that the $209 million that lawyers and law firms contributed in the 2012 election cycle, of which it seems a significant portion went to getting local judges elected, would have a direct impact on the outcome of cases these lawyers bring before the judges they helped get elected.
It also wouldn't be a stretch to think that the $73 million in contributions from the oil industry in the last election cycle has something to do with the $4 billion in subsidies they receive even though they had around $120 billion in profits.
And who would be surprised to find out that some of the nearly $30 million in contributions from the Defense Industry influenced the outcomes of the government contracts that were awarded?
But even beyond that what proof do these conservatives offer that public sector unions are getting sweetheart deals in exchange for their contributions? Census data shows that between 2009 and 2011 in the 25 states controlled by Republicans, public sector jobs increased in 15 states. Conversely only 5 of the 18 states controlled by Democrats added public sector jobs. This means Republican held states were twice as likely to add public sector jobs as Democrat held states.
Additionally the states with the lowest percentage of union members happened to add more public sector jobs than the states with the highest union membership levels. If public unions were getting such a great deal on their contributions one would expect this data to skew in the opposite direction.
Political parties and their corporate sponsors have made unsubstantiated hysteria the new norm in political discourse. Unfortunately this means that we get entire groups of people devoted to a narrative that is not supported by data. The reality is that the election buying freedom killing power of unions pales considerably in comparison with their corporate counterparts and while money in politics is probably a bad thing, making unions the basis for this argument shows just how disingenuous some conservatives are in their supposed concern.
Monday, October 21, 2013
When it comes to Michigan job creation, Rick Snyder is “One Lucky Nerd”.
Rick Snyder recently released is first re-election ad touting him as "One Successful Nerd" after just 33 months on the job. Additionally his most recent email blast cleverly implies that he has added 220,000 jobs in Michigan. Unfortunately for the governor, a portion of that job growth happened before he ever took office. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics there has only been 132,000 jobs created since the governors first day on the job. The reality is that Michigan's economy was improving long before the governor arrived.
Of course if we are to believe that the governor is responsible for this job creation he should be able to identify specific legislative actions taken that resulted in this improvement, otherwise the governor is just taking credit for the work of his predecessor.
When discussing the number of jobs that would be created from his tax cut plan the governor stated “Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen.” If the governor had looked into the real world results he would see that the corporate taxes cuts he championed have at best a questionable impact. Ironically, while the governor was uncomfortable making any predictions about the potential success of his tax cuts on job growth, he seems more than happy to attribute any and all job growth to his policies.
It should also be noted that the tax cuts that the governor is claiming helped create jobs didn't even take effect until 2012 so even if this legislation started generating jobs on day one, the governor would only be able to attribute around 64,000 jobs to this tax cut with Michigan actually losing jobs for five straight months after the implementation of these cuts.
The governor also felt that changing Michigan to a "right to work" state would be good for jobs, yet according to the Christian Science Monitor seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are "right to work" states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro union states. If "right to work" was the panacea of job creation one would expect much different results.
But even if you are so generous as to attribute every job created since January 1st 2011 to Rick Snyder, there are no indications that Michigan is outpacing other states in job creation.
Since 2011 every state has created jobs so the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't made things worse, as every other state improves, is not a glowing endorsement. It seems more likely that the governor is just the beneficiary of a general economic improvement. For instance automobile sales are set to increase for the fifth straight year - a feet only done once since WWII - and Michigan has by far the most automotive jobs of any state in the US.
As a matter of fact when discussing the reasons they are adding jobs Ford suggested it had to do with increased demand for products, higher costs of outsourcing work to foreign countries, and higher quality workers in the US. Tax cuts and "right to work" were not part of their rationale.
So while Rick Snyder will spend the next thirteen months using donations from many of the big corporations that he just gave $1.7 billion in tax cuts, claiming to be Michigan's magic job creator what he won't do is supply any proof that his key legislative actions are even remotely correlated with the growth Michigan has experienced. Perhaps the governor would be better served admitting that when it comes to job creation in Michigan he is just "One Lucky Nerd".
Of course if we are to believe that the governor is responsible for this job creation he should be able to identify specific legislative actions taken that resulted in this improvement, otherwise the governor is just taking credit for the work of his predecessor.
When discussing the number of jobs that would be created from his tax cut plan the governor stated “Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen.” If the governor had looked into the real world results he would see that the corporate taxes cuts he championed have at best a questionable impact. Ironically, while the governor was uncomfortable making any predictions about the potential success of his tax cuts on job growth, he seems more than happy to attribute any and all job growth to his policies.
It should also be noted that the tax cuts that the governor is claiming helped create jobs didn't even take effect until 2012 so even if this legislation started generating jobs on day one, the governor would only be able to attribute around 64,000 jobs to this tax cut with Michigan actually losing jobs for five straight months after the implementation of these cuts.
The governor also felt that changing Michigan to a "right to work" state would be good for jobs, yet according to the Christian Science Monitor seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are "right to work" states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro union states. If "right to work" was the panacea of job creation one would expect much different results.
But even if you are so generous as to attribute every job created since January 1st 2011 to Rick Snyder, there are no indications that Michigan is outpacing other states in job creation.
Since 2011 every state has created jobs so the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't made things worse, as every other state improves, is not a glowing endorsement. It seems more likely that the governor is just the beneficiary of a general economic improvement. For instance automobile sales are set to increase for the fifth straight year - a feet only done once since WWII - and Michigan has by far the most automotive jobs of any state in the US.
As a matter of fact when discussing the reasons they are adding jobs Ford suggested it had to do with increased demand for products, higher costs of outsourcing work to foreign countries, and higher quality workers in the US. Tax cuts and "right to work" were not part of their rationale.
So while Rick Snyder will spend the next thirteen months using donations from many of the big corporations that he just gave $1.7 billion in tax cuts, claiming to be Michigan's magic job creator what he won't do is supply any proof that his key legislative actions are even remotely correlated with the growth Michigan has experienced. Perhaps the governor would be better served admitting that when it comes to job creation in Michigan he is just "One Lucky Nerd".
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Conservative media's Obamacare glitch
Since its launch much has been written about the problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as Obamacare). Even the staunchest supporters would admit that they have been disappointed with the problems many have experienced as this system opened to the public. Of course never missing a chance to pounce, the conservative media have taken to pretending that these failures and glitches are reason to eliminate the ACA altogether.
And while a majority of Americans would like to see changes made to the ACA - few would argue against creating a system that provides coverage for as many Americans as possible and reduces costs in the mean time. Perhaps the ACA is this system or perhaps it's not but conservatives had plenty of chances to make suggestions for how to improve the system. Unfortunately rather than making any attempt to pull in the same direction, for the good of the country, conservatives have used nearly 100% of their political capital to divide the country and undermine the program.
The good news is that one the biggest reasons that the US is the envy of the world is our stubborn persistence. For example the Wright Brothers failed nearly a thousand times before eventually achieving flight. They didn't run at the first sign of trouble. Instead they learned for their failures and improved their next design until they finally succeeded.
If Americans simply folded up their tents and went home at the first sign of trouble the House of Representatives wouldn't have managed to vote to repeal the ACA 42 separate times without actually offering a single improvement. Regardless of their repeated and unquestioned failure they were steadfast in their resolve.
And while the ACA exchange system costs something like $500 million dollars and barely works, that is nothing compared to the $472 billion we have spend on the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the $54 billion we have spent on the V-22 Osprey. Neither of which represent the blueprint for how to launch a new product.
Also consider the Iraq War where the president declared "Mission Accomplished" less than two months into what would become a nearly decade long conflict. Things went so well in fact that four years in it was decided that we needed to double down on our initial investment with "the surge".
Of course this sort of success out of the box is not isolated to the public sector. No, Apple, Microsoft and Intel also introduced products that failed initially.
Even entities like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ have proven to be prone to software failure that ends up costs millions and most every automotive company has had to issue a recall due to unexpected problems with a new model.
The reality is that the public and private sectors are riddled with failed launches many of which conservatives were more than happy to stand by at the time. Suggesting that this one poor performance is grounds for dismissal ignores the vast number of government websites that function perfectly fine as well as all of the instances where products rolled up unprepared only to be improved upon later.
As of today we have a law on the books that expands health care and attempts to address the out of control health care costs - costs that easily rank us number one in the world, while only returning middling results in most instances.
As a country 18% of our spending goes towards healthcare which is twice as much as is spent on all government food assistance programs, six times as much as we spend on social security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. If conservatives are truly concerned about "out of control spending" then fixing health care should be a top priority. So to paraphrase George W. Bush "You're either with us, or you're against us". Standing on the sideline yelling "you suck" may win political points but it doesn't address a single problem. As glitchy and unpalatable as the ACA may be its' the only game in town. Perhaps instead of finding every possible way to tear the system down conservatives can offer some solutions - any solutions - that could make the ACA a law that at least 51% of Americans could be proud of.
And while a majority of Americans would like to see changes made to the ACA - few would argue against creating a system that provides coverage for as many Americans as possible and reduces costs in the mean time. Perhaps the ACA is this system or perhaps it's not but conservatives had plenty of chances to make suggestions for how to improve the system. Unfortunately rather than making any attempt to pull in the same direction, for the good of the country, conservatives have used nearly 100% of their political capital to divide the country and undermine the program.
The good news is that one the biggest reasons that the US is the envy of the world is our stubborn persistence. For example the Wright Brothers failed nearly a thousand times before eventually achieving flight. They didn't run at the first sign of trouble. Instead they learned for their failures and improved their next design until they finally succeeded.
If Americans simply folded up their tents and went home at the first sign of trouble the House of Representatives wouldn't have managed to vote to repeal the ACA 42 separate times without actually offering a single improvement. Regardless of their repeated and unquestioned failure they were steadfast in their resolve.
And while the ACA exchange system costs something like $500 million dollars and barely works, that is nothing compared to the $472 billion we have spend on the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the $54 billion we have spent on the V-22 Osprey. Neither of which represent the blueprint for how to launch a new product.
Also consider the Iraq War where the president declared "Mission Accomplished" less than two months into what would become a nearly decade long conflict. Things went so well in fact that four years in it was decided that we needed to double down on our initial investment with "the surge".
Of course this sort of success out of the box is not isolated to the public sector. No, Apple, Microsoft and Intel also introduced products that failed initially.
Even entities like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ have proven to be prone to software failure that ends up costs millions and most every automotive company has had to issue a recall due to unexpected problems with a new model.
The reality is that the public and private sectors are riddled with failed launches many of which conservatives were more than happy to stand by at the time. Suggesting that this one poor performance is grounds for dismissal ignores the vast number of government websites that function perfectly fine as well as all of the instances where products rolled up unprepared only to be improved upon later.
As of today we have a law on the books that expands health care and attempts to address the out of control health care costs - costs that easily rank us number one in the world, while only returning middling results in most instances.
As a country 18% of our spending goes towards healthcare which is twice as much as is spent on all government food assistance programs, six times as much as we spend on social security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. If conservatives are truly concerned about "out of control spending" then fixing health care should be a top priority. So to paraphrase George W. Bush "You're either with us, or you're against us". Standing on the sideline yelling "you suck" may win political points but it doesn't address a single problem. As glitchy and unpalatable as the ACA may be its' the only game in town. Perhaps instead of finding every possible way to tear the system down conservatives can offer some solutions - any solutions - that could make the ACA a law that at least 51% of Americans could be proud of.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
President's voting record has nothing to do with debt ceiling debate
As we approach the debate over the debt ceiling and continue discussions about the Affordable Care Act both sides are trying to set a narrative for the public to follow. My colleague Jason Vines offers an example of the type of posturing we can expect, with his recent gotcha post pointing out that as a Senator, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, thus exposing his hypocrisy.
Of course there is certainly more to the then Senators words and subsequent vote than Jason would have you believe. The point Barack Obama was making was that our increasing national debt is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Not acting on this problem was a "failure of leadership" according to Mr. Obama.
And true to his word the president has overseen the first decrease in government spending since 1961. Additionally Barack Obama has the second lowest increase in the national debt of any president over the past 30 years. Were it not for the nihilism of congressional Republicans that number too could have been much lower as the president offered many opportunities to increase government revenue. Instead this president has been saddled with the four lowest government revenue producing years out of the past sixty-two years.
It should also be noted that there was no meat to the Senator's opposition. The bill passed when it could have been easily filibustered. A rookie Senator grandstanding is hardly comparable to actually shutting down the government.
Having said that, it was a silly vote to cast. A mistake he has clearly learned from.
Of course if we really want to set hypocrisy as the measuring stick for how these debates are to be judged there is plenty of incongruent rhetoric coming from the right as well.
- Republicans have blocked nearly every offer from the president to increase revenue - revenue which could have made a vote over raising the debt ceiling non-existent.
- 104 of the current Republicans threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling now previously voted to raise the debt ceiling under George W. Bush.
- Conservative media celebrates the shutdown as a way to shrink the government yet they complain about every government function that has been shuttered.
- Republicans claim the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is too expensive yet the only solution they have offered would be more costly.
- Conservative media is up in arms when it is suggested that the tactics of the current Republicans controlled house are tantamount to terrorism yet when conservative media icons like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck suggest Barack Obama and other democrats are terrorists they are silent.
- Republicans say the ACA is unpopular yet they passed on background checks, increasing taxes on the rich, and immigration reform all of which have much higher support than their only legislative priority - repealing the ACA.
- Conservatives media touts the shutdown as a "slim down" yet in the end all Republicans have done is created a jobs bank for government employees while simultaneously increasing the bill for taxpayers.
- Republican legislators have consistently voted for less funding for programs they are now arguing that we must fully pay for via piecemeal funding.
- Republican legislators say we need to cut the budget yet they have supported bills that increase spending without any corresponding budget cuts.
It's fine to say that Barack Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to raising the debt ceiling however that doesn't mean Republican legislators or their supporters do either.
But in the end the decision to raise the debt ceiling should be about what is best for the country. Pretending that the presidents voting record is a valuable part of that discussion is partisan hackery that shows just how serious Republicans are about addressing the countries
problems.
Of course there is certainly more to the then Senators words and subsequent vote than Jason would have you believe. The point Barack Obama was making was that our increasing national debt is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Not acting on this problem was a "failure of leadership" according to Mr. Obama.
And true to his word the president has overseen the first decrease in government spending since 1961. Additionally Barack Obama has the second lowest increase in the national debt of any president over the past 30 years. Were it not for the nihilism of congressional Republicans that number too could have been much lower as the president offered many opportunities to increase government revenue. Instead this president has been saddled with the four lowest government revenue producing years out of the past sixty-two years.
It should also be noted that there was no meat to the Senator's opposition. The bill passed when it could have been easily filibustered. A rookie Senator grandstanding is hardly comparable to actually shutting down the government.
Having said that, it was a silly vote to cast. A mistake he has clearly learned from.
Of course if we really want to set hypocrisy as the measuring stick for how these debates are to be judged there is plenty of incongruent rhetoric coming from the right as well.
- Republicans have blocked nearly every offer from the president to increase revenue - revenue which could have made a vote over raising the debt ceiling non-existent.
- 104 of the current Republicans threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling now previously voted to raise the debt ceiling under George W. Bush.
- Conservative media celebrates the shutdown as a way to shrink the government yet they complain about every government function that has been shuttered.
- Republicans claim the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is too expensive yet the only solution they have offered would be more costly.
- Conservative media is up in arms when it is suggested that the tactics of the current Republicans controlled house are tantamount to terrorism yet when conservative media icons like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck suggest Barack Obama and other democrats are terrorists they are silent.
- Republicans say the ACA is unpopular yet they passed on background checks, increasing taxes on the rich, and immigration reform all of which have much higher support than their only legislative priority - repealing the ACA.
- Conservatives media touts the shutdown as a "slim down" yet in the end all Republicans have done is created a jobs bank for government employees while simultaneously increasing the bill for taxpayers.
- Republican legislators have consistently voted for less funding for programs they are now arguing that we must fully pay for via piecemeal funding.
- Republican legislators say we need to cut the budget yet they have supported bills that increase spending without any corresponding budget cuts.
It's fine to say that Barack Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to raising the debt ceiling however that doesn't mean Republican legislators or their supporters do either.
But in the end the decision to raise the debt ceiling should be about what is best for the country. Pretending that the presidents voting record is a valuable part of that discussion is partisan hackery that shows just how serious Republicans are about addressing the countries
problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
