In the commentary “What is it all coming to” On the student blog “Critical Government”, the author addresses the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act and the emphasis on the TAKS test. I not only concur with their conclusions, I think the issue goes even deeper. Here is my additional food for thought.
As a father of two young children of 4 and 6, in pre-K and Kindergarten respectively, I can attest to the absolute hysteria the schools go into when it comes time to test for the TAKS. This last week when the tests were in progress the elementary school we attend was on total lockdown; like a prison with an escape in progress. No parents and no volunteers were allowed on campus and the children were not even allowed to leave the building for recess on the playground!
I’m sorry, this just reeks of a completely out of control, one-size-fits-all solution to an issue with so many facets that it makes the hope diamond look smoother than the lens of the Hubble telescope.
First off, each school has to deal with the individual social elements of their districts. Regardless of race, upper and middle class districts will statistically have better performance than districts of lower incomes. This is due to the influence of better educated parents as well as the lack of many of the social ills that effect lower income neighborhoods. Johnny #1 who has parents who read to him and a full time mom is going to do much better in school than Johnny #2 whose parents both work full time, and sometime more than 1 job. That is if they aren’t drunk or engaged in crime. Now, many kids do overcome this type of background and go on to college, but they are the exceptional A personality types. Regardless of the support they receive at school, many do fall into the trappings of the society they live in and that is a social problem, not an educational one.
Instead of pumping more support to these schools and societies, we brand them as failing, release their teachers and terminate their administrators, the very people who probably understand the students… then wonder why they are still failing. In 2009, 73,000 students were in “failing” public schools across South Carolina. Of those 73,000, 92% were from low income families and 77% were African American. “Students Trapped in Failing Schools”
Compounding this problem, the NCLB act sets an achievement goal that goes up every year leading up to 100% achievement by the 2013-14 school year. Thus, as the goal gets higher, each year more schools are labeled as failing. In California, 2010 ushered in a year where, for the first time, over 50% of schools failed to achieve the target percentage. It is predicted that by 2013, 100% of California schools serving low income populations will be labeled as failing. “Number of Failing Schools Increase”
Second, the NCLB act makes the erroneous assumption that every child should, and is capable of, leaving high school ready for college. When I went to school in the 80’s, the schools taught basic everyday things everyone should know. Basic math, reading comprehension, writing, how to write a check, balance your bank account etc. The girls usually took Home Economics; the boys took shop or Agriculture. Advanced classes were there for those going on to college, and basic living skills and trades were there for those that were not. Not everyone has the same IQ, the same aptitudes or the same ambitions in life. Many of us went on to college or trade schools and work in corporate America. Many got out, got working class jobs and started making babies. Going back home, sometimes I suspect many of the latter have lead just as happy if not happier lives. Now, we try and pump everyone through college and many trades are suffering because of the lack of new people entering the fields and the upcoming retirement of older workers. “Jobs available if you have the skills”
Many countries like the Dutch split their educational system at a certain year, teaching either trades or college prep. The Dutch split theirs at age 12 using the results of both an aptitude test and the preference of the parents and student. Here in the US we demand pre-college of all students, which in turn causes those without a pre-college aptitude to drop out of the system without any kind of diploma, actually leaving more children behind, not less.
You can pass all the laws you want but you can’t legislate a perfect world. At some point you have to pull your head out of the clouds and deal with the realities on the ground. At the same time that entitlements for the poor are under attack, we are demanding more of the children of the affected families under pressure and not giving them the skills they need to make a living.
This is a prime example of what happens when the legislators are detached socially from the general populace and do not have a realistic perspective of peoples everyday lives. If they want to support education, give the schools the support but let the decisions be made at the local level as to what is needed and how to do it. We don’t make our children with cookie cutters and we shouldn’t try to educate them with one.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Confessions of an Elf
Sigh…
I would have really preferred writing on some subject, any subject, other than the “Birther” conspiracy issue… but despite the idiocy of the subject and all the other troubles our country is facing, it still won’t go away. Even after President Obama presented his long form birth certificate it is still in the news.
I seldom use terms like idiotic to describe an opposing viewpoint, as it is rather disrespectful and name calling is a tactic usually employed by those lacking facts to back up their opinions. But in this case I really can’t think of a more fitting word to describe it.
This is one of the stories I had pretty much followed just by scanning the headlines. It had the scent of one of the attack tactics the right wing has become known for and I was pretty sure they were severely distorting some trivial fact to arrive at their opinion. Once I chose it as a topic though I decided to go ahead and find out exactly what they were basing their claim on.
I examined the Constitutional requirements for presidential citizenship “ Qualifications to be President”, the legal history of the definition of a natural born citizen “ Natural Born Citizen”, looked up the birthers claims and steps that had been taken to counter them. “ Conspiracy Theories”
Low and behold, I couldn’t find anything. Nothing. Not a single fact or document pointed to anything credible at all, even if twisted.
I also find it unbelievable that an aspiring candidate like Trump would even dare take this up as a cause. It might have endeared him to the few extremists at the fringe, but for me it really brings into question not only his intelligence but his ability to lead responsibly.
My conclusion is that Obama has a valid Birth Certificate proving he is a natural born US citizen, the same “short form” document that I have used my entire life to prove my citizenship and identity. Granted, my certificate has never come under the scrutiny his has. Looking mine over, I see the postmark from Olean, NY used in 1966… containing the words “Queen City of the Enchanted Mountains”.
O.k…. I’m an Elf, I admit it.
Additional Links:
Birthers attempt to manipulate Obama's mother:
“ Phone Recording”
I would have really preferred writing on some subject, any subject, other than the “Birther” conspiracy issue… but despite the idiocy of the subject and all the other troubles our country is facing, it still won’t go away. Even after President Obama presented his long form birth certificate it is still in the news.
I seldom use terms like idiotic to describe an opposing viewpoint, as it is rather disrespectful and name calling is a tactic usually employed by those lacking facts to back up their opinions. But in this case I really can’t think of a more fitting word to describe it.
This is one of the stories I had pretty much followed just by scanning the headlines. It had the scent of one of the attack tactics the right wing has become known for and I was pretty sure they were severely distorting some trivial fact to arrive at their opinion. Once I chose it as a topic though I decided to go ahead and find out exactly what they were basing their claim on.
I examined the Constitutional requirements for presidential citizenship “ Qualifications to be President”, the legal history of the definition of a natural born citizen “ Natural Born Citizen”, looked up the birthers claims and steps that had been taken to counter them. “ Conspiracy Theories”
Low and behold, I couldn’t find anything. Nothing. Not a single fact or document pointed to anything credible at all, even if twisted.
I also find it unbelievable that an aspiring candidate like Trump would even dare take this up as a cause. It might have endeared him to the few extremists at the fringe, but for me it really brings into question not only his intelligence but his ability to lead responsibly.
My conclusion is that Obama has a valid Birth Certificate proving he is a natural born US citizen, the same “short form” document that I have used my entire life to prove my citizenship and identity. Granted, my certificate has never come under the scrutiny his has. Looking mine over, I see the postmark from Olean, NY used in 1966… containing the words “Queen City of the Enchanted Mountains”.
O.k…. I’m an Elf, I admit it.
Additional Links:
Birthers attempt to manipulate Obama's mother:
“ Phone Recording”
Friday, April 15, 2011
No Guns on Campus; The Rebuttal
For my blog entry 6 I have chosen and article ““ No Guns on Campus”” from the student blog ““ Government for the People 2011””. Whereas the article makes some points, it is purely an emotional stance with no supporting evidence presented. The author, through their use of language, makes it clear this an opinion article and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I will be presenting an opposing view. This is another area where, though being a moderate in general, I swing solidly to the right and I am fully in support of allowing concealed weapons on college campuses if the gun owner has a concealed weapon permit.
Speaking from my own personal experience, I attended a small rural High School in the 1980’s that quite literally was loaded with guns. If you looked into the parking lot, almost every pickup and a lot of cars had at least a .22 or a shotgun at minimum. Many were fully decked out with a .22 for varmints, High power hunting rifle, Shot gun, and sometimes even a hand gun; even though they were widely regarded as inaccurate and useless. The point is that during my entire time there, not a single one of those weapons were brandished. The owners were brought up around weapons, trained in their use from a young age and taught to respect them. If there was a fight, you fought, you either won or lost, and you never thought “I’m going to go get my gun”. Guns can safely be in an academic environment if the owners are responsible.
Also speaking from personal experience, I have been involved in a shooting incident. A co-worker was driving a tractor in a field where I was also working and someone they knew walked into the field and blasted a shotgun right into their abdomen. We immediately retrieved our rifles and stood at the ready with the truck as cover. If we had not had our weapons, they could have easily have decided not to leave any witnesses. As it stood, we had equal or greater firepower and a defensive position. The perpetrator did not threaten us, fled the scene and was later arrested. Despite the adrenalin of the situation we did not fire a shot because our gun culture and training said you only fire if directly threatened and a show of force prevented that.
Having established that background, I will now address the article. The author’s first elaboration comes in the first paragraph where they say, “I would support a higher level of a security force on our campuses verses an 18 year old or anyone having a concealed hand gun on campus”. The author also makes a reference to maturity thus implying that we would be handing our kids a HS diploma, handgun and sending them off to school. This shows an ignorance of the proposal in question and a lack of research by the author. In Texas you must be 21 to own a handgun or get a concealed permit and the process includes a full background check, even a Class A misdemeanor disqualifies you. You must prove proficiency with the weapon and read and know the laws concerning the use of deadly force. The process takes up to 60 days so there cannot be a “in the heat of the moment” permit. If you purchase the gun from a licensed dealer, you must also pass a federal check with a mental health element and a waiting period. Just the age restriction alone would limit most permits to the late junior or most likely senior grade level, older students or professors. “ Texas Gun Laws”
By comparison, we take 18 year olds into military boot camp, train them for 9 weeks, only a small portion of which is weapon training, and after completing their MOC they can be sent off into battle with weapons many times deadlier and accurate than a handgun and are considered to be mature enough to know when they can and cannot use them.
The second fallacy of this is that quite simply, the police cannot protect you in a gun situation, they can only respond to one after it is in progress. This may be a matter of minutes if they are close, but those are some very precious minutes. 32 people died at the Virginia Tech massacre and many more were wounded before police were able to take down the gunman. If someone in a nearby classroom had had a concealed weapon that might have only been 20, or 10, or 5. Theoretically, if the 5th person had had a handgun, and even if 2 more people died in the cross fire, that would still have made 7 dead instead of 32. Even if that person only managed to wound the perpetrator before dying them self it could have stopped the massacre.
The Gunman, Cho, was not a concealed permit holder. He was a mentally erratic student that was ignored by the campus authorities despite repeated complaints about him. The lesson learned from the Virginia Tech incident is NOT that we need gun control; it is that we need a better mental health system.
“ Virginia Tech massacre”
In almost every case where firearms are restricted, gun crimes increase because it disarms only the law abiding citizens and criminals do not get their guns legally nor follow the laws on their use. That is why we call them criminals. A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime." Yet, A 1982 survey of convicted felons in 11 states found that almost 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”. “Gun Control Facts”
It is true that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. And if I had my choice, I would prefer the gun to be in the hands of a law abiding and permit holding citizen.
I will be presenting an opposing view. This is another area where, though being a moderate in general, I swing solidly to the right and I am fully in support of allowing concealed weapons on college campuses if the gun owner has a concealed weapon permit.
Speaking from my own personal experience, I attended a small rural High School in the 1980’s that quite literally was loaded with guns. If you looked into the parking lot, almost every pickup and a lot of cars had at least a .22 or a shotgun at minimum. Many were fully decked out with a .22 for varmints, High power hunting rifle, Shot gun, and sometimes even a hand gun; even though they were widely regarded as inaccurate and useless. The point is that during my entire time there, not a single one of those weapons were brandished. The owners were brought up around weapons, trained in their use from a young age and taught to respect them. If there was a fight, you fought, you either won or lost, and you never thought “I’m going to go get my gun”. Guns can safely be in an academic environment if the owners are responsible.
Also speaking from personal experience, I have been involved in a shooting incident. A co-worker was driving a tractor in a field where I was also working and someone they knew walked into the field and blasted a shotgun right into their abdomen. We immediately retrieved our rifles and stood at the ready with the truck as cover. If we had not had our weapons, they could have easily have decided not to leave any witnesses. As it stood, we had equal or greater firepower and a defensive position. The perpetrator did not threaten us, fled the scene and was later arrested. Despite the adrenalin of the situation we did not fire a shot because our gun culture and training said you only fire if directly threatened and a show of force prevented that.
Having established that background, I will now address the article. The author’s first elaboration comes in the first paragraph where they say, “I would support a higher level of a security force on our campuses verses an 18 year old or anyone having a concealed hand gun on campus”. The author also makes a reference to maturity thus implying that we would be handing our kids a HS diploma, handgun and sending them off to school. This shows an ignorance of the proposal in question and a lack of research by the author. In Texas you must be 21 to own a handgun or get a concealed permit and the process includes a full background check, even a Class A misdemeanor disqualifies you. You must prove proficiency with the weapon and read and know the laws concerning the use of deadly force. The process takes up to 60 days so there cannot be a “in the heat of the moment” permit. If you purchase the gun from a licensed dealer, you must also pass a federal check with a mental health element and a waiting period. Just the age restriction alone would limit most permits to the late junior or most likely senior grade level, older students or professors. “ Texas Gun Laws”
By comparison, we take 18 year olds into military boot camp, train them for 9 weeks, only a small portion of which is weapon training, and after completing their MOC they can be sent off into battle with weapons many times deadlier and accurate than a handgun and are considered to be mature enough to know when they can and cannot use them.
The second fallacy of this is that quite simply, the police cannot protect you in a gun situation, they can only respond to one after it is in progress. This may be a matter of minutes if they are close, but those are some very precious minutes. 32 people died at the Virginia Tech massacre and many more were wounded before police were able to take down the gunman. If someone in a nearby classroom had had a concealed weapon that might have only been 20, or 10, or 5. Theoretically, if the 5th person had had a handgun, and even if 2 more people died in the cross fire, that would still have made 7 dead instead of 32. Even if that person only managed to wound the perpetrator before dying them self it could have stopped the massacre.
The Gunman, Cho, was not a concealed permit holder. He was a mentally erratic student that was ignored by the campus authorities despite repeated complaints about him. The lesson learned from the Virginia Tech incident is NOT that we need gun control; it is that we need a better mental health system.
“ Virginia Tech massacre”
In almost every case where firearms are restricted, gun crimes increase because it disarms only the law abiding citizens and criminals do not get their guns legally nor follow the laws on their use. That is why we call them criminals. A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime." Yet, A 1982 survey of convicted felons in 11 states found that almost 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”. “Gun Control Facts”
It is true that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. And if I had my choice, I would prefer the gun to be in the hands of a law abiding and permit holding citizen.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Let's all move to Somalia!
Let’s move to Somalia!
Doesn’t sound like a good idea? How about Afghanistan or Pakistan? Want something closer to home maybe? How about we go to Tijuana? Why would I suggest such a thing? Well, these countries have exactly what everyone seems to be clamoring for, small government. Granted, they have poor healthcare, lack of basic sanitation, rampant violence, crappy education and shoddy infrastructure… but hey, they have small government!
Quite frankly, I love the services my government provides. I get to drive on nice roads, my children and I attend good schools. I can walk to the store without the slightest fear. I can take a crap and with one little push on the handle, it just magically disappears! There are no packs of wild dogs digging in my garbage; my food and drinking water are safe. I’ve got the biggest and toughest army on the Planet to keep me safe from foreign invasion. The list goes on and on the more you think about it.
Every year when I pay my taxes, I remind myself what a great bargain I am getting. And also that is why it ticks me off to high heaven to see the current attempts to gut our government in the name of a political ideology. We love all the services we get but all of a sudden everyone is screaming about paying for it.
Here is the reality folks, we no longer live in 1776 or 1950, and hopefully never will again. We live in a modern and extremely complex world. And our government has evolved over time to meet the growing challenges of this complexity. Like it or not, it grew based on need. We understand more about science than we ever did back then, computers and technology have rapidly changed almost all facets of our daily lives. We are more diverse a society than we ever have been in the past with many different subcultures. We have grown to a population of over 300 Million people, up 9.7% from 2000. Our government does more than our founding fathers ever imagined it would, but they were wise enough to see that needs would change and provided a way to make it happen. As we have evolved, we have added services and policies and programs to address the evolution.
Now, getting back to my point, imagine where we would be without these services. Take a few minutes to imagine how your life would be impacted. Some of the examples of other countries I gave might seem extreme, but they go to show how life is without a government there to do its job. Think it can’t happen here? In the last couple decades many countries that were once peaceful, modern and prosperous have degenerated into shells of their former selves. In each case citizens who were once middle class now find themselves having to come to terms with the realization that they are suddenly living in poverty ridden and violent societies. Sure, some have been due to war, but others were due to internal conflict or collapsed economies.
The current attempt to trim massive amounts off the budget in a time when our economy is unstable is the height of folly. Our country is currently at a dangerous precipice looking down into what could very likely be a permanent decline in our wealth and stability. It’s all fine and dandy to play politics under normal circumstances, but when the country is in trouble, they need to put away the campaign hats and actually govern for a change.
Here is the truth of the matter, we HAD a budget surplus 10 years ago. When George W. Bush took office we were in our 3rd year of surpluses. By the time he left office, spending had increased from 1.7 trillion to 3.5 Trillion. I’m sorry Republicans, Obama inherited most of his deficit budget. Here is the data straight from the congressional budget office. “CBO Historical Budget Data”
Bush made 2 fundamental mistakes. The first thing he did was give a massive tax cut his first year in office. That effectively wiped out the federal surplus. Next, he invaded Iraq despite widespread public sentiment it wasn’t necessary. That was a very costly war.
Now, this didn’t help at all, but our problem has another facet. A lot of the prosperity of the late 90’s was a residual effect of Clinton raising taxes and restraining spending, but some of it was due to the economic surge from technology and computing bubble that was maturing about the time Bush took office. This prosperity masked another underlying problem issue and that was the exporting of our industries overseas. Someone got it into their head that we would just drop all our trade barriers to any other country willing to sign an agreement and that we would benefit from having access to their markets. The big problem though is that many of these countries didn’t have any money to buy anything, and were so impoverished that their people would work for pennies on the dollar. This resulted in a massive exodus of our factories, equipment and technology overseas, destroying our manufacturing base. The “transition to a service economy” sounded good until you consider most service jobs pay half what a good production job pay.
This exporting of jobs has resulted in fewer “working class” jobs for Americans and an erosion of the overall tax base. Not everyone is suited for a service job and the loss of wages and corporate income not only erodes direct tax revenue but also trickle down benefits. Americans are not earning the manufacturing income so they can’t spend it here, the companies move their profits to overseas entities instead of re-spending it in the US and industries that once supported the manufacturing plants either shut down or move too. This transitions workers from taxpayers to entitlement recipients.
All this tax revenue that once went to support our way of life is now lost and the American people are forced to get by on less. Goods are imported from countries without environmental protections and with a fraction of our organization and infrastructure costs without any form of tariff or balancing factor. They are allowed to compete in our marketplace and enjoy the benefits of our economy without making the same contribution an American company would have to. Not only that, to add insult to injury, companies are allowed to deduct the cost of moving industries overseas from their taxes.
So yes, we do need to reduce how much we spend, but if we don’t fix the rest, it won’t do us any good. A lack of regulation enforcement led to Enron, the Wall Street meltdown and housing crisis, business MUST be regulated no matter who they make campaign contributions to. Free trade must be balanced trade. We must protect our jobs, industries and their associated technologies from being exported. This will bring our tax base up and help with the budget crisis. All this requires a government that is willing to govern. If we simply gut the existing government, this will never happen.
As part of the Republicans drive to “slash” the budget, they are trying to include another tax break for businesses while trying to “unfund” the EPA! They voted down a bill last year that would end the tax break for moving industries overseas… Stop it already! I like clean water and air! I want a job! Let’s stop the politics and tackle this problem. If you don’t fix “We the People” first there won’t be anyone left who can afford what the businesses are offering.
The Left must get equally real, Medicaid just proposed approving a $93,000 drug to “extend the life” of late stage, metastatic prostate cancer patients. WTF? I don’t want to sound morbid, and they do have my sympathy, but can we afford to keep spending so much on a terminal patient? Just like that patient, at some point we have to just accept the facts.
We can reduce government spending without destroying it, one example is the bi-partisan effort to identify regulatory duplication across government agencies, we can cut costs and increase efficiency while sufficiently funding departments primary roles.
Beyond that, we must be willing to accept the burden of paying for the society we made for ourselves if we expect to continue to enjoy it. If we take what we pay in taxes and look historically at the numbers, the current tax rate for both businesses and individuals are at close to historic 30 year lows. We can pay more, let’s give up our Bush tax cuts and add another point or two. “Historic Tax Receipts”
Mostly, as a people, we need to end our political stratification. We must demand our representatives focus on the real problems and govern wisely, be willing to negotiate reasonably from a realistic perspective, seek the middle ground and last but not least, take off those damn “party” hats for awhile.
Doesn’t sound like a good idea? How about Afghanistan or Pakistan? Want something closer to home maybe? How about we go to Tijuana? Why would I suggest such a thing? Well, these countries have exactly what everyone seems to be clamoring for, small government. Granted, they have poor healthcare, lack of basic sanitation, rampant violence, crappy education and shoddy infrastructure… but hey, they have small government!
Quite frankly, I love the services my government provides. I get to drive on nice roads, my children and I attend good schools. I can walk to the store without the slightest fear. I can take a crap and with one little push on the handle, it just magically disappears! There are no packs of wild dogs digging in my garbage; my food and drinking water are safe. I’ve got the biggest and toughest army on the Planet to keep me safe from foreign invasion. The list goes on and on the more you think about it.
Every year when I pay my taxes, I remind myself what a great bargain I am getting. And also that is why it ticks me off to high heaven to see the current attempts to gut our government in the name of a political ideology. We love all the services we get but all of a sudden everyone is screaming about paying for it.
Here is the reality folks, we no longer live in 1776 or 1950, and hopefully never will again. We live in a modern and extremely complex world. And our government has evolved over time to meet the growing challenges of this complexity. Like it or not, it grew based on need. We understand more about science than we ever did back then, computers and technology have rapidly changed almost all facets of our daily lives. We are more diverse a society than we ever have been in the past with many different subcultures. We have grown to a population of over 300 Million people, up 9.7% from 2000. Our government does more than our founding fathers ever imagined it would, but they were wise enough to see that needs would change and provided a way to make it happen. As we have evolved, we have added services and policies and programs to address the evolution.
Now, getting back to my point, imagine where we would be without these services. Take a few minutes to imagine how your life would be impacted. Some of the examples of other countries I gave might seem extreme, but they go to show how life is without a government there to do its job. Think it can’t happen here? In the last couple decades many countries that were once peaceful, modern and prosperous have degenerated into shells of their former selves. In each case citizens who were once middle class now find themselves having to come to terms with the realization that they are suddenly living in poverty ridden and violent societies. Sure, some have been due to war, but others were due to internal conflict or collapsed economies.
The current attempt to trim massive amounts off the budget in a time when our economy is unstable is the height of folly. Our country is currently at a dangerous precipice looking down into what could very likely be a permanent decline in our wealth and stability. It’s all fine and dandy to play politics under normal circumstances, but when the country is in trouble, they need to put away the campaign hats and actually govern for a change.
Here is the truth of the matter, we HAD a budget surplus 10 years ago. When George W. Bush took office we were in our 3rd year of surpluses. By the time he left office, spending had increased from 1.7 trillion to 3.5 Trillion. I’m sorry Republicans, Obama inherited most of his deficit budget. Here is the data straight from the congressional budget office. “CBO Historical Budget Data”
Bush made 2 fundamental mistakes. The first thing he did was give a massive tax cut his first year in office. That effectively wiped out the federal surplus. Next, he invaded Iraq despite widespread public sentiment it wasn’t necessary. That was a very costly war.
Now, this didn’t help at all, but our problem has another facet. A lot of the prosperity of the late 90’s was a residual effect of Clinton raising taxes and restraining spending, but some of it was due to the economic surge from technology and computing bubble that was maturing about the time Bush took office. This prosperity masked another underlying problem issue and that was the exporting of our industries overseas. Someone got it into their head that we would just drop all our trade barriers to any other country willing to sign an agreement and that we would benefit from having access to their markets. The big problem though is that many of these countries didn’t have any money to buy anything, and were so impoverished that their people would work for pennies on the dollar. This resulted in a massive exodus of our factories, equipment and technology overseas, destroying our manufacturing base. The “transition to a service economy” sounded good until you consider most service jobs pay half what a good production job pay.
This exporting of jobs has resulted in fewer “working class” jobs for Americans and an erosion of the overall tax base. Not everyone is suited for a service job and the loss of wages and corporate income not only erodes direct tax revenue but also trickle down benefits. Americans are not earning the manufacturing income so they can’t spend it here, the companies move their profits to overseas entities instead of re-spending it in the US and industries that once supported the manufacturing plants either shut down or move too. This transitions workers from taxpayers to entitlement recipients.
All this tax revenue that once went to support our way of life is now lost and the American people are forced to get by on less. Goods are imported from countries without environmental protections and with a fraction of our organization and infrastructure costs without any form of tariff or balancing factor. They are allowed to compete in our marketplace and enjoy the benefits of our economy without making the same contribution an American company would have to. Not only that, to add insult to injury, companies are allowed to deduct the cost of moving industries overseas from their taxes.
So yes, we do need to reduce how much we spend, but if we don’t fix the rest, it won’t do us any good. A lack of regulation enforcement led to Enron, the Wall Street meltdown and housing crisis, business MUST be regulated no matter who they make campaign contributions to. Free trade must be balanced trade. We must protect our jobs, industries and their associated technologies from being exported. This will bring our tax base up and help with the budget crisis. All this requires a government that is willing to govern. If we simply gut the existing government, this will never happen.
As part of the Republicans drive to “slash” the budget, they are trying to include another tax break for businesses while trying to “unfund” the EPA! They voted down a bill last year that would end the tax break for moving industries overseas… Stop it already! I like clean water and air! I want a job! Let’s stop the politics and tackle this problem. If you don’t fix “We the People” first there won’t be anyone left who can afford what the businesses are offering.
The Left must get equally real, Medicaid just proposed approving a $93,000 drug to “extend the life” of late stage, metastatic prostate cancer patients. WTF? I don’t want to sound morbid, and they do have my sympathy, but can we afford to keep spending so much on a terminal patient? Just like that patient, at some point we have to just accept the facts.
We can reduce government spending without destroying it, one example is the bi-partisan effort to identify regulatory duplication across government agencies, we can cut costs and increase efficiency while sufficiently funding departments primary roles.
Beyond that, we must be willing to accept the burden of paying for the society we made for ourselves if we expect to continue to enjoy it. If we take what we pay in taxes and look historically at the numbers, the current tax rate for both businesses and individuals are at close to historic 30 year lows. We can pay more, let’s give up our Bush tax cuts and add another point or two. “Historic Tax Receipts”
Mostly, as a people, we need to end our political stratification. We must demand our representatives focus on the real problems and govern wisely, be willing to negotiate reasonably from a realistic perspective, seek the middle ground and last but not least, take off those damn “party” hats for awhile.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Six-Figure Bus Drivers or Overpaid Commentators?
Hmmm… The article used for my last Opinion-Ed review was pretty insulting, but this time I’ve swung the pendulum back to attack the right with this review, with so much ammo in one place I almost do not know where to start. It is so easy to knock down extremists I almost feel like cheating… almost. Anyway, for this review I’ve chosen one of the Right-wing darlings, Anne Coulter, in her blog entry from annecoulter.com titled “SIX-FIGURE BUS DRIVERS AND OTHER WORKING-CLASS HEROES”
In this article Anne discusses the attempt of Wisconsin’s new Republican Governor to disband the public sectors Employees Union. The point she is trying to make is that the public sector employees are acting in their own self interest and that they should not be hailed as hero’s of the working class. Unfortunately, this takes the form of a seemingly endless rant full of anything but facts related to the subject at hand accompanied by the usual exaggerations and name calling. Since the republicans have traditionally been backed by business interests, who hate unions, this comes as little surprise.
Anyway, Lets start picking this one apart shall we?
Anne says: “Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people?
Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi.”
Lets see, when I took math, average meant the middle value… that means that at least half of public sector employees make under the 76,500. Odds are these are the Police, Firefighters, Sanitation workers, Clerks etc. These lower wages will be offset by the Managers, Directors and department heads, Engineers and Scientists. A quick review of Salary websites show teachers in Wisconsin making an average of 50k, and a fact check of their benefits comes out to about 25K. This is a job that requires at least a 4 year education if not a masters, plus continuing education. I’m sure the Jobs requiring less education will make less.
My fact check reference, politifact.com, noted a left leaning study showing that public sector employees in Wisconsin made on average 5-6% less than private industry, and a right leaning study countering that by showing they made about 5% more. If neither study can come up with any figures further off than that, then I can only assume that the public sector employees are making about what they should compared to private industry and that the collective bargaining process did indeed work as intended.
Anne goes on: “Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget.
MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees.
Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws.
Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous?”
OK, my previous fact checking showed that these public sector workers got “average” salary and benefits, not terrific. They did this not through “buying politicians”, but through collective bargaining process. If Anne has one shred of evidence for her accusation, I challenge her to present it. In addition the unions had agreed to several reductions in salary and benefits to help with the state budget situation, however, the governor continued to push to dissolve the union, not to reduce costs to the state but to eliminate their future collective bargaining rights. C’mon Anne, instead of bringing up pornographers that have nothing to do with this situation, try explaining how NOT paying public sector employees fair wages is going to help the state when the most competent employees will leave for the private sector, leaving mostly the lesser/inferior employees who are still willing to work for lower wages and benefits.
Annes next outburst: “Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year.
When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract."
It's ludicrous to suggest that these union contracts were fairly bargained. Only one side was at the negotiating table. Ordinary people with jobs were not at the meetings where public sector compensation was discussed.”
OK, so a 59K a year bus driver earns another 100K in overtime. My experience in business says that this employee worked 80 hour weeks to do this. This tells me that management failed to hire enough drivers to cover the routes and thus, there was a shortage of bus drivers. This guy took up the slack, and accordingly received overtime pay for working almost twice as many hours as the average American. If you don’t want to pay overtime, hire enough people to do the job. If you can’t hire enough people, then economics says you are not paying enough for the work, not too much.
To suggest that only one side was at the negotiating table when these contacts were bargained just because ordinary workers were not present is yet another long stretch. Ordinary people with jobs were at work Anne… they were represented by elected officials. That is how government works.
Anne then goes on a tirade for several paragraphs on how several California politicians were “wronged” by unions when they supported their opponents… what does that have to do with Wisconsin Anne? Do you have any Wisconsin examples? Sounds like normal politics to me, the union will support candidates they think best represent their viewpoint just like any other special interest groups. Voters can still decide for themselves.
Finally getting back to the subject, Anne goes on “Fine, we like teachers, firemen and police officers. We appreciate them. (And for the record, it is statistically more dangerous to be a farmer, fisherman, steelworker or pilot than a cop or fireman. Soldiers also have pretty dangerous jobs, and they don't get to strike.)
Does that mean we should pay them $1 million dollars a year? How about $10 million? After all, these are the people who educate our kids, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets!
Assuming the answer is no, then apparently we're allowed to discuss government workers' compensation -- even though they do important work. As George Bernard Shaw concluded his famous quip (often attributed to Winston Churchill), 'Now, we're just negotiating over the price.'
Why do public sector employees have absurd overtime rules? Why don't they pay for their own health insurance? Why do they get to retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension of 65 percent of their last year's pay -- as state police in New Jersey do?"
OK, show me one example of public workers wanting a million dollars, they want descent living wages comparable to the public sector, which is what they were getting. Farmers are self employed, Pilots make exceptional wages compared to public workers, fisherman and steelworks are private sector employees so economics dictate their wages. Pilots and steelworkers belong to unions and farmers and fisherman belong to coops, why deny public sector employees the right to organize too?
Soldiers can’t strike but they voluntarily sign on the dotted line, and they get their living expenses paid for their entire enlistment. After 4 years they get a paid education and VA healthcare, I’m sure any public sector employee would gladly give up their right to strike for these kinds of benefits after only 4 years on the job. Soldiers also get to a similar pension after 20-25 years of service, so they can retire BEFORE age 45.
And what do the State Police in New jersey have to do with Wisconsin?
Apples and oranges and irrelevant comparisons don’t convince me Anne.
Anne finally ends with: “This is asymmetrical warfare. Seven percent of the population cares intensely about public sector union contracts -- and nothing else. The remaining 93 percent of voters can't be bothered to care.
Meanwhile, state after state spirals into bankruptcy.”
If 93 percent of voters don’t care about public sector union contracts, then they can’t be as horrendous as you claim Anne. Then why is the governor going through all the effort to destroy the union instead of renegotiating wages as the unions offered?
Show me some numbers proving that unions were causing the economic dilemma... Is it the unions or is it big business exporting jobs overseas and eroding the tax base? Why did your party vote to keep a tax break in place allowing businesses to deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas? We are paying these corporations to erode the tax base and allowing them to then continue to import these products and compete in our market without contributing to our public infrastructure.
Let’s look at corruption and graft steering big contracts to publically connected firms that then mismanage the projects with massive cost overruns. If you’re so concerned about our economy let’s look at the whole picture.
In respect to this massive rant of irrelevancy, I shall counter with a single extremist quote of my own…
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In this article Anne discusses the attempt of Wisconsin’s new Republican Governor to disband the public sectors Employees Union. The point she is trying to make is that the public sector employees are acting in their own self interest and that they should not be hailed as hero’s of the working class. Unfortunately, this takes the form of a seemingly endless rant full of anything but facts related to the subject at hand accompanied by the usual exaggerations and name calling. Since the republicans have traditionally been backed by business interests, who hate unions, this comes as little surprise.
Anyway, Lets start picking this one apart shall we?
Anne says: “Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people?
Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi.”
Lets see, when I took math, average meant the middle value… that means that at least half of public sector employees make under the 76,500. Odds are these are the Police, Firefighters, Sanitation workers, Clerks etc. These lower wages will be offset by the Managers, Directors and department heads, Engineers and Scientists. A quick review of Salary websites show teachers in Wisconsin making an average of 50k, and a fact check of their benefits comes out to about 25K. This is a job that requires at least a 4 year education if not a masters, plus continuing education. I’m sure the Jobs requiring less education will make less.
My fact check reference, politifact.com, noted a left leaning study showing that public sector employees in Wisconsin made on average 5-6% less than private industry, and a right leaning study countering that by showing they made about 5% more. If neither study can come up with any figures further off than that, then I can only assume that the public sector employees are making about what they should compared to private industry and that the collective bargaining process did indeed work as intended.
Anne goes on: “Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget.
MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees.
Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws.
Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous?”
OK, my previous fact checking showed that these public sector workers got “average” salary and benefits, not terrific. They did this not through “buying politicians”, but through collective bargaining process. If Anne has one shred of evidence for her accusation, I challenge her to present it. In addition the unions had agreed to several reductions in salary and benefits to help with the state budget situation, however, the governor continued to push to dissolve the union, not to reduce costs to the state but to eliminate their future collective bargaining rights. C’mon Anne, instead of bringing up pornographers that have nothing to do with this situation, try explaining how NOT paying public sector employees fair wages is going to help the state when the most competent employees will leave for the private sector, leaving mostly the lesser/inferior employees who are still willing to work for lower wages and benefits.
Annes next outburst: “Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year.
When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract."
It's ludicrous to suggest that these union contracts were fairly bargained. Only one side was at the negotiating table. Ordinary people with jobs were not at the meetings where public sector compensation was discussed.”
OK, so a 59K a year bus driver earns another 100K in overtime. My experience in business says that this employee worked 80 hour weeks to do this. This tells me that management failed to hire enough drivers to cover the routes and thus, there was a shortage of bus drivers. This guy took up the slack, and accordingly received overtime pay for working almost twice as many hours as the average American. If you don’t want to pay overtime, hire enough people to do the job. If you can’t hire enough people, then economics says you are not paying enough for the work, not too much.
To suggest that only one side was at the negotiating table when these contacts were bargained just because ordinary workers were not present is yet another long stretch. Ordinary people with jobs were at work Anne… they were represented by elected officials. That is how government works.
Anne then goes on a tirade for several paragraphs on how several California politicians were “wronged” by unions when they supported their opponents… what does that have to do with Wisconsin Anne? Do you have any Wisconsin examples? Sounds like normal politics to me, the union will support candidates they think best represent their viewpoint just like any other special interest groups. Voters can still decide for themselves.
Finally getting back to the subject, Anne goes on “Fine, we like teachers, firemen and police officers. We appreciate them. (And for the record, it is statistically more dangerous to be a farmer, fisherman, steelworker or pilot than a cop or fireman. Soldiers also have pretty dangerous jobs, and they don't get to strike.)
Does that mean we should pay them $1 million dollars a year? How about $10 million? After all, these are the people who educate our kids, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets!
Assuming the answer is no, then apparently we're allowed to discuss government workers' compensation -- even though they do important work. As George Bernard Shaw concluded his famous quip (often attributed to Winston Churchill), 'Now, we're just negotiating over the price.'
Why do public sector employees have absurd overtime rules? Why don't they pay for their own health insurance? Why do they get to retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension of 65 percent of their last year's pay -- as state police in New Jersey do?"
OK, show me one example of public workers wanting a million dollars, they want descent living wages comparable to the public sector, which is what they were getting. Farmers are self employed, Pilots make exceptional wages compared to public workers, fisherman and steelworks are private sector employees so economics dictate their wages. Pilots and steelworkers belong to unions and farmers and fisherman belong to coops, why deny public sector employees the right to organize too?
Soldiers can’t strike but they voluntarily sign on the dotted line, and they get their living expenses paid for their entire enlistment. After 4 years they get a paid education and VA healthcare, I’m sure any public sector employee would gladly give up their right to strike for these kinds of benefits after only 4 years on the job. Soldiers also get to a similar pension after 20-25 years of service, so they can retire BEFORE age 45.
And what do the State Police in New jersey have to do with Wisconsin?
Apples and oranges and irrelevant comparisons don’t convince me Anne.
Anne finally ends with: “This is asymmetrical warfare. Seven percent of the population cares intensely about public sector union contracts -- and nothing else. The remaining 93 percent of voters can't be bothered to care.
Meanwhile, state after state spirals into bankruptcy.”
If 93 percent of voters don’t care about public sector union contracts, then they can’t be as horrendous as you claim Anne. Then why is the governor going through all the effort to destroy the union instead of renegotiating wages as the unions offered?
Show me some numbers proving that unions were causing the economic dilemma... Is it the unions or is it big business exporting jobs overseas and eroding the tax base? Why did your party vote to keep a tax break in place allowing businesses to deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas? We are paying these corporations to erode the tax base and allowing them to then continue to import these products and compete in our market without contributing to our public infrastructure.
Let’s look at corruption and graft steering big contracts to publically connected firms that then mismanage the projects with massive cost overruns. If you’re so concerned about our economy let’s look at the whole picture.
In respect to this massive rant of irrelevancy, I shall counter with a single extremist quote of my own…
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Crimes against Babies or Crimes against Intelligence?
The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies
Well, I’ve been beating up on the right a bit but, not to tarnish my moderate stance, it’s now time to take on the left. My target this time is a New York Times opinion article titled “The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies” by CHARLES M. BLOW.
In his article, Mr. Blow assails the G.O.P. for some of the healthcare cuts in their recently passed House budget. He provides statistical and comparative information in relation to premature births and how the US compares to the rest of the industrialized nations. He then goes on to imply that their stance is immoral and counter to their pro life stance. Despite his obvious passion on the subject and the worthiness of his cause, this article is a textbook case of fuzzy logic at its best.
First and foremost, to equate the reduction of some funding for research into premature births and prenatal healthcare grants to abortion is comparing apples and grapes. It is a play on emotions and unjustified in this case. We cannot provide every worthy cause with unlimited funding and to make such comparisons discredit the author and any valid arguments he makes to restore the funding. These are cuts to funding which means that except in the case of Planned Parenthood some funding is still being provided. The programs in question will just have to do more with less.
The statistics he provides in relation to the US having the highest infant mortality rate of any of the 33 IMF industrialized nations is valid, and points out a valid issue, but even he admits that premature births are but one contributing factor. To include this in an assault on the G.O.P. is also invalidated by his own facts as he pointed out that the decline in our standing in relation to other countries has been going on for decades, since 1960, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Perhaps we should look at issues like obesity, poverty, education and access to rural healthcare rather than turning it political.
I’m not sure who taught Mr. Blow to read charts, as what I see when I open his media chart is an increase in premature births and a steady drop in our infant mortality rate. This tells me that the increase in premature births is because we are saving more and more premature babies every year that otherwise would have died. I don’t think a few billion dollars either way is going to effect this trend and though we may not be doing the best, it likes like we are continuing to move in the right direction.
His financial analysis makes yet another blind leap. His claim that a 10% reduction in premature births would save 2.6 Billion is reasonably good math, and as he points out that is more than the amount of the budget reductions. However, he provides no evidence whatsoever that a restoration in funding would reduce the rate of premature births significantly, thus invalidating this entire leg of his argument. Thank you for wasting 5 minutes I could have spent playing Second Life.
I come out of this experience with the impression that I have just read a political rant with little basis in fact, a lot of childish name calling and an over dramatic ending. Baby Killers?! Don’t insult my intelligence Mr. Blow. This article may be appreciated by the most extreme left-wing reader but will do little to rally an independent thinker to his cause.
Well, I’ve been beating up on the right a bit but, not to tarnish my moderate stance, it’s now time to take on the left. My target this time is a New York Times opinion article titled “The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies” by CHARLES M. BLOW.
In his article, Mr. Blow assails the G.O.P. for some of the healthcare cuts in their recently passed House budget. He provides statistical and comparative information in relation to premature births and how the US compares to the rest of the industrialized nations. He then goes on to imply that their stance is immoral and counter to their pro life stance. Despite his obvious passion on the subject and the worthiness of his cause, this article is a textbook case of fuzzy logic at its best.
First and foremost, to equate the reduction of some funding for research into premature births and prenatal healthcare grants to abortion is comparing apples and grapes. It is a play on emotions and unjustified in this case. We cannot provide every worthy cause with unlimited funding and to make such comparisons discredit the author and any valid arguments he makes to restore the funding. These are cuts to funding which means that except in the case of Planned Parenthood some funding is still being provided. The programs in question will just have to do more with less.
The statistics he provides in relation to the US having the highest infant mortality rate of any of the 33 IMF industrialized nations is valid, and points out a valid issue, but even he admits that premature births are but one contributing factor. To include this in an assault on the G.O.P. is also invalidated by his own facts as he pointed out that the decline in our standing in relation to other countries has been going on for decades, since 1960, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Perhaps we should look at issues like obesity, poverty, education and access to rural healthcare rather than turning it political.
I’m not sure who taught Mr. Blow to read charts, as what I see when I open his media chart is an increase in premature births and a steady drop in our infant mortality rate. This tells me that the increase in premature births is because we are saving more and more premature babies every year that otherwise would have died. I don’t think a few billion dollars either way is going to effect this trend and though we may not be doing the best, it likes like we are continuing to move in the right direction.
His financial analysis makes yet another blind leap. His claim that a 10% reduction in premature births would save 2.6 Billion is reasonably good math, and as he points out that is more than the amount of the budget reductions. However, he provides no evidence whatsoever that a restoration in funding would reduce the rate of premature births significantly, thus invalidating this entire leg of his argument. Thank you for wasting 5 minutes I could have spent playing Second Life.
I come out of this experience with the impression that I have just read a political rant with little basis in fact, a lot of childish name calling and an over dramatic ending. Baby Killers?! Don’t insult my intelligence Mr. Blow. This article may be appreciated by the most extreme left-wing reader but will do little to rally an independent thinker to his cause.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Caught in the Middle: The Environment
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/22/news/economy/epa_global_warming_republicans/index.htm
As an Environmental Science student and having followed the issues from a personal interest perspective for much longer, it really concerns me that business interests and the Republican Party are trying to roll back environmental protections. When many of our environmental laws were passed, our waterways were full of sewage and industrial wastes. Some rivers actually caught on fire, literally. Scores of people were dying from illnesses caused by air and water pollution. Today we have cleaner waterways and air because politicians headed the call of scientists to take action.
Now we have politicians that either ignore science based on false religious pretenses or due to their belief that business should be able to do as they please regardless of the damage to our planet and shouldn’t have to pay for their pollution and destruction of our natural resources.
Global warming is for the most part universally accepted by most scientists and governments except for those that are funded by special interests or that allow their ideologies to interfere with their neutral interpretation of the data. As a parent I am concerned for the future of not only my children but also for successive generations as well. At the point when we need government to step up to the plate the most, it is gut wrenching to see such an important issue being used as a political pawn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)