Taking Credit for Education

We took our oldest daughter on her first college visit this week.  

Let’s let that one sink in for a moment. 

 

The college of my youth is not the college of today.  I had a hot plate.  Today’s students have executive chefs in critically acclaimed dining facilities.  I had a sign-up sheet for computer time in the Mac Lab.  Today’s students carry Macs in their pockets.  I had some classes across campus.  Today’s students have some classes across the ocean.  I had to walk uphill both ways to classes, often in driving rain and sleet.  Today’s students…well, you get my point. 

I came away from the trip with two distinct feelings.  The first was that I wanted to quit my job and go to college full-time.  If there is a fountain of youth, it is on the campus of a university in this country.  The second is the nagging feeling that I was being ripped off and everyone knew it.

I have spent the past few days trying to come to grips with the annual (estimated) cost of college, times four years, times 3 kids.  The weight of the accumulated national student loan debt in America has taken on a new urgency for me.  In 18 months, student loan debt will no longer be an academic subject for political banter on Facebook with my sworn philosophical enemies.  It will have come home to roost, much like my daughter will likely do after 4 years of “life experience”.  While threatening to change the locks after she’s gone sounds like a good idea, in practical terms, I don’t see it going down like that.

Right after the visit, I read a few paragraphs by William Falk, an editor with The Week magazine, and he was touring college options with one of his daughters.  He put the experience as succinctly as I never could:

“At the picture-perfect campuses we toured, millions have been poured into dazzling student centers, libraries, and gyms.  There are multiple, fully staffed cafeterias, serving sushi, custom-made stir fry, deli sandwiches, and pasta.  Class sizes are small, semesters abroad are common.  It’s a bit overmuch, but with the American Dream fading, and a globalized, high-tech world becoming more savagely competitive every day, anxious parents cannot resist the educational blackmail.  We want our offspring to have every possible advantage, lest they wind up downwardly mobile – and dependent on us until we drop.  Still, my glimpse of [his daughter’s] immediate future has left me with a curious form of class envy: I wish I were going, instead of paying.”

It is blackmail, and I will pay it.  In the end, we’ll all pay it in reduced economic activity as graduates pay back colleges instead of buying cars or homes or healthy foods.  But my costs will be direct.  I look forward to whining about it for many years to come.

I now appreciate on a deeper level the bumper stickers that say, “My Kid and My Money Goes to _____ University; Only One Will Eventually Move Back Home.”

Regulation Size

The next time a politician talks about returning power to the states at the same time they talk about relieving the regulatory burden on American businesses, consider this:

The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  In Arizona, it is $7.65.  In California, it is $8.00 and the state calculates overtime pay rates differently than federal law.  San Francisco, which is in California, has a $10.24 minimum wage.  Minnesota has a $6.15 minimum wage that is lower than the federal minimum but only small businesses grossing under $500,000 a year that do not engage in interstate commerce may pay their employees this lower rate.

In all, 23 states follow the federal minimum.  5 states do not have a minimum wage, so follow the feds by default.  22 states, plus the District have different guidelines.  All this is before we consider the various state statutes, ordinances, and proclamations on the definition of mandatory break time after shift work, rules for the payment of final wages, and the definition of an “employee”.  In 50 states plus the District, it’s all different.

Keeping track of all of these sometimes contradictory laws and keeping a company within legal compliance falls to poor slobs like me.  I can tell you from experience that these regulations are a burden, often necessary, usually well-intentioned, and sometimes a pain in my behind. 

 

I can also tell you one more thing: the more that the regulatory burden at the federal level is minimized and that power turned over to the states, the more confusing the patchwork of rules will become and potentially, the more burdensome on businesses, most of whom today conduct business across state lines.

State by state variations in the speed limit make sense.  Gun laws by state make sense.  That does not mean that state by state control of regulations always simplifies business processes or reduces business costs.  It doesn’t.

So the next time a politician talks about returning power to the states at the same time they talk about relieving the regulatory burden on American businesses, consider this.

Tax Free Candidate Shopping Weekends

This past weekend, more than 1,000 pastors planned to recommend to their flocks specific candidates to vote for, and then send the recorded sermons to the IRS.  The hope was that the IRS would be forced to act against them, creating a legal case to settle whether or not it is constitutional for the government to withhold tax exempt status from a church that engages directly in political activities.

This is the Lexington and Concord of the War on Religious Liberty, and the pastors are firing the first shot.

 An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom is the group organizing the protest.  The problem is that the group wants me to pick up the tax slack for their political posturing.  Churches are free to endorse one candidate over another today, as soon as they accept the same tax rates and regulations as every other group that does the exact same thing.  Freedom isn’t free.  I read that on a bumper sticker in the church parking lot on Sunday. 

 

“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.

That sounds good to me.  As a taxpayer, I am tired of footing the bill for those churches that feel a sense of entitlement and believe that we of the non-47% owe them something.  Stop redistributing my tax dollars to right wing front operations for specific parties and specific candidates.

“There are church leaders that believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to tax exempt healthcare, to tax exempt food, to tax exempt housing, to you name it. But that’s– it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.  These are churches that pay no income tax.” - This was me, caught on a secret video recording at a fundraiser in May. 

I recognize that there are circumstances that make this a close call.  But I draw a clear distinction between issue advocacy and candidate campaigning.  Issues and individuals are not the same thing. 

 

A church has a set of moral codes, divined through their faith traditions, that they have every right to promote to their congregations.  They can set behavioral standards for the believers.  I do not believe that a church actively participating in the political process by advocating for pro-life legislation should endanger their tax exempt status any more than a church advocating against a war should have that status withheld.  No problem with that. 

 

The line is crossed for me when a church organization advocates for one candidate over another.  I do not deny their right to do so.  I deny their claim of tax exempt status when doing so. 

When a congregant is told from the pulpit that a vote for Candidate A is the equivalent to damnation for your soul, it’s a fairly compelling argument in favor of taxing that organization as a political entity and not solely a religious one.  When that same congregant is told that support for abortion is the equivalent to damnation for your soul, that is well within the preaching of their faith.  When a church puts God on the side of an imperfect man (or woman), it pits that same God against his/her opponent.

There are no gray areas in moral teachings.  The contrasts are stark.  There is good and there is evil.  You enjoy the reward of Heaven and eternal life, or you roast in the eternal fires of Hell.  A vote for one person over another should not be cast with this fear hanging over your head, and if it is, my tax dollars should not finance it. 

Speaking of the IRS regulation, Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com, “The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit.  It is a head-on constitutional challenge.”  

Hey, Eric – say whatever you want, but don’t ask for special treatment while doing it.

“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”

Yes, the IRS uses fear and intimidation to enforce the law, but their methods pale in comparison to the fear and intimidation of threats from the pulpit of eternal damnation and condemnation to the fires of Hell for going against the will of God. 

   

By the way, stop by my church.  There is very little ‘fear’ about addressing anything political from the pulpit in my town.  They wear red, white and blue vestments and for the most part do not endorse any specific candidates.  They close each sermon by condemning the concept of hope, but that is surely a coincidence.

My distinction between issues and individuals is probably not a winning argument with the 1,000+ pastors who voiced their political candidate preferences to their congregations on Sunday.  I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives by sacrificing their tax exempt status.

That would be a bridge too far.

The Swivel Chair

My son had to watch the Presidential debate as part of a civics assignment, and I was as happy about that as he was sad.  A rousing discussion of budgetary priorities, federal deficits, and tax proposals is not the kind of stuff that engages a 14 year old boy still overwhelmed by the victory of Teddy Roosevelt at Nats Park earlier in the day.  When my son thinks Presidents, he thinks giant foam heads with tiny little bodies, not wooden figures on a red and blue stage.

He had to take notes for his assignment, just as I had to take notes for my loyal readers.  These are my unedited notes, documented here exclusively, since I am too old and slow to tweet my thoughts while watching TV:

• As combatants take the stage behind the podiums, my son asks, “Is this like Jeopardy where they have to buzz in if they know the answer?”
• BO gets a jobs question.  Responds with standard issue stump speech lines.  Ugh.  Maybe I’m the only one who noticed.
• I hate that new catch phrase sweeping the Democrats “economic patriotism”.  Sounds like I have to pay more taxes or die.
• MR gets jobs question.  Says he can help.  Really?  I thought we had to help ourselves instead of waiting for the government and becoming dependent on it.
• MR gave a much cleaner answer than BO.
• That “trickle down government” line might have legs.  We’ll hear that one again.
• MR says he won’t sign a tax cut that isn’t paid for.  Huh?  He’s got big brass ones to stand up there and make sh*t up within the first few minutes of the evening.  He’s back to Dick Cheney’s “Deficits don’t matter” attitude I guess.
• If Obama is the Empty Chair, then Mitt Romney has to be the Swivel Chair.  He spins into new positions with great ease, sometimes doing a complete 180 degree turn.
• How many times are these guys going to say “I agree with…” and then explain that they do not agree with each other.  Some pollster told these guys to be agreeable because swing voters like that.
• MR says his priority is jobs.  He should tell that t the party that nominated him.  Their actions signal disagreement.
• BO loves mentioning Clinton.  He’ll do that again for sure.  Interesting he mentions the last 10 years but not Bush by name.
• MR seems to have had a death bed conversion.  That 47% of Americans seem to be of great concern to him all of a sudden.
• MR says the deficit is not moral.  So by that definition, did George W. take America from the Clinton years of morality to the Bush years of immorality?
• PAUSE:  Cherie wants to know from Thomas and me who is winning at this point.  I let Thomas go first.  He thinks Obama is winning because of his specificity.  I say Romney is winning because his lies are making more sense than Obama’s truths.
• I cannot understand how MR can pretend that his tax proposal of the last 18 months doesn’t exist!!!
• BO is winning the balanced approach to deficit reduction argument.  First time tonight I felt that way.
• BO says about Medicaid cuts that “It may not seem like much on a sheet of paper but to a family with an autistic kid it does.”  Good line that gets to Romney’s ‘business’ background.  Painting the unfeeling accountant mentality.
• MR mentions Medicare idea floated by Tommy Thompson.  Doesn’t MR know that Thompson was cut on video saying that if you want to eliminate Medicare, he’s your guy?  That can’t help the Mittser pretend he doesn’t want to privatize the whole thing.
• BO trying hard to be the Clinton Democrat who weaves stories about real people into his answers.  Just reminds me how much better Clinton was at that.
• BO does a good job crushing MR’s Medicare plan.
• For a Mormon who doesn’t use caffeine, MR is awfully jumpy.
• My son, the prototypical low information undecided voter, starts to to lose interest at the Dodd-Frank discussion.  Can’t blame him.
• MR cites the CBO when arguing against Obamacare.  Uh oh, Mitt – the same CBO says that Obamacare cuts the deficit, so On Day One when you repeal it, the deficit goes up.
• BO is a terrible storyteller.  He’s not weaving together a narrative that makes any sense.
• MR keeps going back to “principles” instead of specifics.  That’s not going to work for the next 30 days…is it?
• MR keeps stealing the last word on every exchange, or BO keeps abdicating the last word.
• The rumors that BO wasn’t taking debate prep seriously must have been true.
• MR’s message:  “What I said about the 47% of Americans on that tape…I was just kidding.  Actually, I do care.”
• Aren’t these guys allowed any water to drink?
• MR keeps trying to question BO’s facts, but that will backfire tomorrow on Mr. We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Fact Checkers Romney.
• BO has good closing line about leadership and MR’s inability to stand up to his own party on anything.
• BO sounds like he didn’t know he’d get a closing statement opportunity.  Doesn’t emphasize the choice at all, and this needs to be a choice election for him.
• MR in closing looks at camera, better approach, a bit negative, not exactly morning in America, but better than Sleepy.

The Great Debate will be remembered as the debate no one remembers.  Without memorable zingers, without a signature moment, without a major defining gaffe, Romney’s hands down victory on this evening will be a footnote on the 2012 campaign.

I think I’d rather watch 90 minutes of political ads than 3 more of these, but this junkie knows no limits.  Biden-Ryan in 7 days and I'm stocking up on chips and salsa.

Reverse the Curse

When one curse is lifted, another one is born.

Teddy Roosevelt, the oversized foam headed 26^th President of the United States, beat his Mount Rushmore rivals in a ballpark sprint for the first time in 526 attempts.  His less than stellar records stands at an embarrassing 1 win and 525 losses.  Not too good.  That kind of performance will not get your face carved into the side of a mountain anytime soon, I can tell you that.  Even the minor leagues are too good for a guy that loses as often as the Rough Rider has lost.

He did win the race yesterday fair and square, so kudos to Teddy.  Actually, it wasn’t fair and square since a green creature intervened and tackled the other Presidents who were in hot pursuit, but politics is a dirty game.  What can you expect?  He deserved a little assistance.  It’s been a “rough ride” for poor Teddy for several years now, and frankly, Abe Lincoln is a cheater.

His inaugural victory must have been a good luck charm for the 98 win Washington Nationals because after he broke the tape, the first batter was Ryan Zimmerman who promptly hit a home run.  The legend of Teddy was born.  Whenever Teddy wins a race, the Nationals hit a home run.  It’s not exactly Kate Smith singing God Bless America before a Flyers’ game, but with time, it could become that special.  Game 7 of the World Series and we need a win, I want to see Roosevelt leave Tom, George and Abe in the infield dust and wait for that magic to translate to runs on the scoreboard for the home team.

Every time Teddy wins, something else happens to a Washington franchise, and in this case, it’s not that good for the home team.  On the day of Teddy’s great achievement, President Obama tanked in the first Presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.  The curse of Teddy was born.  Whenever Teddy wins a race, the Washington incumbent loses a debate.    It’s not exactly the Red Sox selling the rights to Babe Ruth to the Yankees, but with time, it could become that ominous.

So Teddy, I am glad your losing curse is lifted and the Washington baseball team can win now that you win.   But for the sake of the nation, just this season, could you lose on October 11^th, 16^th and 22^nd?  Don’t do it for me.  Do it for your country.

The Final Poll

I have heard every excuse for why current polling that shows President Obama maintaining a small national lead among likely voters and a more significant edge in electoral votes is inaccurate, misleading, and invalid.  Unfortunately for the excuse marketers, the poll-to-poll variations have been remarkably stable over the past few months; the pool of undecided voters that could change the election is historically small; and the Fox News polls seem to reinforce the prevailing story that Obama is ahead.  It is true that the polls will tighten before election day if only because the press cannot stand a foregone conclusion and subsequent ‘depressed’ (if you are a Romney supporter) viewership numbers on the Big Night.  We cannot predict the future with certainty, but the polls seem pretty consistent right now.

This urge to blame polling bias will not go away just because the election ends.  That will only be the beginning:   

November 7, 2012 (or as conservatives will come to call the day after the 2012 election without a hint of racial animus, Black Wednesday)

Obama Reelected

Special to MSRP

According to election returns, President Barack Obama has been reelected as President of the United States, defeating his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, by over 100 Electoral College votes.  The Republican establishment immediately began to raise doubts about the accuracy of the data used to make the electoral claim, arguing that the election polls are biased against severe conservatives.  They promised to soldier on in the face of these results. 

 

Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves with a stinging attack on the final vote tally today.  “Look at who is reporting the results – MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post.  These are all bastions of liberalism fully invested in protecting the President.  The liberal media bias is an indisputable fact, and these election “results” merely reinforce the fact.  The election result reports are biased against Mitt Romney and conservative causes.  The votes are based on false assumptions so I encourage listeners to ignore the polls.”

Other conservative thinkers argued that in several swing states where the polling station results did not match their internal delusions, the result was due to Democrats being oversampled at the ballot box.

“How can you have a valid election result when the underlying criteria for measurement count more Democrats than Republicans?”  said Donald Trump, speaking at his $5,000 per plate Birth Certificate Reform symposium in Palms Springs, California.  “This is huge.  This election debacle is the poster child for biased vote counting.”  

Questions about the validity of the methodology involved in tabulating the election results soared across Twitter and the blogosphere.  GOP agitators across the South vowed to look into claims that young voters, women and Latinos were also oversampled, skewing the final results.  They claim that if they can prove that the votes of the young, the infirm, minorities and females were in fact counted and weighted equally with the votes of Republicans, they can call the validity of the final vote poll into question.

‘All it takes is the implant of the seed of doubt about the results, and we’ll get that reset we’ve been waiting for.  We’ll win this election yet, even if it takes 4 more years to do it!” thundered Romney surrogate Rick Santorum from the pulpit of his local tax-exempt house of worship.  “Ours is a merciful God.” 

Other political leaders on the Right floated the long debunked idea that the Electoral College is filled with liberal academicians who historically support liberal causes and therefore produce invalid surveys of voter preferences.  According to this theory, any poll designed to count Electoral College votes will be biased.  As Sarah Palin facebooked to her loyal followers, “You can’t expect the professorial class at the Electoral College with their tweed jackets and their fancy books to prefer an agenda of freedom.  If this trend continues, I really will be able to see Russia from my house.”

Fox News paid contributor and book salesman Newt Gingrich saw another ploy at work in the announced election results.  He pondered aloud this morning on Fox and Friends that releasing election results now might be another way of depressing Republican turnout at pre-planned victory celebrations. 

Gretchen Carlson nodded in agreement.

Debatable Strategy

When arranging a blind date for a friend, the easiest way to lower expectations is to remark first on the mystery date’s charming personality.  In this manner, no matter how heinous the potential mate looks up close, it’s gotta be better than the expectation you had in your head.

Setting expectations for the first Presidential debate works in a similar way.  Put your surrogates out there on the talk show circuit, and have them set the bar so impossibly low that regardless of the candidate’s on-stage burps, farts or wisecracks, he’ll be better than you expected.  When you simultaneously match this bar-lowering approach with the deification of your opponent’s debating prowess, the gap between the two sets of expectations equals your opportunity for victory.  That’s how televised presidential debates are won – not on facts, competence, or projected leadership.

Lower expectations for your guy.  Raise expectations on their guy.  “Hey, undecided voter.  Have I got a candidate for you.  Check him out on Wednesday night.  He isn’t very well-spoken, and he does get flummoxed in pressure situations, but he is qualified, sort of, but you be the judge.  The other candidate will look, sound and feel awesome because he has more experience in public debates and he is a master at the event, but hey – being President is more than a silly debate.”

Step One, you have to build up the other guy:

Sen. Harry Reid on Romney (Face The Nation):  “Mitt Romney dominated 22 Republican primary debates over the past 20 months of campaigning.  There is no question that he is more prepared for these debates than any person in the history of mankind.  Newt Gingrich dropped out of the primary rather than face the Romney verbal juggernaut of policy depth again in a 90 minutes discussion of ideas.”

Rep. John Boehner on Obama (Meet The Press):  “The only man on the stage Wednesday evening with experience in a Presidential debate is Barack Obama.  He has been through the gauntlet of the debate spotlight 3 times in the past few years, so he is clearly the favorite.  If you recall, he spanked John McCain pretty good.  Made him cry.”

Banking lobbyist Tim Pawlenty on Obama (State of the Union):  “He is the master at speaking off the cuff without a teleprompter, so we anticipate a performance that rivals some of the great orations of our generation.  Henry Clay and Patrick Henry have nothing on this guy.”

Step Two, you have to lower your guy’s perceived abilities:

David Plouffe on Obama (60 Minutes): “As you know, the President is handicapped by the lack of a teleprompter at these debates, so I expect he’ll be quite tongue-tied throughout the evening.  You know, he has a terrible stutter when not reading from a script.  It’s a disability under the law you know.”

Chris Christie on Romney (Capital Report):  “He may be too empathetic with his opponent to successfully challenge him on stage.  The guy feels for others so deeply that he doesn’t want to hurt Obama by showing him up.  I would not be surprised if the pressure of the moment brought Romney to tears.  He’s a teddy bear in Armani.”

David Axlerod on Obama (Fox and Friends):  “I think all the pressure will be on the President.  You know, he’s been ill lately and that has certainly taken a toll on his energy and strength.  It is very likely that the President will come across like an empty chair on Wednesday evening, but to be honest with you, we’ll be shocked if he survives the debate at all.  We’ll have the best doctors we can find available just in case he collapses.”

Rep. Paul Ryan on Romney (News Hour):  “It would take too long to get into the details of how bad Mitt Romney will suck on the debate stage.  I won’t be expecting too much and neither should you.  I’m just being honest.  He’s a statue.”

Step Three, you have to keep Biden away from an open mic:

Vice President Joe Biden on Obama (local cable access news):  “Should be me up there.  I’m a better debater on the presidential stage than Obama.  I’m obviously cleaner and more articulate.  Of course, as a debater at the Vice Presidential level, I stink so don’t expect too much there.”

In the Presidential debate expectations game, the last shall be first.  See you tomorrow night.