About The Reckoner

Looking to better frame your political arguments? Step inside.

Search



Links

Site

December 12, 2011

The Argument Against Voter ID That You Won’t See in the Media

When it comes to voter ID programs, what’s the typical mainstream media article look like?

One side says that the programs prevent voter fraud, the other says that they are “designed to stifle turnout among students, poor people and minorities, who are more likely to vote for Democrats.”

The media reports what both sides say.  What you rarely see the media doing is any type of objective cost/benefit analysis.

Think of this as the perspective you might want to take if you were a business and you were looking at investing your money in a new voter ID program.

You’d want to see what the returns or benefits look like in comparison to the costs.

Basically, is it worth it?

What’s a simple analysis look like?

To start, you want to have reasonable estimates that everyone can agree upon for at least 3 things:

1) Initial costs
2) Current situation
3) Benefit of a new solution

You can also add in ongoing costs. For the purpose of this simple estimate, I’m going to assume ongoing costs are roughly similar between any new solution and current voter ID measures.

Assumptions

I will also state, for the record, that this is a quick and dirty estimate. The idea is not to come up with perfect numbers but to get a sense for whether we’re more or less likely to realize some significant improvements from a new voter ID system.

If you are doing this cost benefit analysis for or with a particular person or audience, check along the way to make sure that you can both agree that the numbers are reasonable estimates.

Another quick reminder: Focus the discussion on the analysis and keep personal politics out of it. The idea here is to:

Work together to analyze a proposed solution using numbers everyone can agree upon.

This sounds simple, but this can be the hardest part of the discussion.

Onto the analysis.

Initial costs

For initial costs, there are a number of programs already in place or under study so it was pretty easy to find some numbers.

Some of the costs include:

  1. Training for workers on the new process
  2. Documentation
  3. A communication process and implementation plan for the new process; how you are going to make it happen
  4. Public education and outreach programs to explain the changes
  5. Cost of issuing free IDs to satisfy Constitutional requirements
  6. Updates to forms and systems

The analysis for the State of Missouri was between $6-8 million per year. Wisconsin estimates $2.7 million a year to provide free IDs plus $2 million for the first 2 years to implement.

In Indiana, the BMV has issued 771,017 free photo IDs at a total cost of just over $10 million from 2007-2010. In Georgia, the costs to implement the new photo ID system was stated as $1.6 million from 2006-2008. An estimate for North Carolina is $18-25 million over the course of 3 years.

Estimates range from roughly $1 million per year to upwards of $8 million for the first couple years. After the initial couple years, costs drop significantly as changes have been implemented and the public and election workers understand the new requirements.

Current situation

What’s the current situation look like? How much voter fraud is occurring?

The New York Times reported that from 2002 to 2005, exactly 55 people were convicted of voter fraud.

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) compiled stats by state on voting convictions from 2000-2010. During the 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for voting irregularities.

So as not to be accused of bias, let’s look at the RNLA statistics for the State of Missouri. From 2000 to 2010, 17 convictions for voting irregularities were observed. This is roughly 1.7 voting irregularities per year.

Now let’s assume that we only catch 5% of those people who voted illegally so the 1.7 number is 5% of the total. We likely catch a greater percentage but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume we catch very few people who vote illegally. If we only catch 5%, then there would be roughly 34 cases of illegal voting in Missouri each year.

The total number of voters in Missouri in 2008 was 4.2 million. Let’s say only 30% of these voters vote in an average election for an average voting number of  1.26 million.

The percentage of illegal votes under the current system = 34 / 1.26 million x 100 % = .0027%.

In other words, 500 times less than 1% of the vote in the State of Missouri. This is likely less than the margin of error in the voting system itself. In other words, you’ll likely see more clerical errors than illegal votes.

Benefit of a new solution

Let’s assume the new system works well and that it improves upon the old by limiting 80% of the current illegal votes.

This would mean that the State of Missouri would reduce the number of illegal votes from 34 to 7 (6.8 rounded up) illegal votes per year.

This would reduce the percentage of illegal votes under the new system to 7 / 1.26 million x 100% = .00056% per year.

Summary of Results

Here’s the results of our simple cost/benefit analysis:

Cost Benefit
$6-8 million for first 3 years Reduced illegal voters from 34 per year to 7
  Percentage of illegal votes reduced from .0027% to .00056%

For the first 3 years of the program, the cost is roughly $220,000 per illegal vote prevented.

No election I have ever heard of has been within .0027%.

If it were, the laws usually state that you have to have a recount or some type of runoff election.

When you look at the numbers, I don’t see the value of changing the voter ID laws. Even if we use conservative numbers and assume that we hardly catch any illegal voters or that the costs for implementation are lower.

The current system works well, no elections are being influenced by illegal voting, and the changes come with a significant cost.

Post Mortem

The real question is, why don’t we see more of this type of analysis in the media?

Its not hard to do, it would help people make better decisions, and full-time reporters, with the ability to do better research, could likely find even more accurate numbers than those I’ve used and validate the analysis further.

I believe that this is because the media, by and large, has adopted a certain view of the news. This view is that “fair and balanced” equals presenting both sides of the story equally without any analysis. Equal media time and coverage as opposed to fair analysis.

This means that if one side said the world was round and the other said the world was flat, we would see equal coverage of the situation. The only thing that you can’t do under these rules, is give less time to one side.

In this case, articles end up looking like this one in the Atlantic or this one in USA Today.

Most report simply quote what each side says.

Any type of analysis runs the risk of disagreeing with one side or another and therefore would be unfair.

This view of the media says that to be fair, we can only print what each side says.

A working media would question the conclusions and help the public understand the methods used and how results were verified. It would question the claims made by both sides. It would perform analysis and ensure that the analysis itself was fair.

If the methods were deemed proper and reviewed appropriately, then conclusions would be trustworthy and non-partisan.

Today’s media disagrees. Fair is printing what both sides say without any analysis of the claims. Any critical analysis which favors one conclusion over another is considered bias.

Is it any wonder that so many people are confused when the media, which should be responsible for vetting claims, merely transcribes what each side says?

akadjian

Topics: Election 2012, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

November 22, 2011

Occupy Thanksgiving: How to Talk a Little Turkey with Your Relatives

A great post by spocko over at FDL got me thinking about Thanksgiving …

… and the inevitable comments from my conservative Uncle.

What’s he going to bring up this year?

I’ll lay odds that somewhere between the turkey and dressing and the pumpkin pie my Uncle is going to try to bait me by saying something about the violence that has been associating with Occupy Wall Street. I think it might sound something like this:

Why are they [OWS] so violent? How come you never see any violence with the Tea Party?

Spocko lays out one approach to this Thanksgiving Day bait, but here’s a few tips I’ve learned over the years about talking with conservatives.

1. Know who your fight is with

Is your fight with your conservative relative? I’d suggest that it’s not.

Your fight is really with those in this country who are influencing Washington. What those in the OWS movement are calling the 1%.

Please note: I’m using the term 1% to refer to the people within the 1% who are influencing our government. I know there are members of the 1% who are actually against this influence. Take “1%” as shorthand for those at the top who believe in buying influence.

This point may seem obvious, but I list it as #1 for good reason. Over the years, I’ve seen countless people forget this rule and get way too emotionally involved in a political fight with a relative or friend.

Remember, this is your relative or friend. You may disagree with them but at the end of the day, you still want this person to be your relative or friend. It’s just a conversation folks.

If you remember that your fight is really not with this person (unless this person happens to actually be a member of the 1% who owns Washington), then it’s easier to have a discussion without turning it into a fight.

2. Know your goal

Is your goal to win the argument?

I’d suggest that it shouldn’t be. Here’s what I believe you should choose as your goal: win people over to your side.

Will this be done by winning an argument? Maybe with some people. But often you’ll only polarize them more against you.

Again, this may seem obvious. But time and again I see liberals getting into head-to-head knock down drag out fights because they want to be right more than they care about their relative or friend.

Here’s a quote that struck me from Mike Murphy, a veteran GOP strategist:

Political satire doesn’t have anywhere near the power you’d think it does. Most people who watch Jon Stewart’s show or a Michael Moore movie have already made up their minds.

Now I don’t bring this up to agree or disagree with Mr. Murphy. That’s not the point.

What I want to point out is that Mike Murphy is a political professional and he’s saying that what’s important is winning people over.

Ask yourself this question when you get into a discussion, do you want to be right or do you want to genuinely win someone over?

If you want to win someone over, you have to treat them with respect and dignity.

Telling them that they’re wrong is going to have about the same impact as satire. You might win someone over who is pretty close to agreeing with you. But someone who has a completely different opinion?

They’re going to think you’re not listening to them and just repeating liberal propaganda.

And yes, I know, they’ve been told this by all the conservative pundits for years and it’s not true, etc, etc.

This doesn’t change the fact that this is what they believe.

If you can’t handle being respectful and you know that what they say is going to drive you nuts, you probably should take the advice of the Gambler, and know when to fold ‘em.

Kenny-Rogers-The-Gambler-sm

3. Know their tactics

Much has been written about this and you probably know these from their frequent usage so I’m just going to make a few recommendations if you want further reading:

Another good source is to read some conservative literature, listen to some conservative pundits, or find yourself a good person online to practice having discussions with.

NOTE: Just don’t pay for any of this material. I’ve checked out Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh all from the local library. You only have to suffer one or two disapproving looks from the librarian.

4. Hold your ground and know your beliefs

Ok. We’ve set the stage. Now I’m going to tell you one of the strongest strategies to use.

It’s simple in theory, but hard to do in practice.

Almost all conservative tactics have to do with changing the argument.

Straw men, changing the subject, accusation, name calling, moving the goalposts. All of these are designed to change the argument to something else and knock you off your game.

Ann Coulter wrote this in How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must):

You must outrage the enemy. If the liberal you’re arguing with doesn’t become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you’re not doing it right.  People don’t get angry when lies are told about them; they get angry when the truth is told about them. If you are not being called outrageous by liberals, you’re not being outrageous enough. Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope, because, as we know, their evil is incalculable.

Why? you ask.

Because they want you to either A) take the bait and start arguing on their terms, or B) as Ann wrote, become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage.

Are you starting to understand the game?

You are trying to have a rational conversation with someone while they are trying to bait you and make you angry.

These tactics likely sound familiar.

What you have to do is know your beliefs, hold your ground, and don’t take the bait.

Keep coming back to your argument.

Here’s an example. In a recent online discussion, I wrote about the Move Your Money movement. I said that I thought it was a great idea.

My online friend, Michale, said this to start the argument:

[19] [20] And when banks start laying tellers and such??? Will it be a “great idea” then?

His tactic: try and demonize this movement. Now I like Michale. We’ve talked for years and though we disagree on a lot of things, I know he’s a good person.

So first, I joked with him about his “laying tellers” comment because it was funny and we often joke (he meant “laying off tellers” obviously) and then I stated my belief:

[21] If banks are not offering a good service, shouldn’t we be free to find a better one?

He then went on to say that if I just wanted better service, then it was ok to move my money. But if I was trying to make a statement to the bank, it was “economic terrorism”.

See the emotional cues he’s trying to strike?

At this point, I have to admit, I blew it. I took the bait and started arguing about economic terrorism asking him how moving my money from a credit union was “economic terrorism”.

What I should have done was stick with my original belief.

Fortunately, I was helped out by the site author, Chris, who wrote:

[39] As an American citizen, I am free to put my money wherever the heck I want, for whatever reason enters my brain. That is freedom, pal. That’s the way capitalism and the free market work, too, by the way.

This was my original argument and I should have stuck to it, but I got sucked in by the emotionally charged term “economic terrorism”. Basically, I was pissed off because it felt like he was calling me a terrorist.

This is what conservatives will try to do. Throw you off your argument.

I could go into much detail on why they’re doing this and why it won’t work for you but here’s the net: they’ve got billion dollar networks pumping out their message, their goal is to confuse any strong message they don’t agree with and then let the media they own get their message out.

Don’t play their game.

When you’ve got a good argument, stick to it.

If you’re interested, you can read our entire argument in the comments section here. Since comments are numbered, I’ve included numbers with the quotes above.

NOTE: I’ve talked with Michale for years and consider him a friend even though we disagree on a number of things. So I tried to follow my own advice and be respectful and remember that my fight isn’t really with him. Unfortunately, I lost it for a bit after his “economic terrorism” comment. I got angry. Fortunately, Michale is big enough not to hold it against me and I give him the same benefit of the doubt when he sometimes gets mad. We know sometimes things get heated, but we also know we can always set it aside to go for beers. This is why he makes a really good person to have politicla discussions with.

5. “No win” conservatives

I’m not sure if it was written in a conservative guidebook somewhere or not, but many conservatives I know seem to have the belief that they should always get in the last word. (Ok, maybe most liberals too.)

We all seem to believe that he who gets in the last word wins.

And with some conservatives, there is no winning because they will fight you to the death rather than admit giving any ground to a liberal.

I’m going to call these people “no win” conservatives”.

If you encounter one of these “no win” conservatives, you have to acknowledge that you will never “win” in the rational, academic sense of winning an argument.

No win conservatives are, from the start, in a war against you that is very close to a religious war. You are the enemy and should be treated as such.

When you encounter these types of conservatives, you need to make some decisions:

  1. Choose not to engage: This is a very valid strategy that may save you time and energy. Put it into winning over others who are more open.
  2. Recognize that you’re not going to win in the traditional sense: No matter how much proof you present or how strong your argument, their opinion of you isn’t going to change so you have to change your goal. In this situation, I’d suggest that your goal is to win over anyone else who might be listening. You want to be funnier, more rational, and more logical than your stub-servative friend and you want to play to the audience. If there is not audience, see #1.

If your conservative relative is not a “no win” conservative then feel free to use your regularly scheduled arguments.

6. How to Tell When You’ve Won

If your relative is a “no win” conservative, you will never win as mentioned above.

So how do you know when to quit?

I will usually quit when it’s obvious that the person I’m talking to has said something outside recognized norms.

In the Michale example above, I should have quit shortly after he called moving to a credit union “economic terrorism”.

Why?

Because most people are going to think that you should be able to do what you want, when you want to, irregardless of reason with your money.

Once I’ve said that people should be free to do what they want with their money unless this is somehow violating some law, I should have started thinking about ending the argument.

Because at that point, I’ve won over the independents. I’ve won over anyone listening who can be won over.

At this point, you should let the religious look religious and step away from the argument.

A good way to do this would have been to say something like:

At this point, we’re just going to have to disagree. You think I’m an “economic terrorist,” but I believe I have a freedom and a right to move my money. We’ve come to an impasse and there’s little point in discussing further.

7. Don’t make it about Right vs. Left

Conservatives strongly identify with the Right vs. Left narrative. Conservatives vs. liberals. Republicans vs. Democrats.

In fact, they’ve largely invented this narrative. But who plays into it? We do.

We don’t have to.

Conservative radio has showed them how to play this game and one of their favorite things is arguing Right vs. Left.

Instead, pick an argument. And stick to it like above.

An easy way to do this is to say something like:

This isn’t about Right vs. Left. This is about fixing our banking system so that something like the crash of 2008 doesn’t happen again.

They will try to categorize your argument by equating it to some aspect of the “Left” like socialism or communism or some other -ism.

Again, keep them on track, keep going back to the issue, and try to find common ground:

Instead of throwing around names, let me ask you this: Should we have bailed out the failed banks without any consequences to them for causing the crisis?

If you stick to your argument and don’t get sucked into the Right vs. Left game, eventually you might score a point or two and cause someone to think a little differently.

If not, remember that you’re playing for the audience.

8. Remember your goal

I close with this again because I can’t overstate the importance: your goal should not be to win the argument.

If you’re starting off with this goal, you’ve lost from the opening bell.

Your goal is to win people to your side. If it’s your conservative relative, great. If that’s impossible, work on winning your other relatives over.

If there’s one thing that Occupy Wall Street has taught us, it’s that you don’t have to win over everyone if you can convince a few people close to you to join in in winning people over.

Remember that you’ve got a great argument and all you have to win over are a few friends or relatives close to you.

To not leave any threads hanging, what would be my strategy in dealing with the violence question I raised in the intro around Occupy Wall Street?

I would talk about the beliefs of the protesters instead. I would ask questions like: Do you think the protesters have a point when they say banks have gotten too big? Or, that money has too much influence over Washington?

I’d stick to it and ignore the violence question. If it continued to come up, I’d say that I’m against violence in general and ask why the media only focuses on a few violent incidents. Why don’t they focus on the legitimate questions the protest is raising?

I’d say that violence, as in any other situation, is a matter for the police to deal with. And if they asked, how come OWS doesn’t police their own? I’d ask them why conservatives don’t stop other conservatives from shooting abortion doctors.

I might also ask why the police never show up to a Tea Party rally in full riot gear. This might get some thoughts started.

But mostly, I’d try to stick to the beliefs I share with OWS. The belief that our government is owned by corporate lobbyists from the 1% and that we need to do something about it. This is a belief all kinds of people share. Across the political spectrum. It’s a good argument and we should stick keep bringing it up as much as possible.

Happy Thanksgiving folks and if you have strategies or arguments that have worked particularly well please share in the comments!

Would love to hear ‘em.

———————————

In closing, I leave you with one of my favorite scenes from the movie Thank You For Smoking:

Joey Naylor: …so what happens when you’re wrong?
Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I’m never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can’t always be right…
Nick Naylor: Well, if it’s your job to be right, then you’re never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: OK, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate, and I’m defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: ‘Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream’, you’d say…
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can’t win that argument… so, I’ll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It’s the best ice-cream, I wouldn’t order any other.
Nick Naylor: Oh! So it’s all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that’s not what we’re talking about
Nick Naylor: Ah! But that’s what I’m talking about.
Joey Naylor: …but you didn’t prove that vanilla was the best…
Nick Naylor: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong I’m right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn’t convince me
Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.
[points into the crowd]

akadjian

Topics: Rebuilding the Middle Class, Political Strategy | No Comments »

November 19, 2011

What’s Wrong with Our Government (in a Single Picture)

Yeah, I know. It’s small. Click on it for the full size image.

CLGC Client List

This is the client list for the lobbying firm of Clark Lytle Geduldig and Cranford.

You can go to their website and see this picture for yourself. Here, it’s screengrabbed in case it suddenly “disappears”. CLGC has more corporate clients, but I think you get the picture.

Who is this firm and what do they do?

According to their press page and The Hill, “Clark Lytle Geduldig and Cranford know how to kill legislate threats to (their) clients.” (The Hill, April 24, 2008).

In short, CLGC is a lobbying firm with a long list of corporate clients. Wouldn’t you like to know what types of legislation they’ve influenced? And how many other lobbying firms just like them are out there?

Here’s a second picture (I think the first one was enough, but if you’re interested).

CLGC Press

Who are these folks?

Sam Geduldig was a former adviser to Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio), the current Speaker of the House, as well as Congressman Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), the former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Steve Clark is a former board member of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce who was cited in 2000 as Ohio’s Most Effective Corporate Lobbyist.

Gary Lytle was senior vice president of federal relations for Qwest and lead lobbyist on all issues involving Congress, the Administration, and the FCC.

And Jay Cranford is another former John Boehner assistant.

Now, for those Democrats out there who will point and say “Look, John Boehner!” CLGC also claims  that they are “quick on (their) feet even with Democrats in power.” (The Hill, May 14, 2009).

And a third picture showing some of these testimonials. (Wow, it’s kind of hard to believe they’re this bold about what they do. Basically, hire them and they’ll kill the legislation you don’t want or provide you with the right level of influence.)

CLGC Quotes

They also claim to:

“offer clients an exceptionally well-rounded view of the legislative process.” (Washingtonian, May 23, 2011)

Let me translate that for you from lobbying speak: they can influence Democrats too.

The point is not to say that one side, Democrats or Republicans are better. That’s not the argument I’m trying to make here.

Let me spell it out for you.

The chief problem in Washington is NOT Democrats or Republicans.

The chief problem in Washington is that our government is not our government anymore.

If you pay enough to one of these lobbying firms (apologies for singling you out, CLGC, I know there’s others), you can influence the legislative process.

The main problem is the influence of money on our system.

The main problem is that the industries who are supposed to comply with government regulations for the good of our country are instead writing (or blocking) the rules through the influence of lobbyists such as CLGC.

One picture was never clearer.

akadjian

Topics: Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

October 7, 2011

What #OccupyWallStreet Has Accomplished

In regards to the Occupy Wall Street protest, several friends I know have asked the question “What are they protesting?” or “What do they want?”

After reading the media coverage, it’s no wonder they’re asking this question. The media, if they’ve covered the event at all, has largely portrayed the protests as scattered, small to non-existent, hippie street freak sit-ins with no goals or objectives.

Yet if I look at recent conversations I’ve had with people from across the political spectrum, the protests seem to be having a more far-reaching impact than this narrative.

The media coverage so far

Tina Susman from the LA Times  wrote: “How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?”

Nate Jones in the Metro wrote: “We know the protesters currently hanging out in downtown Manhattan are against Wall Street — that’s right in the name. But what are they for?”

Gina Bellafonte, in perhaps the most disdainful article in the NY Times called the movement “a noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people.”

But at least they’ve written about the movement. The protest has been going on for 3 weeks and the Associated Press only has 2 articles about it (1) (2). One focuses on investigating the NYPD for pepper spraying and the other says little more than “the protest continues”.

The coverage in the mainstream media is largely non-existent or is spreading this narrative about hippie protesters with no apparent goals. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece that discusses this media coverage in more detail.

A movement stirs

Yet something else is happening.

Daily my friends on Facebook are posting links to the protests or information about the protests.

Ann Kruetzkamp, a friend of mine from NY, posted an excellent series of pictures of the event (both this past weekend’s protest at the Brooklyn Bridge and the ongoing protest in Zucotti Park) which tell a different story than the media.

occupy_wall_st_2

Another, posted this meme which has been making the rounds. The protest also spawned a 100-comment discussion thread amongst my friends on the topic of more equitable taxation.

It seems like people are having conversations again about Wall Street and their role in the financial crisis. Conversations which never really took place in the way they should have after the bank meltdown.

Conversations which may have been held in private but not en masse because our “liberal” media relegates the stories to the back pages.

If the Tea Party sneezes, the media seems to jump on the story about “taxes” or Tea Party influence or the ever-present Republican vs. Democrat story with the new Tea Party twist.

Yet we never really had a conversation about how Wall Street avoided any consequences as a result of the financial meltdown, about how the same people are in charge, or about how Wall Street has returned much as it was before the crisis.

Or even about the influence of money on politics or the increasing inequality of wealth or jobs.

Where is the “liberal” media?

Or is this perhaps what the protest has made absurdly clear? That there is no liberal media.

There’s only corporate media owned by the likes of GE, Disney, Gannett, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, Time-Warner, and Hearst.

And while apparently it’s OK to provide ad nauseum coverage of Tea Party protests, it’s not OK to cover a Wall Street protest in anything but an unfavorable light lest ‘ye offend the “job creators”.

Yet the conversations are taking place anyways. They’re taking place online, at work, and en masse.

And it feels like a breath of fresh air.

If Occupy Wall Street only accomplishes changing the conversation from the officially blessed narrative du jour, it’s been successful.

If we realize from this event that we’re going to have to evangelize and tell these stories ourselves to our friends and family, it’s done something truly significant.

akadjian

Topics: Economic Balance, Political Strategy, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

October 2, 2011

The Ideal Republican Presidential Candidate

Could Chris Christie be the Republican savior who swoops in to consolidate the Republican vote?

According to Christie, he’s not running.

So why all the hubbub? Aren’t the current candidates good enough?

With all the speculation, I thought I’d look at what an ideal candidate might look like based on the Republican debates.

Here’s my profile of an ideal Republican candidate:

Good Bad
Thinks social security is a Ponzi scheme Says social security is a Ponzi scheme (Perry)
Texas, Georgia, Utah Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania
Hates health care mandate Implemented health care mandate (Romney)
Believes blacks are ‘brainwashed’ to vote for liberals (Cain) Believes in bringing this country together (Huntsman)
Hates Obama Worked for Obama (Huntsman)
Believes Federal Reserve is a government conspiracy (Paul) Believes American foreign policy helped contribute to the 9/11 attacks (Paul)
Stands up for our military Stands up for gay members of our military (debate audience)
Last name associated with the Contract for America (Gingrich) Last name a euphemism for “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” (Santorum)
Believes $70 billion to $120 billion of Medicare and Medicaid is paid to crooks (Gingrich) Voted for $1 trillion in Medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors (Santorum)
Believes separation of church and state means that you should ban the Muslim religion from our country (Cain) Believes in separation of church and state at all (Cain)
Called to run by God (Perry, Bachmann) Called to run by the Brigham Young (Romney, Huntsman) or Ayn Rand (Paul)
Godfather’s Pizza Bain Capital
Believes homosexuality is a sin and goes against Biblical teachings (Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain) or is a disease like alcoholism (Perry) Married to a homosexual drag queen (Bachmann)
Brags about the number of people put to death in his state (Perry) Brags about the Texas DREAM Act (Perry)
Wants to win the Mexican-American vote Wants to give Mexican-Americans anything in return for their vote
Dinner fundraisers in Iowa (Bachmann, Perry) Eating a corn dog in front of a Sistine Chapel reproduction (Perry)
   

Ok, that last one is Photoshopped, but I had you for a second, right?

akadjian

Topics: Election 2012 | No Comments »

September 27, 2011

Kasich’s Ohio Budget: Follow the Money

John Kasich’s Ohio budget forecasts that spending in the state will fall from 120.3 billion in Ted Strickland’s last budget to 119.5 billion this year.

This is a drop of $800 million or essentially an unchanged budget (a drop of 0.6% for the mathematically inclined).

With all the cuts proposed in the Kasich budget, this lead me to a simple question: Where are the proposed savings going?

You would think this information would be relatively easy to find, but surprisingly, it’s not readily available.

Here’s  my attempt to understand the Kasich budget.

Where are the cuts? 

The Columbus Dispatch has the best graphic I’ve found that illustrates the Kasich cuts:

What are the privatizations?

Where is it going?

So if overall spending isn’t changing, yet all these cuts are being made, where is the money going?

Does it add up? 

Kasich increased spending from the General Revenue Fund from $50.5 billion to $55.6 billion over 2 years.

This is an increase of $5 billion. This is also supposedly the largest increase in state spending in Ohio’s history.

This is the information that I was able to find. But it doesn’t add up.

First, where are the increases in the GRF going to?

Some seem to be going to Kasich’s JobsOhio private development effort, some to charter/private school vouchers, and some to wealthy school districts. Does that add up to $2.5 billion a year?

Second, how can Kasich claim to be closing an $8 billion gap when he’s increasing spending by $5 billion and only making about $6 billion in cuts. Where are the rest of the spending increases?

As Kasich’s own Budget Director Tim Keen said: “I fully realize that it’s kind of counter-intuitive that we’ve closed an $8 billion shortfall and yet spending is growing.”

Counter-intuitive … is that what you call it?

What’s really going on here?

It sure looks like a shell game where the money is being shifted around.

Kasich’s strategy is:

  1. Cut funding to local governments and schools and force them to either cut services or raise taxes.
  2. Privatize state-owned businesses sacrificing long-term revenue for short-term payments.
  3. Shift the savings to private companies to bribe them to stay in Ohio or move to Ohio. See Wendy’s, Diebold, Bob Evans, and OmniCare.
  4. Shift the savings to wealthy school districts and to privatization efforts.

When you look at it closely, Kasich’s strategy sure looks a lot like “trickle down” theory. Give to the wealthy and somehow it will “trickle down”.

It doesn’t look like any jobs are being created (according to estimates by Innovation Ohio and the Columbus Dispatch, 50,000 jobs will be lost), but it sure looks like Kasich donors make out well.

And by the way, with people making less money, Kasich’s rosy revenue projections already aren’t working. I can already guess what the response will be, get ready for more cuts.

Why isn’t this information in the news? 

Your guess is as good as mine. Though if I had to guess, it’s because people would be really mad if they knew the details about Kasich’s budget.

Most articles tend to be like this Cincinnati Enquirer piece or this Columbus Dispatch piece, which, instead of taking an objective look at what the budget looks like, where the cuts are and where the money is going, presents the Republican talking points and then the Democratic response. With the Republican talking points typically headlining.

They also only present pieces of the puzzle which is why it’s so difficult to actually track down this information.

When you actually look at the whole picture, Kasich’s plan is pretty clear: it’s typical conservative trickle down theory.

Other Sources

akadjian

Topics: Economic Balance, Fiscal Responsibility | No Comments »

September 17, 2011

How to Fight Against Ohio Issue 2 (SB5)

The campaign to pass Issue 2 is in full swing in Ohio so I thought I’d review the pro-Issue 2 marketing, what they’re trying to accomplish, and how best to fight against it.

Remember, Issue 2 is the issue which limits collective bargaining for state employees such as police, firefighters, and teachers for wages, hours, and conditions of employment.

The Pro Issue 2 Strategy: Building a Better Ohio and others

Building a Better Ohio, the pro-Issue 2 group, wants to turn the battle into a Unions vs. Taxpayers fight.

The simple demographics of this idea are that unions represent a small percentage of the voting public and everyone is a taxpayer. The demographics in the voting public break out to about 15% unions vs. 100% taxpayers.

This is how conservatives are trying to target segment the market and appeal to the most people.

Their arguments will take the form of trying to scare people about the impact of unions and will try to tell you that they’re doing all of this for the taxpayer.

They will say things like “Ohio Senate Bill 5 will prevent not only more layoffs of government employees but enhance opportunities in the private sector.”

They will say they are trying to control “out of control spending”. Or as Rebecca Heimlich, Director of the Conservative group Ohio Chapter of Americans for Prosperity said, “If SB 5 fails, what we’re going to see is tax hikes across the state and mass layoffs of employees. That kills jobs.”

So you’re going to see fear and you’re going to see the argument that it’s either unions or jobs.

Here’s a couple examples from the comments in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

“Ohioans have been abused enough by these gangster unions. It’s time we put an end to their corruption and thuggery.” - GlovesOff

“Its a referendum on A. Business as usual (stupidity) or B. Reigning in out of control union control of the government (common sense).” - thug123

“If you are a freebie multigenerational welfare, school choice voucher, free cell phone, free health care, free dental care and section 8 recipient vote to repeal SB5 so you can maintain your cradle to grave “benefits” and services without, you know, actually having to work for them.” - AdolfGalland

Note the one common theme: Unions vs. Taxpayers. This is the strategy. Why? Again, it’s simple demographics. Unions represent only about 15% of Ohio’s workforce. If they can turn the fight into unions vs. taxpayers, they win.


A Counter Strategy for Arguing Against Issue2

What’s the best way to fight against this strategy?

First, avoid falling into the Unions vs. Taxpayers trap. Many of the comments I’ve seen online take the bait and try to make a pro-union argument.

You’ll see arguments like “Kasich is trying to break the unions” or “This is a union-busting bill!” Of course it’s a union-busting bill. But you don’t want the argument to be unions vs. taxpayers. The numbers are simply not in our favor. This approach is simply not the most helpful.

But it’s true, you say. Yes, but it’s not the most effective because it doesn’t appeal to the most people.

Here’s another couple examples of well-meaning and intentioned arguments that don’t appeal to enough people:

“But I know that when unions do well, the workers of this country do better. Collective bargaining ANYWHERE helps the middle class. The more it’s limited, the less money you make, the less benefits you get. It’s that simple.” - no-hell-below-us

“I’ve never been a union member nor patched [sic] a time clock, but most of the benefits such as health insurance, Medicate, Social Security, workplace safety and more are here because unions and others stood up for all of us who work.” - NoBozos

These arguments hint at how unions have benefited all of society but they still fall within the Union vs. Taxpayer frame.

It’s like agreeing with conservatives that reducing the deficit creates jobs and is our number one priority. The trap is that once you accept the basic premise, then the debate revolves solely around how much to reduce.

You don’t want to fall for the Unions vs. Taxpayers trap.  It’s a false divide.

A more effective way to argue would be to frame the debate in a way that targets the audience most effectively.

Remember, when SB5 was introduced? It was wildly unpopular with the public, enjoying almost 70% disapproval.

Why?

  1. It was viewed for what it was, a diversion from Kasich’s pledge to create jobs (Really? You’re going after teachers. Do you know what most teachers make?)
  2. It sure looks like taking from the poor and giving to the rich. On the one hand Kasich wants to cut funds to middle-class employees. On the other, he’s offering “incentives” to companies like Wendy’s, Diebold, and Bob Evans to build new corporate headquarters here.
  3. Public employees have been very willing to consider giving up something on their end. This would seem to indicate that the system works. Why take away their right to bargain too?

Wildly unpopular.

Yet Kasich and friends have been gaining ground since turning this into a Taxpayer vs. Union frame.

The framing I would suggest using is the Corporation vs. People frame. Wall Street vs. Main Street. This framing targets where this legislation has been coming from, namely groups like ALEC.

Example 1:

If you believe that the troops on the ground, the people who are the experts in their field, should have a voice and a seat at the table, then vote “No” on Issue 2.  

Example 2:

If you believe that shared sacrifice means everyone including those at the top, vote “No” on Issue 2. 

Example 3:

Issue 2 also erodes rights. Imagine the uproar if government were limiting the ability to organize of churches or corporations. Why then should government be trying to limit the ability of people to collective bargain?

For those Tea Party constitutionalists, ask them about Article III of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

True, the Constitution sets limits on the Federal government. But why should a state government be trying to limit these rights?

Isn’t the ability to collectively bargain just as much a part of a free market as anything else?

You’ll be hearing a great deal from Building a Better Ohio, the group fighting to protect Issue 2, over the next couple of months. They are well funded and their marketing strategy is the standard divide and conquer: if you can get the people fighting against each other, then you can pass some really bad legislation.

So don’t get pulled into the wrong fights. Remember to respect the rights and opinions of others, even if you disagree. And post about this wherever you can: Facebook, local newspaper comments, letters to the editor, etc. because the issue may not get fair coverage in the corporate media.

For other efforts at understanding Issue 2 and framing the debate see the following additional resources:

 

akadjian

Topics: Fiscal Responsibility, Political Strategy | No Comments »

September 11, 2011

Sarah Palin Scores the First Truth in the 2012 Election Campaign

Yes, I know. I’m as surprised as you are to see the words “Sarah Palin” and “truth” in the same sentence.

Speaking at a Tea Party rally in Indianola, IN, Ms. Palin made the following key points:

1. The United States is now governed by a permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people.

2. Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage.

3. The real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

I believe Ms. Palin has fairly accurately described much of the situation in Washington (though point three delves a bit too far into conspiracy theory).  Or at least this is what many people believe given how much legislation is shaped by lobbyists regardless of who’s in charge. [1] [2]

This is especially interesting given that no other Republican candidate has characterized the situation this way. Not to mention very few Democratic politicians.

“[The political class] derives power and their wealth from their access to our money, to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies and to reward contributors and to buy votes via earmarks. […] There’s a name for this, it’s called ‘corporate crony capitalism’”

“Earmarks” is a traditional GOP talking point, but the government bailing out Wall Street and corporate crony capitalism? That’s the kind of message I’ve been looking for from progressives since 2008. Palin even goes after “corporate welfare.”

Of course Palin goes on to use this populist rhetoric to advocate for traditional conservative goals: smaller government, “free markets,” lower taxes, and cuts in spending.

I say “traditional conservative goals” because the GOP and various lobbying groups (the Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed by some of the biggest corporations in our country) have been trying to get rid of government for years.

Why? Because in the absence of government, it’s you against giant multinational corporations. If a corporation cheats you and your only alternative is to try and go up against their corporate lawyers and endless cash, you really have no alternative. In this situation, the corporations will almost always win.

Still, it’s interesting that Ms. Palin actually comes out against big business and corporate welfare. And it’s a shame that more Democratic politicians haven’t.

Has Sarah Palin become more populist? Or is she simply trying to use populist rhetoric to justify traditional GOP goals?

Regardless, I score her the first moment of truth in the 2012 elections (as hard as that is to say).

akadjian

Topics: Election 2012 | No Comments »

August 28, 2011

The World’s Best Worst Miniature Golf Course

For our summer vacation this year, we traveled to Inlet, NY in the Adirondacks. We were in luck as Old Forge has two miniature golf courses.

The first one was too busy so we played at the Over the Rainbow miniature golf course on Rt. 28  across the street from The Enchanted Forest amusement park.

We were glad we did as miniature golf courses have a certain mystique to them: one part kitsch, one part run down, and in this case, one part WTF.

I think you’ll see what makes this course worth a visit. Wait, was the Mad Hatter in The Wizard of Oz?

Over the Rainbow Mini Golf

First, we wondered which movie theme they were going with. Turns out it’s both. The front nine is Alice in Wonderland and the back nine is The Wizard of Oz.

Though we’re still not sure why the goose is coming out of the Queen of Hearts dress.

Playing with the Queen of Hearts

Is this homely girl with a goose sticking out of her dress Alice? Or is this Dorothy because she’s wearing red shoes?

Alice or Dorothy?

Our best guess: Goose + blue and white apron = Alice.

“Mommy, why is the something of clubs carrying a bucket of blood?”

Bucket of Blood

Indeed. And why are his elbows on the outside of his arms?

Tweedledee and Tweedle Fuck You!

Tweedledee and Tweedle-fuck-you!

You might have to click on the picture to see it.

Look! It’s Mr. Green Hat Guy Blue Jean!

Mr. Umm Green Hat

She’s got the dog so this must be Dorothy.

Dorothy and Toto

The yellow brick road. Oz needs more government transportation funding.

The Yellow Brick Road

A growl. A snarrrrl even.

The Lion

The Tin Man and the Flat Green Witch.

Tin Man and the Flat Green Witch

The Green Castle Clubhouse of Doom.

The Green Castle Clubhouse of Doom

This is where all of the bored summer help sit and do crossword puzzles and talk to their boyfriends when not handing out rainbow-colored golf balls to the children.

Yay!

p.s. We won a free round of golf on the last hole so we’ll be back next year Over the Rainbow mini golf!

akadjian

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »

July 24, 2011

A Brief Critique of Ayn Rand

When I was 14, I picked up Atlas Shrugged thinking it was a science fiction novel.

My critique at the time was one word: boring. As science fiction, it didn’t measure up to Kurt Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, Orson Scott Card, or any of the other science fiction I was reading at the time. Even L. Ron Hubbard.

With so many folks referring to Ayn Rand in the news recently and with the new release of Atlas Shrugged, I thought I’d revisit Rand to better understand it.

Here are a few quick notes.

The good:

  1. Rand places a strong emphasis on reason as a guiding principle. This is similar to many enlightenment philosophies that also emphasized reason as a guiding principle.
  2. It’s OK to be selfish. I remember the moment when I first realized that it was ok to be selfish and want things for myself. At the time, this was a bit of a revelation and I believe that this is why people are drawn to Rand. It’s OK to want things for yourself. I just don’t believe this should be the sole motivation for an entire philosophy (see below).

The bad:

  1. The broad sweeping generalization that all the world’s previous philosophies stem solely from altruism. This is ridiculous.  In fact, I can’t think of one that takes the stance of saying altruism should be the sole guiding principle. All of them seem to stress a balance. Rand posits that there is only black and white, selfishness and altruism. Remember the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The advice is not just to help others but to treat them in the way in which you would like to be treated. Sounds like there’s some selfishness in there to me.
  2. Rand’s denial of history. Mike Wallace lays out the case quite well in his 1959 interview: “You’re asking in a sense for a devil take the high most, dog-eat-dog society, and one of the main reasons for the growth of government controls, was to fight the robber barons, to fight laissez-faire, in which the very people whom you admire the most, Ayn, the hard-headed industrialist, the successful men, perverted the use of their power.”
  3. When Rand says reason, whose reason is she talking about? The short history of her movement seemed to indicate that what she really meant was her reason.

The non-logical

  1. Reason as an all-encompassing system. Bertrand Russell, a mathematician, set out to define such a system in his Principia Mathematica. And failed. In fact, another mathematician, Kurt Godel, actually proved that such a system could not exist. BTW- Godel first described his incompleteness theorems in 1930, 1931.
  2. Rand’s claim that separating economics from government will create a utopia. “If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation, and harmony and justice among men.” Really? Under these guidelines and Rand’s selfishness principle, wouldn’t it make sense to steal from someone rather than incure the costs of production? Even 18th century economists understood this. David Hume postulated 3 basic systems must exist in order to have a functioning market economy: 1) Stability of possession, 2) Transfer of consent, and 3) The performance of promises (also known as property, exchange, and contract. Otherwise, why pay for a shipment of goods after you’ve received them? To setup even these minimal conditions requires government.
  3. Rand’s idea that government is “suppressing” the Supermen. Riddle me this: If someone is indeed a Randian “superman,” wouldn’t this person be just as able to succeed under regulations that affect everyone equally as in a system with no regulations?
  4. Belief in a “frictionless” version of capitalism. From the Mike Wallace interview: “If you look at economics, and economic history, you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help, with the help of franchises, subsidies, or any kind of government privileges. In free competition, no one could corner the market on a needed product. History will support me.” It’s the generalizations without evidence like “History will support me” that are the first sign something is wrong. But ask an economist. It’s nice to believe in a frictionless world, but ask any of them if they think it’s possible. In real life, monopolies happen, and the only way to break them up sometimes is through government regulation.

In summary, Rand makes an interesting first start to economics and philosophy.

If you encounter people who have just discovered Rand and are interested in this type of thing, one book I’d highly recommend is Economics Without Illusions by Joseph Heath.

Another couple are:

And if you’re looking for science fiction, any of the following are better than Atlas Shrugged:

akadjian

Topics: Economic Balance, Fiscal Responsibility, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

« Previous Entries <<|>>