Do religious people really have better morals?

Last week I wrote a piece discussing Christianity and morality based on some comments God's Not Dead actor Kevin Sorbo made about Bill Maher. Not surprisingly Mr. Sorbo did not agree with my thoughts on the topic and took to twitter to tell me why.



Clearly calling God a "psychotic mass murder" could offend people and I have no doubt that Kevin Sorbo was indeed offended by this characterization. Having said that what Bill Maher was referring to was the Biblical story of Noah in which God floods the earth killing nearly every man, woman and child. Rather than discussing how this should not be considered murder Mr. Sorbo decided to call Bill Maher a "very angry, lonely man".

It seems that this was not an instance where Kevin Sorbo felt he could turn the other cheek. Bill Maher's passionate non-belief has no bearing on Kevin Sorbo's passion for this faith. They are both free to have their opinion without their being one side that is good and one side that is evil.

Having said that, the statement that I found more interesting was when Kevin Sorbo said that “morals are declining, the country is going under.” I found statistics that show crime rates, abortions, teen pregnancy and divorce rates have all fallen over the past few decades. So my question for Mr. Sorbo was what metric is he using when he comes to this conclusion?

Perhaps given this belief Kevin Sorbo feels that slight drop in church attendance over the past decade is proof of declining morals. Perhaps the increase in those who describe themselves as Atheist and Agnostic suggests that moral values are being lost. Or perhaps the possible bible defying sin of marriage equality suggests the US has lost its moral compass.

Unfortunately instead of offering some examples Mr. Sorbo chose to take a shot at Detroit.



It seems that Kevin Sorbo feels Detroit could have avoided a financial disaster had there just been greater religiosity in the city. This sort of fixing society through religion is common among believers. Many feel that if more people were religious, or Christian the world would be a better place. Obviously this makes sense for these people. If you are going to invest this much time and effort into something that you can't prove exists there should be a payoff for this devotion. There are also those who believe that being religious makes them a better person so if it works for them it should work for others as well.

Of course it would still be nice to have some hard data to support such a conclusion. A quick look at the number of religious people in a city and the crime rate in that city shows no real correlation as some very religious cities were near the top of the list for assault, rape and property crime. State teen pregnancy rates actually seem to increase for states with higher religious participation. The same is true of divorce rates.

Supporters of this meme could point to a study that found that communities with higher rates of religion had less violent crime. The study concludes that this occurs because these communities are "creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults."

Of course you don't have to worship God to foster respect and form an individual conscience, since non-believers are also capable of creating this sort of environment. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros have managed to donate billions of dollars over the years to non-religious charities that attempt to make the world a better place to live without using religion as the catalyst. The same is true of some US Presidents.

The problem is that "morality" is a very subjective measure. What is moral at one point in time or for one culture would be considered immoral elsewhere. If Kevin Sorbo believes being a Christian makes him a better person I imagine even Bill Maher would be happy for him. But belittling Bill Maher or Detroiters for having a different world view, certainly doesn't suggest Kevin Sorbo occupies the moral high ground he believes his faith creates. Luke 6:37

Great teachers have a great impact

Since the start of the Great Recession public employees have been the target of much disdain and many cuts. One of the sectors hardest hit from these cuts is public education where some 300,000 education jobs have been lost since 2008. These job losses have hurt economic activity far more than some of the other pet projects that politicians claim are jobs worth fighting for. But perhaps worse than the current economic activity is the affect these cuts will have on the future of this country.

A Harvard study shows that one good teacher has the ability to increase a child's lifetime earnings. With less money and stability in education fewer students will be compelled to pursue education as a profession. If the goal is to improve education then this study would suggest making schools the target of massive budget cuts is probably the wrong way to go about it.

The reality is that thanks to the realization from many politicians that attracting top talent to the education field requires a certain commitment from the government and local communities, school districts across the nation are filled with exceptional teachers that inspire students to achieve greatness. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who their favorite teacher was and you are likely to get a quick and passionate response.

Unfortunately for many teachers, students often don't recognize and appreciate how important a particular teacher was in their lives until they are much older. So while we are more than happy to talk with anyone who asks about the things that made a teacher our favorite, those teachers are often unaware of how influential they were.

But if you really want to see the value of a good teacher you need look no further than two Southeastern Michigan communities that lost extraordinary educators over the past few weeks. Linden, Michigan teacher Andy Kargel and Saline, Michigan educator Jim Letcher both passed away in March of this year. The outpouring from the students and parents in their school districts shows just how special both of these men were.

Friends of the Kargel family set up a website that people allows anyone to donate to the college fund for Andy's two young children. The goal of $50,000 was passed in under a week. While this shows how important Andy Kargel was to so many people, the comments attached to many of these donations are a true testament to the teacher that Andy was.

"Both of our kids were lucky enough to have Andy for years. Our youngest talked about him every day when I picked her up from school. He was a very special person, and none of us will ever forget him!"

"Thank you Mr. Kargel, for being the best teacher ever."

"3 of my 5 sons have had the pleasure of Mr. Kargel inspiring them through his teachings."

"Mr. Kargel left a lasting impression on our family, he was such an amazing teacher and person!"

The students and colleagues of Jim Letcher also took time to share stories about the profound impact Jim had on students and how he made each school he worked for a better place.

"He was by far the best teacher Gabby ever had. She grew so much this year because of him."

"Wonderful teacher! Rest in peace Mr. Letcher, you will be missed!"

"He was the charismatic soul of the building"

These words show that while both of these men were outstanding teachers they were even better people. Of course if you asked either of them if they were a great teacher they would humbly point to host of colleagues, educators and mentors that inspired them on a daily basis as those deserving of such a distinction. Because their goal was never to compete with other teachers for greater monetary rewards but instead to be part of the team that provided their students with the best possible education.

We never know when it will be our last chance to tell our favorite teachers how they made us a better person. How they inspired us. How they gave us the confidence to reach for our dreams. If you had a teacher that made a difference in your life like Andy and Jim did for thousands of Michigan students, today is as good a day as any to let them know you appreciate all their hard work and special attention. Just don't be surprised when they feel undeserving of these accolades because most great teachers do the job for the love of it.

Kevin Sorbo has no faith in Bill Maher

Last week Bill Maher made some statements on his HBO show Real Time that had the "War on Christianity" crowd up in arms. While most of these people will find any statement regarding religion from Bill Maher to be offensive, when he stated that God was a “psychotic mass murderer” for creating humans and subsequently flooding the world - killing nearly every man, woman, and child on the planet, in an attempt to start over - to many, this crossed a line.

Never wanting to let a possible controversy go to waste, the good folks in the conservative media found a way to turn this criticism into a full blown attack. While the opinions of celebrities are typically frowned upon by conservatives, noted Christian actor Kevin Sorbo happened to be out to promote his new film called "God's Not Dead". When asked about the comments made by Bill Maher, Sorbo described him as a "very angry and lonely man”.

This follows a religious meme that has been building for years where Christians in the US are being persecuted for their beliefs. Given that nearly 80% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian it seems this oppression is probably more myth than fact but the problem is, for most of these people, this is the first time they've experienced any systemic form of discrimination. Many of them have never experienced the inequality of the justice system. They are not stopped on the street and asked to prove they are US citizens. They've never been denied service for being who they are.

The biggest affront they often face is walking into a store in December and being greeted with "Happy Holidays". For them racism is fiction but religious intolerance is rampant plague ruining the country.

Of course if you actually watched the piece by Bill Maher you would see that his beef is not with religion per se but with the denial of science and adherence to the impossible for religious purposes. Asking someone to recognize that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and used as a science book is a far cry from the "hate" that some have ascribed to it.

Having said that, if a Christian uses the Bible in an attempt to convert non-believes it's often referred to as spreading the word of God and thought of as holy mission. Bill Maher is simply using the Bible in an attempt to convert believers. Being passionate about this endeavor and putting his faith in science instead of religion doesn't make him angry or hateful.

While Bill Maher is being demonized for his attempts to change viewers minds no one seems at all concerned that after Kevin Sorbo's condemnation of Bill he continued to proselytize for Christianity.

Unfortunately rather than discuss the virtues of Christianity Sorbo took the low road of fear mongering to convince viewers of the need for more Christianity in the US, stating "Morals are declining, the country is going under". Like the denial of science this conclusion, that the US has lost its moral compass, almost never includes any empirical evidence.

What data is Kevin Sorbo looking at to make such a bold declaration? What time period was the peak of morality? When slavery ended? When interracial marriage was deemed legal? After releasing Japanese Americans from Internment Camps?

Are crime rates a proxy for morals? If so the rates of violent crime, simple assault, aggravated assault, rape, property crime and robbery have all dropped steadily for the past two decades.

Does the abortion rate correlate to morality? If so the number of abortions recently hit a 30 year low.

Is teen pregnancy and indicator of the country’s moral standing? If so teen pregnancy is down 42% since 1990.

How about the number of marriages that end in divorce each year? Does more divorce mean lower morals? If so in 2009 we hit a 40 year low in the divorce rate.

Perhaps Kevin Sorbo is referring to is the Biblical sin of gluttony when talking about declining morals. If that is the case the share of income going to the top 1% is at or near record highs.

The reality is that religious convictions and how people choose to observe them is a deeply personal matter that even most atheist respect the sanctity of. The validity of Bible based hyperbole used to counter science and data however is fair game for debate.

If you don't like what Bill Maher has to say about the Bible, the answer is simple - shut him up by using science to prove him wrong. Otherwise accept that his "intolerance" of your views is only matched by your intolerance of his.

Abortion: Murder or medical procedure?

Even among those who are not political junkies, discussing a women's right to have an abortion elicits a strong response. I recently penned an article discussing the Republican hypocrisy regarding keeping government out of people's private lives. In the article I talked about the threats from the Tennessee's Republican led legislature towards Volkswagen employees considering unionizing, the Republican push to use the power of government to ban same sex couples from the benefits of marriage, as well as the insistence by many Republicans to include creationism in public school science classes even though there is no science in this belief.

There was certainly more than enough red meat for conservatives to chew on but the line that received the biggest response by far was the line where I suggested that women, not Republican legislatures, should be allowed to decide what collection of cells to remove from their body. My colleague, blogging pioneer and fellow patriot Jason Vines said this "was perhaps the vilest thing that has ever appeared on this site".

Luckily unlike Jason's thoughts on the topic a women's right to an abortion is not subjective - it is constitutionally guaranteed.

Hyperbole aside, the dividing line when it comes to abortion is your view of the zygote, embryo, and fetus. We all start as a collection of cells which divide repeatedly to form skin, limbs, organs and a brain.

The question then becomes when does this collection of cells obtain rights? The pro-life camp tends to believe life begins at conception so ever abortion is murder. The pro-choice camp tends to think personhood isn't achieved till much later so an abortion is a medical procedure to remove unwanted cells. Neither side is willing to back down from their stance, but the highest court in the land has thus far sided with those in the pro-choice camp.

There are of course many people who fall somewhere in between. Some are against abortion but OK in the case or rape or incest. Some feel an abortion is justified if the life of the mother is in danger. Others believe an abortion is justified if the fetus has defects that would affect the quality of life.

Then there are also those that feel that the legality of an abortion corresponds to a certain time frame - once there's a heartbeat, once there are brain waves, or no later than 20 weeks. If you take all of these variations into account only 20% of the population believes an abortion is murder starting at conception. It should also be noted that if 20 weeks is an acceptable cut off only 1% of all abortions occur after 20 weeks.

Regardless, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, no one wants more abortions to occur each year. Unfortunately the methods each side supports for how we achieve that goal are dramatically different. Pro-life organizations have worked diligently to make getting an abortion more and more difficult hoping to eventually make all abortions illegal. Given the results of government crack downs in other areas such as prohibition and the war on drugs it seems unlikely that making abortion illegal will actually reduce the number of abortions per year. Instead it will just make abortions more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Pro-Choice groups on the other hand would prefer to use the power of education to reduce the number of abortions with information. Instead of attempting and failing to rewire the brains of teenagers with abstinence only education pro-choice groups would prefer to explain what happens during sex, how to prevent pregnancy, and give people all the information necessary to help them make better choices.

Unfortunately to many, the effectiveness of the methods isn’t important. If having sex results in a pregnancy, then you must see that pregnancy through. Purposely removing those cells is murder even though the law says otherwise.

Of course if all human life was as sacrosanct to conservatives as a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus you might expect them to act differently in other situations.

For instance Republicans are twice as likely as a Democrat to support the death penalty.

Over 30,000 Americans die every year from guns yet Republicans overwhelming oppose restricting or reducing gun rights.

Republicans support drone strikes at significantly greater levels than Democrats even though these drone kill hundreds of civilians each year.

Republican legislators oppose many of the efforts of the EPA aimed at reducing air pollution even though some 200,000 Americans die every year from poor air quality.

Heart disease kills some 600,000 Americans per year yet attempts to curb the availability of foods that lead to heart disease are often rebuffed as government overreach.

Just like abortion statistics these numbers don't prove one side right or the other side wrong. What they do show is that one person's "murder" is another person’s "choice". So the opinion of my colleague or the one he assumes I must have, given that we have never had the opportunity to discuss this topic, are completely irrelevant. In the end these decisions rest with solely with nine judges in Washington DC. But don't let that reality get in the way of a good take down piece.

"Choice": Another Republican lie

Republican lead legislatures across the nation are making controversial changes to many laws under the guise of "choice". Charter schools give families a "choice" of where to send their children. Right to work gives workers a "choice" to join a union. Repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) gives individuals a "choice" of health care.

The truth is "choice" is a red herring in these political discussions.

In 2013 only 11.3% of workers belonged to a union. This means that around 90% of jobs don't require employees to be a union member. Additionally there are some 4 million jobs that are currently unfilled. Are there really no choices available for anti-union workers? Are they somehow being forced to accept union jobs because no other jobs exist?

Additionally, the formation of a union is a constitutional protected right that requires a majority vote. In the public sector this is often referred to as the democratic process or part of what makes America the greatest country on earth. Right to work allows individuals to opt out of this democratic process.

If allowing individuals to vacate their union membership is the Republican's idea of "choice" and true choice actually matters to Republicans then they should also allow any number of individuals to organize a union instead of requiring a majority vote. If right to work represented a genuine choice the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would have a union of 626 employees right now. But when Republicans say they want "choice" they only mean a choice to ignore things they oppose.

The same is true of charter schools. When Republicans discuss having a choice among schools they are talking about turning children into a commodity that their donors can profit from. Because the majority of charter schools are in locations that serve families that nearly every other Republican policy harms. "Choice" is just a catch phrase Republicans use to make this money grab politically palatable.

If choice were really a concern then the board of trustees would be elected by and answer to the parents of the students instead of the charter school owner. After all shouldn't parents get a choice in how the school is run? Some schools require a certain level of parent involvement. Parent involvement is clearly a good thing for students but think of the outrage from Republicans if their local public school required parents to pledge 5 hours a week of their time to the school. Republicans built and entire political party on fighting the ACA's individual mandate - just imagine the response to being forced to spend time with their kids.

To advertise their product one charter school said "A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations". This loosely translates to "no one tells us what to do". This "flexibility" exists because charter schools don't have to meet many of the same standards or teacher the same ridged curriculum that states have imposed on public schools.

If choice is the impetus for changing education in the US why wouldn't Republicans just follow their own talking point and get government out of the education process. Instead of coming up with a whole new system, just allow schools to choose for themselves the best method of teaching children. If parents didn't like the direction the school was taking they could always choose different school board members.

Of course these changes all revolve around the belief that somehow the free market offers choice where government doesn't. In their mind choosing to give their business to a company is choice, but participating in democracy is not.

So if you don't like big oil the Republican answer is simple - don't use oil. On the surface this is a completely reasonable idea. But if you think about it at all you realize just how little choice you really have. Sure you can buy a hybrid car, walk to work, or take a bike but the hybrid car still has plastic and rubber components that are made from oil. The same is true of the bike and shoes.

Beyond that, imagine trying to eliminate all oil products from your house. Carpets, appliances, technology, and food packing all contain oil. Even the every day products you buy from the store required oil to produce and ship to market.

Could you choose to not have any of your money go to big oil? It's possible, but it would also take such a ridiculous level of commitment that even the most ardent conservative would have to admit this hardly qualifies as a choice.

This free market choice also assumes all of the information you need to make these decisions is readily available. Thanks to Republicans, corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts money to causes you may or may not support and this can all be done in a completely anonymous way. Maybe they spend money to support gun rights, abortion rights, or the ACA. Under the current rules consumers won't even know if the companies they frequent have an agenda that they agree with. The companies have a choice but the public does not.

The reality is that when Republicans say they support "choice" they really only mean choices that benefit big business. If it happens to help someone else that's fine, but a choice that hurts a company is something Republicans will ironically use every government power at their disposal to stop.

How a black president made racism acceptable

Earlier this year the Civil Rights divisions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (DOE) put out a letter to help public schools navigate the complicated issue of racial inequality in public school discipline.

Of course the Obama administration can't do anything without conservatives claiming the sky is falling so it should come as no surprise that the government's attempt to help schools abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act would turn into cries of "quotas" and "manifestos".

While the actual letter is far from a manifestos the bias from the right is clear. Detroit News Editorial writer Ingrid Jacques stated "What the letter overlooks is the possibility that the numbers are higher for these (black) students because they actually misbehave more."

If you recall this was a popular meme not too long ago with gun violence when "black on black crime" became a common talking point for Fox News and other conservative echo chambers. Rather than addressing how racism affects the country and having a serious conversation about how to address it many conservatives have adopted the Ann Coulter line of thinking that racism doesn't exist anymore. In this world being ignorant clearly trumps accepting one's own flaws and attempting to become a better person.

It should be noted that Civil Rights include more than the rights of African Americans. They are there to prevent the government and private organizations from discriminating against anyone, be it for the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sex, or their sexual orientation.

In this instance the DOJ and DOE present data that suggests there is a systemic problem with discrimination in the education system. Conservatives look at these stats and believe they prove that black students are inherently more disruptive and need to be censured more often. In the past these sorts of beliefs would quickly be identified as racist however hypersensitivity from the right over putting a label on their bigotry prevents people from calling a spade a spade anymore.

But imagine if instead of black students it was discovered that devoutly religious students were twice as likely to be disciplined as their non religious counterparts. Would those in the religious community not seek a change in how punishment was doled out? Would they be comfortable with an atheist writer suggesting that religious students are inherently more disruptive? Would they not cry that these students Civil Rights were being ignored?

While it may be a great comfort for some white folks to believe that African Americans are just more violent and unruly than their white peers, the data tells a different story.

Even though black and white kids use marijuana at similar rates, black youth were four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

While the media would have you believe black on black crime is a problem it occurs at an almost identical rate as white on white crime. The same is also true of violent crime rates where socioeconomic status not skin color determined the likelihood of being a victim.

In New York 83% of the people who were stopped and frisked were black or Hispanic yet they only represent around half of the population.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth shows the US is a deeply racist country with African Americans being perceived as the most lawless.

The reality is that for many whites this bias is a self fulfilling prophecy. They only accept the information that matches their prejudice and never consider how their views and actions exacerbate the problem. Perhaps nothing proves that more than this belief that a black president asking public schools to consider the Civil Rights of all students is somehow a socialist affront to whites yet when the white president says "Strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of my administration" it is an applause line.

Unfortunately having a black president didn't end racism. Instead racists pretend things have changed and use political debate as cover to rationalize their bigoted talking points.

Republicans are thugs

For decades one of the core principles of the Republican Party was that the government should be less involved in making decision for the populace. Unfortunately the actions of Republican legislators suggest that this meme only applies when Democrats are the ones making the rules.

If you are a woman and you would like to remove a collection of cells from your body the Republican Party feels they should have more control over your body than you do and have spent the past few years putting in rule after rule that puts politicians squarely between a woman and her doctor.

In North Carolina the government repeatedly blocked lawsuits against a massive energy company for damage to the environment and instead assessed a minor fine without ever requiring the company to fix the problems that were creating the environmental damage.

If you are gay the Republican Party has been shamed into reluctantly accepting you as citizens however they have altered state constitutions across the nation to ban same sex couples from being married.

Republicans in some Southern states are forcing students to learn creationism in science class even though there is no actual science involved.

But perhaps Republican's most duplicitous action so far was perpetrated in Tennessee where Republicans lied to and threatened Volkswagen employees regarding the potential results of their pending UAW vote.

Outside of the fact that these actions are the complete antithesis of what Republicans claim to support, Volkswagen actually would like the employees to have some form of representation to work with management. Given the results of the recent UAW vote, the Tennessee Volkswagen plant is now the only Volkswagen plant without a works council. According to a representative from the Volkswagen works council in Germany, the failure to form a representative body may cause the manufacturer to look to more union friendly location in the future.

One big question none of these politicians have ever answered is why they are so ardently against Volkswagen employees forming a union. The constitution allows for collective bargaining. The union voting was a democratic process. For the "buy American" crowd, the additional wages union employees make, helps keep more money in the US instead of letting it trickle down in Germany. Plus, Tennessee is already a right to work state which allows employees to opt out.

If Republicans were true to their word they would concede like former conservative hero turned union member Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher "It's an American worker's right to unionize" and that "the employees voted to have it that way and in America that's the way it is".

In the end getting the government out of your private life is just another false meme politicians sell to an under informed electorate to elicit hate and fear for political gain because even for the representatives of the "values voters" the ends justify the means regardless of how immoral their actions may be.

Political fiction is what really kills jobs

In politics the line between reality and fantasy is often hard to decipher. The recent ruling by a Nebraska court regarding the Keystone XL pipeline offers another example of this situation.

The ruling voided a law the Nebraska legislature had enacted that approved the pipeline. This means more legal action will soon follow and the decision on the pipeline will be delay by several months. This is also another occasion for conservatives to talk up the benefits of the project.

The first argument they make is that the Keystone pipeline creates jobs. Data shows that the construction will create thousands of temporary jobs but in the end the pipeline will only create35 long term jobs. It should be noted that during the debate over the 2009 stimulus package Republicans clearly were not in favor of creating what they called "menial and temporary" jobs.

The second claim they like to make is that the Keystone pipeline will reduce gas prices. Unfortunately even the company arguing for the project was only willing to say that the pipeline "could" reduce prices. The reality is that standard free market principles still apply. So while much of this oil will be sold outside of the US, the portion that does remain within our borders will be subject to global oil pricing. In order for the new pipeline to actually lower prices it would have to generate a significant additional supply which lowers the demand. Given that this project will only produce at maximum 830,000 barrels per day or less than 1% of the daily world total a noticeable drop seems unlikely.

Finally, they also claim that the Keystone pipeline will lead to energy independence for the US. Outside of the fact that much of this oil will not be used domestically the US is already on the way to energy independence thanks to lower usage rates and a boom in production for domestic energy sources. In fact under Barack Obama the US is on pace to produce record setting amounts of domestic crude.

Of course the Keystone pipeline isn't the only topic that conservatives debate from within their political bubble.

The head of the NRA stated, and many conservatives believe, that the president wants to take away your guns rights even though the only legislation he has signed regarding guns have expanded gun rights.

Even though the stock market hit record highs, companies are making record profits, the top 1% is taking home more money than ever, and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash Republican insist that Barack Obama is "anti business".

A majority of Republicans believe the president is not a US citizen. No amount of logic or documentation will convince them otherwise even though everyone in the know abandoned this conspiracy theory long ago.

Many conservatives believe that as president Barack Obama has raised taxes yet the actual data shows the US tax burden fell to its lowest point since 1958 under Obama.

Republicans also insist that government spending is out of control under Barack Obama even though once you account for inflation and population change federal expenditures have fallen more during his presidency than any other president over the past four decades.

The reality is that voters can chastise congress and the president for failing to accomplish anything but as our system is currently configured there is absolutely no reason for the politicians to change their tactics unless the electorate stops accepting fiction as fact.

Minimum wage doesn't kill jobs - Politicians do.

This week the CBO released a report discussing the potential outcome of an increase in the federal minimum wage. While the proposal would pull nearly 1 million people out of poverty and increase wages for some 24 million American workers the only portion of the report Republicans would like to discuss is the possible 500,000 job losses.

Conservative voices like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin have suddenly found value in this CBO report which stands in stark contrast to their previous sentiment of this organization whose previous reports they said were just an "opinion", used "smoke and mirrors", and contained "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline".

Apparently to these conservatives the CBO is a deeply biased political organization except when their findings conform to Republican talking points.

Of course rather than have substantive discussions on how we can increase wages for millions of hard working Americans without losing jobs, both sides will cherry pick the data they want to accentuate and dismiss the rest. This sort of tribal nature of politics is partly to blame for the lack of action in Washington these days.

All politicians should support getting working class Americans a larger share of the profits they helped create. Data shows that unions are a more effective method of achieving this result than minimum wage however just last week in Tennessee we had Republican politicians completely misinforming their constituents in an attempt to use the power of government to pick the winners and losers.

The reason unions are better at getting more appropriate pay and benefits for American workers than minimum wage requirements is because such requirements are a one size fits all solution to a very complicated capitalist system. The union’s goals are to help increase profitability for their company so that they can get higher pay and greater benefits for their members while simultaneously increasing their membership. This requires both sides to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.

As it is currently configured an increase in the minimum wage requires none of the analysis, discussions, or compromise that are at the core of a good union contract. Instead it will punish some companies that have low profit margins or are still pouring money back into the company to grow.

Perhaps what both sides should consider is a flexible minimum wage proposal - a system that uses the compensation for the members at the top of an organization to determine the minimum wage at the bottom. By tying the compensation of the management staff to that of the rest of the organization these companies could still pay their executives tens of millions of dollars each year however that level of compensation would trigger a minimum wage which would be significantly higher than that of a company that pays its top officials hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

With this sort of a system the smaller companies that can't afford to pay their employees above the current federal minimum wage could continue to keep wages low as long as they don't take massive salaries and benefits for themselves. After all, should a company with 30 employees, all making minimum wage, really have a CEO that is taking home millions in compensation?

Maybe a system like this could work or maybe it couldn't but when you have two parties that are more concerned about debunking the CBO and scoring political points than finding new ideas to solve age old issues, the electorate may be forced to make changes that we can all agree the politicians won't like.

Rick Snyder is working to destroy public schools

In his most recent budget offering Rick Snyder has requested an increase in education spending for Michigan schools. For years Republicans have argued that spending more money on education is a bad idea, but this is an election year and polls show that the public supports more spending on education so rather than attempting to make a case to back up their core beliefs conservative media outlets are trying to convince everyone that the governor has actually been a big spending education advocate.

As a result of this debate you can find quotes from the Mark Schauer, the Democrat running for governor, claiming that under Rick Snyder Michigan is spending $1 billion less on education as well as the corresponding assertion from the governor’s office that under his watch spending has increased by $660 per pupil.

Both sides continue to use slanted math to posture for position in the governor's race but let's imagine for a minute that the citizens in Michigan are more interested in the money going towards education than which candidate can manipulate information better.

In that case it should be noted that since 2007 spending on education in Michigan has failed to keep pace with inflation to the tune of around $1.5 billion. Additionally in 2003 total per pupil revenue in Michigan was 7.8% higher than the national average while it had dropped to 2.9% below the national average by 2010.

Of course it is also true that less money is going is making its way to the classroom then before. According to an article by Julie Mack of Mlive "In today's dollars, the per-pupil foundation allowance was worth $8,170 in 2003-04, the report says. Under the governor's proposed budget, its $5,932 in 2013-14".

Conservative will be quick to point out that this fall in classroom spending is largely due to the increased spending on the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSER). However it should be noted that a large portion of the additional funds being allocated to the MPSER program come directly from employees. It certainly doesn't suggest education is a priority for the governor if the only way he can show an increase in education spending is by taking money out of the pockets of Michigan educators and putting it back on the balance sheet as “spending”.

Perhaps more concerning then the half truths and number manipulation coming from Lansing is the use of MPSER as a tool to undermine public schools. One of the biggest reasons the retirement fund for teachers is underfunded is due to the ratio of people currently contributing to the number of people drawing from the fund. Over the past decade the ratio dropped from around 2.5 employees per retiree to 1.23. Obviously less money going in and more money going out will have a negative impact on longevity of the retirement funds.

Some of this occurred because of loss of students due to the recession but the Michigan legislature compounded this problem by offering early retirement to cut cost. While this helped in the short term it increased the number of retirees drawing from MPSER, making the fund less solvent moving forward. To make matters worse Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans continue to move students out of the public school system and into Charter schools. Unlike public schools, enrolment in MPSER is optional for these new entities.

Rick Snyder will happily continue to talk about education spending and tout his record because he realizes the unwinnable situation he has set up for Michigan's public schools. He will claim public schools are inefficient and expensive and then offer Charter Schools as the solution.

Never mind that two decades worth of Charter Schools haven't proven to have better educational outcomes then public schools.

Never mind that many Charter Schools actually spend more than their public school counter parts.

Never mind that Charter Schools aren't subject to the same government regulation and oversight that are a burden on public schools.

Never mind that Charter Schools have more money going to administrator and less to educators than public schools.

Never mind that foreign investors make up and ever increasing portion of Charter School owners.

Never mind that Charter Schools offer less special education than public schools.

And never mind that Charter Schools end up being a way for politicians to reward big donors.

Regardless of all of these potential problem areas, Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans know that every school they deem failing will simply be converted to a Charter School which pulls more students out of public schools. This in turn mean less teachers contributing to the public retirement fund and with fewer teachers contributing it requires the state to kick in more. The perception then becomes that greedy teachers taking money out of the classroom and this means public schools are expensive and inefficient.

This is the self fulfilling prophecy that Republicans hope will be the undoing of public schools. The Republican solution to inefficient and expensive public schools makes public schools more inefficient and expensive requiring more of the Republican solution. It's a win - win for Republicans. They make public schools look bad while simultaneously putting more kids on the charter schools gravy train.

The question of money in education is important but when it comes to the Michigan governor’s race the better question should be what do we want our education system to look like in the future. Do we want schools that are subject to local checks and balances or a couple massive corporations that make their money based on quantity not quality? Because regardless of how much either candidate pledges to spend, their goals are profoundly different.

Republican rebranding a massive failure

After the worse than expected results of the last elections the Republican National Committee did an autopsy to find out where they were failing. While the answers to these questions were anything but surprising, the RNC have been working to rebrand the Republican Party as a kinder more inclusive organization.

The report suggested that their rebranding efforts need to focus on finding ways to connect with young voters, women, and minorities. The degree of success they have had is certainly debatable however RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is sticking to the rebranding strategy and has used stature as head of the image reclamation project to castigate MSNBC when their twitter account painted Republicans as being against interracial marriage.

Based on this comment and what Mr. Priebus suggests is a systemic issue at the network, the RNC banned all staff from appearing on MSNBC and asked "Republican surrogates and officials" to do the same.

Not too long ago a member of Duck Dynasty made some disparaging remarks that resulted in his suspension from the show by A&E. The outcry from the right was immediate. Conservative luminaries such as Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal suggested free speech was under attack while Fox News claimed in a headline "A&E declares war on 'Duck Dynasty's' Christian values".

Fast forward a few months and apparently free speech only applies to those with conservative values. The Fox News headline now reads "Reince Priebus stands up to MSNBC's offensive tweet".

Of course the reality is that all American's are free to express the opinions whenever and where ever they want and organizations like the RNC and A&E are free to respond however they see fit.

Having said that the problem that Republicans face runs deeper than how a biased news organization perceives their party. For example, only 40% of Mississippi Republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal. Reince Priebus can be offended all he wants but perhaps rather than going after MSNBC for furthering a stereotype the RNC would be better off informing their own party on how antiquated these views are and that they will not be tolerated.

The real problem here is that Republicans were so desperate to win elections they allowed fringe elements of the Republican party a voice because they needed voter enthusiasm to combat a shrinking base. Unfortunately by doing this they enfranchised a group of bigots who believe their beliefs have been validated.

So when Coke aired a super bowl advertisement that had "American the Beautiful" sung in multiple languages, conservative sites like Breitbart.com felt compelled to convince readers that such an act is un-American or as former Representative Allen West said about the ad - "This was a truly disturbing commercial for me". What was the RNC response to this?

Donald Trump made being a birther one of the main tenants of his short presidential bid playing to the Majority of Republicans who believe President Obama was born outside of the US. John McCain had the intestinal fortitude to tell his supporters that Barack Obama "is a decent family man - citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with". The RNC on the other hand was leading from behind on this issue stating "Trump and the candidates can talk about it all they want".

Multiple Republican candidates made ill informed statements about reproduction such as Todd Akin's comment on "legitimate rape", Joe Walsh denying abortions could ever save the life of the mother, and Richard Murdock who believes a baby conceived during rape is a "gift from God".

Representative Vance McAllister invited a member of the 'Duck Dynasty' clan to the State of the Union because he wanted to bring "some diversity to our nation's capitol." Yes, in a party that is represented by rich white guys, being a rich white guy with a beard apparently now represents diversity.

Reince Priebus can cut off contact with liberal media outlets to protest claims that he feels are unjust however if he is truly dedicated to reestablishing the Republican Party he could start by looking in the mirror first because as these examples show there is nothing the liberal media can say that will make Republicans look worse than their own actions do.

Are Republican's really interested in a balanced budget amendment?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.