The latest episode of the hit series “Is That a Fact?” dings Patty Wetterling pretty hard for an ad in which, as the story says, omits a fact so relevant that it crosses the line into falsehood.
The Wetterling ad in question, titled “More,” has a major problem and a minor problem, and I regret that I may be be somewhat to blame for the lesser one.
Interestingly, for those, like myself , who are using the “Is That a Fact” project to try to catalogue the different ways that political communications can stray from the staright and narrow, the smaller deception is the half-truth, while the bigger one is the deception by omission.
Here’s the deal
Wetterling’s ad asserts that Bachmann, contrary to being a tax-cutter, actually supports a 23 percent federal sales tax on everything you buy! If true, that would be a pretty big deal!
The reference is to a plan, called “The Fair Tax” by its advocates (although I don’t where it has much to do with tax fairness, but a lot to do with tax simplification) would indeed impose a 23 national sales tax on everything you buy, even up to cars and houses.
Problem 1 (the smaller one): Bachmann hasn’t clearly embraced the Fair Tax. You can get a taste of the back and forth on that from the story itself, if you don’t mind, or you can read the endless boring passage below headlined “please stop reading here”.)
Problem 2 (the bigger one) is that the Fair Tax plan is supposed to be “revenue neutral,” meaning the federal treasury breaks even on the deal, because in exchange for the 23 percent sales tax it repeals all federal income and payroll taxes. That’s a pretty big tradeoff.
But the Wetterling ad didn’t mention the repeal of income and payroll taxes.
You can argue about whether a 23 percent sales tax would really replace all the revenue collected from federal income and payroll taxes, and you can argue that the Fair Tax would make the tax system more regressive, but you can’t honestly argue (as the Wetterling ad does) that it’s an overall tax increase and you can’t discuss it honestly until you acknowledge that in exchange for paying the new sales tax, you get out from under income and payroll taxes.
Wetterling declined to be interviewed about the problems with the ad. Her campaign manager, the helpful and friendly Corey Day, couldn’t come up with much of a defense for leaving that little fact out of the ad. He said it was included in the press release announcing the ad and in the factual backup on the Wetterling website. Which it was. And if you believe that as many people are going to read the website as are going to see the ad, that would be a pretty good excuse.
Please stop reading here…
because the next section is a little uncomfortable and embarrasing for your obedient blogger.
Bachmann’s official position on the Fair Tax idea is that it’s “worthy of debate.” Considering that the idea has ben before Congress since 1999, and she’s presenting herself as a tax expert, and she has said that the federal tax system is “totally broken” and “in need of a complete overhaul,” one could fairly ask her when she will be ready to clearly come out for or against it. But “worthy of debate” by itself does not mean she’s for it.
Among the bits of evidence adduced by Team Wetterling to prove that Bachmann favors the Fair Tax was Feb. 21 piece by yours truly, containing short summaries of all the Sixth District candidates, Republican and DFL, back when there were six such candidates. In describing some of Bachmann’s positions, I wrote: “Would replace income tax with national consumption tax.” (That’s not a quote from Bachmann, but a paraphrase from me.) My recollection is that Bachmann spoke so enthusiastically about the idea, that I believed she had embraced it. But she called to say that I had overstated the case and had only committed herself to consider the idea.
Two days later, I wrote about it again and said he position was that Bachmann ” would consider the elimination of federal income taxes, to be replaced by a national consumption tax.”
In the backup for the ad, Wetterling cited both pieces. If my reporting contributed to an honest misunderstanding of Bachmann’s position, I apologize. But as recently as last week, in debates, Bachmann spoke about the Fair Tax idea, cautiously gave some of the pros and cons, and said she considered it an idea worth debating.
p.s. Yes, I’m aware that the NRCC is now running a TV spot that repeats the inaccurate characterization of Wetterling’s position on the Bush tax cuts. She favors allowing them to expire only for the highest-income one percent. The NRCC ad is based on the premise that she favors allowing them to expire entirely.
I addressed this matter in a recent “Is That a Fact?” both in the Biq Q and in the paper. Then, the NRCC was doing it in a flyer. Now it’s a TV spot.
Bachmann continues to decline all opportunities to comment on the deceptive NRCC communications.
“[Wetterling] favors allowing [the Bush tax cuts] to expire [in 2010] only for the highest-income one percent.”
That is sound policy that will bring the US back from the brink of fiscal disaster. I hope the entire Democratic party adopts it as overall policy.
And your eveidence of “fiscal disaster” is?
[…] ad any supporting material not included in the ad. Note: Black expands on the article with a post on the matter at his Big Question blog. It’s entitled How many f […]
Eric Black: “you can’t honestly argue (as the Wetterling ad does) that it’s an overall tax increase”
You know, Mr. Black–I just looked at the script for that Wetterling ad you’re claiming is misleading, and I just can’t seem to find the phrase “it’s an overall tax increase” in there anywhere. I’m in my late forties and my eyes are weaker, but I just can’t seem to find those words or that argument you attribute in the ad you’re criticizing. I can’t even find those three little words in the ad–”overall tax increase.”
Here’s what the Wetterling ad *does* say:
“Politician Michele Bachmann claims she’s for lower taxes.
But she supports a new national sales tax that would cost us more.
23% more at the pump…23% more for groceries and clothing…23% when you buy a new car, or even a new home.
Michele Bachmann…radical ideas we can’t afford.â€
I think that argument is relatively easily to follow: 23% more at the pump…23% more for groceries and clothing…23% for a new car, or a new home, would “cost us more.” That’s true, paying 23% more in taxes for a car would “cost us more.” That’s all the ad claims, the Wetterlin ad doesn’t claim that “it’s an overall tax increase” despite your criticism of it.
It’s just a claim that if Bachmann had her way, taxes on gas, groceries, clothing, cars and new homes would jump 23%.
But does Bachmann really support that kind of taxation on American consumers?
As you note, you’re a key source for the notion that Bachmann supported a national consumption tax on consumers. It’s hardly fair for you to say that the Wetterling campaign is at fault for relying on your reporting–especially when you stood by your original appraisal of Bachmann’s position (in print) after she tried to correct you, especially since you’re not retracting those stories now.
The easiest way to settle it:
when your reporting of Bachmann’s position on a consumption tax appeared, did she ask for a retraction, to set the record straight? If she didn’t, if she saw that attributed to her in “Candidate Positions”–she’s stuck with that position until she renounces it publicly, and it’s fair for the Wetterling campaign to attribute that position to her.
For Bachmann to say that the consumption tax idea “is worthy of debate” is not asking for a retraction, it’s not a public renunciation of the policy. It’s nowhere near a denial. It’s trying to have it both ways, making a non-committal statement about the consumption tax.
If she’s not willing to make her current position on these tax hikes clear, it’s fair for the Wetterling campaign to rely on your earlier reporting–if she never demanded a retraction, and you never printed one. It’s her duty to make her position on the issue clear–publicly, not over the phone.
But the fact is that if you would do any research into the “Fair Tax Plan” that this plan proposes consumption tax REBATES that would reduce or eliminate any sales taxes paid by lower income people. THese rebates would be based on the household incomes.
Again, before you jump to conclusions make sure you understand what is actually being proposed.
The World Economic Forum issues a “ranking”. It is meaningless. And, comparing national debts, Sweden has a national debt of 50.4% of GDP. The United States has a national debt of 37.4%.
Bill P. - I saw the ad before Eric wrote about it here, and I think it’s pretty obviously intended to convey an impression that we’re talking about about an overall tax increase, with a little deniability built in. I’m also pretty sure that any Republican ad that engaged in the same convenient vagueness would be met with loud declarations of Rovian darkness.
Again, the “Fair Tax Plan” is designed to be revenue and distribution neutral. It is simply to shift taxes from income to consumption.
IF you are not paying any federal taxes now you will not be paying federal taxes with this plan.
I personally support the concept but find it unrealistic because of the “rebates”. I do not think that a realistic system could be worked out.
The benefits of the plan are that the taxes are immediately collected and the $10.7 billion annual budget item called the Internal Revenue Service will be eliminated.
haven’t seen the Wetterling campaign ad, but, assuming the summary here was accurate, it sure sounds like it is utterly misleading
if candidate Wetterling wants to win, she should focus on candidate Bachmann’s real weaknesses …. not use some misleading spin on a tax plan that will never happen in any event
Fellas,
My comments don’t go to the merits or the undesirability of the consumption tax. They’re just comments about whether the Wetterling ad could be called “deceptive” or not, and about how Bachmann still won’t make her position clear on the idea. I think it’s fair to hold her to the pro-consumption tax position reported by the Star Tribune until she officially demands a public retraction or clarification.
Paul S.–I can’t argue you out of the impression you get from the ad; all I can do is remind you that that’s not what the ad says–it doesn’t “say” that Bachmann’s proposed 23% tax hikes on homes, cars, etc. would be an “overall tax increase.” How can we fairly hold someone responsible for a statement they *didn’t* make?
There’s nothing vague about the ad. It makes specific claims. The most you can fairly infer from the text of the script is that Bachmann has no problem with raising taxes on consumers by 23%–inferring more than that isn’t justified, on the basis of what the ad actually says. If you want to infer more than the ad actually says, no one can stop you, but that’s not the fault of the people who made the ad.
And if Bachmann wants to argue that her position on this issue wouldn’t constitute an overall tax increase–you go, girl! Explain that to the middle class and the working poor.
The problem is that she seems to be backing away from this issue, now that election time’s approaching. Maybe this ad will force her to take a clear public stand on an issue that’s she’s been talking about for months now.
She should take this golden opportunity to either renounce the consumption tax publicly, or explain to the voters how it would work and why it’s such a great idea. Saying it’s “worthy of debate” is just blather. Which side of the debate would will you take, Michele?
Whatever. This is just typical political BS. I am sure that you would not be calling on Patty Wetterling to make such declarations.
The Fair Tax plan is never going to become a real issue.
Moving to a national sales tax WOULD be a tax increase on the lower and middle class. It’s very regressive. And since people care about the taxes “they” pay, and not the overall amount collected, I would argue that the ad is correct there.
Unfortunate that Bachmann’s support of it has varied in different venues. No more of a distortion than what’s been done to Wetterling over and over, but unfortunate regardless.
If the people of Central MN pick Bachmann over Wetterling it will be an embarassment for the whole state.
The problem is the GOP. They have always been the problem.
They, Bachmann included, always say they are going to cut taxes, or hold the line on taxes. Then the wealthy are served, as sensible people knew and expected all along.
The Bachmann website takes no real position except she is on record for wanting to make it easier for businesses to operate, including opposition to a lifting of the freeze on the minimum wage - has it been frozen for a decade, it seems so?
The disruptive impact of a national or federal sales tax on poor people [who insist on calling themselves “middle class” but in too many instances live paycheck to paycheck, overuse credit cards, etc.] who have to sell their time/labor to live; vs the wealthy who live off the earnings of their capital holdings, and are idle pursuing leisure; or driven anyway like Gates and Buffet.
Done as a tax inposed at the time of any purchase - not merely consumer purchases - it would affect capital intensive industry more; hence a cry would arise to amortize the effect or not even impose it. And would private sector builders pay a tax on concrete and rebar, but public highway projects not be taxed?
Consider auto assembly. Buy parts, pay a consumption tax there, sell an auto through channels and tax each change of title so that the plant holds ownership until the end=user consumer buys to dodge intermediary taxation - dealers become commission agents as their current employees are, etc.
Clearly, the rational capitalist need not be smart, only rational, to figure out the deal is, assemble overseas, so that under free trade agreements, the finished item, title held overseas, dodges the tax on sale of parts.
Net effect - far, far greater job outsourcing than now; without tinkering and creating business “exceptions.”
Then, bond clippers - they are consuming the time value of money, are they not, so that their consumption should be taxed, identical rate as a loaf of bread or a Starbucks latte.
Can you hear the GOP regulars howling like full-moon wolves on that proposal? Somehow, Mark will explain that such a possibility is unfair, and a burden on proper economic functioning of free market mechanisms.
But it is the proper way to view things.
And employers, they consume the labor and time of employees, so tax that consumption, yes/no? All we have is time, really, until the reaper reaps. And we sell it in drips and drabs.
The devil [or Antichrist?] is in the details of how the GOP would talk the talk, and then walk their true walk where the wealthy get off far better and stand on the backs of others, yet again, still.
It would screw everybody else far more than the current system does, and the super-rich would laugh and laugh at the gullibility of those voting Bachmann because they feel somehow threatened every time somebody says, “Look, those two women want to marry. The sky is falling, falling.” Save me and the nation, please, from falseness and great abiding stupidity, please.
And tax the rich for a change. What about an annual wealth tax? Now there’s an idea to explore, but it is not going to happen to be a hot topic in MN 6, is it?
Finally, there was a Nov. 15, 2005, GOP candidates forum that Taxpayer League and others coordinated, that supposedly has Krinkie, Bachmann, Knoblach, and Esmay on audio record yammering vaguely about such a tax scheme:
http://insideminnesotapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/11/6th-district-republicans-forum-how-far.html
If you have the stomach to listen to that batch, I don’t, go for it and see what Bachmann actually then said. On the web, she is quoted:
Michele Bachmann: “…we are now at a time where we are, very realistically, looking at a consumption tax vs. an income tax. And the whole difference behind this is that people would really feel the burden of the tax increases, and they would choose how they want to proceed.”
http://minnpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/01/sixth-congressional-district.html#c113808321001230484
That sure sounds pro-consumption tax to me - suggesting it would be an incentive for families to save and consume less; thus walking into the fallacy of composition - what might be good for a household - substantially greater saving = coulc imperil and unbalance the economy, if done catastrophically, in aggregate. It would be like the 1986 tax “reform” act making some then current practices of savings-and-loan operations less beneficial with tax incentives removed - aka the “Savings and Loan Crisks.”
Those advocating hanging more of a burden on the poor, should remember the disruptive way the effects of that little game played out.
Finally, how can you call yourself pro-family, and support such a measure? It weighs heavily on larger families, who with more mouths to feed and bodies to clothe, would pay higher taxes than single people earning identical amounts. Especially families with two working spouses, having twice the commuting expense and business attire and other work costs as a single person. And the single person buying and selling stocks via offshore accounts, there’s where the smart money would gravitate; causing complications, adjustments, and lots of grumbling.
Bottom line - income taxation and estate taxation is not broke, so don’t throw it out. So, keep it and tune it to be fairer to those with less prosperity.
Aside from the merits of the proposal, Bill Prendergast is 100% dead-on correct about the situation in MN 6.
If Bachmann was her dilatory self and did not press for an immediate and unequivocal correction she had constructive if not actual notice of what major media outlets were publishing about her, as a candidate for major public office, and hence a duty to speak or live with the characterizations exactly as published if she remained silent.
Her silence embraced the reporting as correct.
And it is nothing but super-giant IHOP waffle scale, to say “worthy of consideration” or some such drivel, instead of having the backbone to take a decisive and clear position without waffling.
“super-giant IHOP waffle scale”. I love the visual on that Eric Z. I can see the commercial now. Show a picture of her face, cut to quotes on how she’s backed away, last frame is a big giant waffle. No need for words. Heh.
Calling it a 23% tax is misleading as well. The way the “Fair Tax” folks calculate it, it’s a $23 tax on a $77 item — so the tax is 23% of the total. To most people, this would actually be a 30% tax. It should also be pointed out that the GAO studied the Fair Tax and concluded that to be truly revenue-neutral, it would have to be a 36% tax. Not to mention the less than glowing reviews the Fair Tax got from President Bush’s Tax Reform Commission.
Let’s get down to basics.
It is not for Patty Wetterling to explain ins and outs of Michele Bachmann’s positions, it is for Bachmann to do so.
Bachmann is deliberately vague.
If she cares little to define herself; which she can do in the upcoming level-playing=field League of Women Voters debate; then fine - lady, please do it.
We prefer you to NOT duck issues.
But Patty Wetterling cannot read the blank slate of Michele Bachmann’s mind, when Bachmann herself does not publicly disclose where she stands and what she really thinks.
John Binkowski cannnot do that, Marcus Bachmann cannot do that. Only Michele Bachmann can define the positions, in detail, that Michele Bachmann takes on issues. We await that.
And not after the fact, “Oh, I did not mean that,” but show some backbone by taking a position. Why not?
It should also be pointed out that the IRS wouldn’t go away completely under the “Fair Tax”. Somebody has to monitor whether or not folks are complying with the law. Maybe it won’t be called the IRS, but there still will be a need for some sort of tax compliance organization.
Sean - And there will be paperwork, at all levels, and complications and legislators wanting to tinker with incentives for this and that - credits and deductions and amortizations. The basic human animal will not change, regardless of how you try to tax it.
Some of the people on here need to read the New York Time’s best seller by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder called “The FairTax Book.” The assumption that the FairTax is regressive is not true. Boston University Economist and life long Democrat Larry Kotlikoff who has been been a part of much of the $22 million research project on creating the FairTax.
This is a PROGRESSIVE National Sales Tax. The FairTax is the only tax reform proposal which “untaxes†the poor (no income tax, no Social Security taxes, no hidden taxes, no tax on used goods, no tax on necessities), and allows wage earners to keep 100 percent of their paycheck, while still funding all existing federal government programs.
The FairTax combines a national retail sales tax on new goods and services with a universal “prebate†provided to ALL legal citizens to offset the sales tax paid on expenditures up to the poverty level. For a family of four this equals $26,400 worth of federal tax-free spending per year before even paying the FairTax from their own income.
Oh and by the way this is a REAL issue, thats why FairTax.org is the largest tax reform group in the nation with over 800,000 supporters and the most widely supported tax reform bill in front of Congress, with 10 times more co-sponsors than the flat tax ever had. Go to FairTax.org or read the book and get your facts straight before start making assumptions.
Given that Bachmann does have some radical, bizarre ideas, it seems a poor course of action to run an ad that misrepresents her position on an issue that is legitimately open for debate. I hope that Ms. Wetterling is not arguing that the current tax system is not broken…
Here is the story in the StarTribune:
Patty, Michelle, Patty, Mickelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty Michelle, patty, Michelle, patty Michelle, John Binkowski.
A little truth on the truth telling. John Binkowski solely introduced the flat tax to the debate, Bachman referenced it. John talked about it in his party’s platform, Bachman made one tiny comment. The StarTribune was 90 degrees off on the real story- hmmmm
Michelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty, Michelle, Patty… hmmmm….
Looks like the Wetterling campaign is starting to play hardball and some don’t like it….. I wonder where they got this attack plan from? A little omission here, a little falsehood there…
Re: the “prebate”
What you are then creating is the largest entitlement program in U.S. government history. Many families would be reliant on the prebate to cover their month to month expenses. Is that really what you’re trying to accomplish?
It’s sad that politics in general is about half-truths and deception.
bottomfeeder -
That’s the last line of defense: “Okay, it’s deceptive. But can you blame us, given what we’ve had to put up with? In fact we’re to be congratulated for finally doing politics like this!” Yuck.
Chip, Bill and others -
First of all, again: look honestly at yourself and see what your reaction would be if the Republicans had a similarly misleading ad, and tried to deny it by saying “oh, but that’s not exactly what we said.” Come on.
And even more importantly, reading John Northdurft’s entry prods me to say something I thought of earlier: I really doubt any of you or Patty Wetterling have *thoroughly* looked into this idea in all its permutations and only then decided it’s a bad one. In order to defend her, I suspect you’re just latching on to the readiest arguments that it’s a bad idea.
I’ve always thought this idea might be worth debating; the fact that Bachmann says it’s worth debating seems ike a perfectly reasonable thing to say, given that it’s not at the center of her political universe, and doesn’t add to the list of reasons I suspect she’s a loony.
So what Wetterling’s ad does, aside from the impact on the campaign, is help form one more half-assed assumption in the paranoid left-minded that something is bad and secretly sinister, when it really may not be and may in fact be good.
bsimon: Yes.
I have to echo what John Merlin said on the subject. We can try to figure out what candidates in this race think, or we can actually report what candidates come out and openly say.
One thing worth noting, Patty Wetterling either has no clue what the fair tax proposal is, or likes to misrepresent the views of her opponents. Either way Patty is clasless in her attacks of Binkowski’s preposal.
Sean -
A larger entitlement program than the mortgage interest write-off and Social Security? Maybe, but wow. And larger than the annual tax refunds most lower-to-middle income people receive, and which they also depend on to some extent?
IF you want to debate the particulars of the Fair Tax plan then you must do it with the correct information.
John N. is correct that the Fair Tax is progressive. The 23% number is not a number picked out of the hat. It is the average tax rate that is paid by the highest income earning groups. People earning less than the top 1% would see rebates of their sales tax expenditures that would drive their actual taxes to the level they pay now.
The “prebate” is not an entitlement program. It is equivalent to getting your tax refund because you withheld too much money.
I believe the theory of moving taxation from income to consumption is a good one. However, I do think that this rebate idea is a non-workable concept.
Further, it prevents tax cheating. If you are taking allot of your money offshore and avoiding paying income taxes by whatever loophole you will pay taxes as long as you spend money in the United States. Drug dealers and prostitutes will pay the Fair Tax. Business cheats will also pay.
Attack ads like this are effective in that you associate your opponent with a policy they may not even support, and then distort that policy. In this case I think it is not that effective because the audience of people who are against tax increases are already solidly in Michelle’s camp and will not be deceived by this.
Wetterling needs to hit the blue collar social conservative (pro-life anti-gay) with some similar attack ad that can change their minds.
There are lies by commission and lies by ommission. Whenever an ommission or a distortion of the truth is employed, a falsehood is created with malice aforethought.
John Melin says:
“John Binkowski solely introduced the flat tax to the debate, Bachman referenced it. John talked about it in his party’s platform, Bachman made one tiny comment.”
I don’t understand you, John Melin. Bachmann’s been talking about the flat tax for months. What do you mean that she made one tiny comment about it? If you mean that she made “one tiny comment” in one particular debate, that may be true. If you mean that she made “one tiny comment” about the consumption tax during this election cycle–that’s wrong. She’s been talking a lot about the consumption tax and how it would work for a looong time now.
That’s why Eric Black printed that she was for it–she was explaining the hell out of how it worked, publicly:
“It’s important that people understand that if we have the fair tax, on every purchase that you make, including purchase of a home, food, every purchase that you make, you’d be making an increase of 23 cents on the dollar, that’s what your tax would be.‖Michele Bachmann
She let the “Bachmann is pro-consumption tax” statement go out twice, in a major paper, without asking for a correction or retraction.
What’s unclear is how she feels about it NOW. That’s unclear because she refuses to take a public position on it anymore–just doesn’t want to talk about it. That’s why her remarks on the subject are getting “tiny.”
So she is stuck with last public positions she took on it, months ago, until she makes her position on it clear. And that means the Wetterling charges are right–as of the date of those ads, Michele want working people to pay 23% more for a new car, 23% more for a new home, etc.
You see, you gotta understand, Bachmann. Bachmann is an extremist nut who does not feel bound by any code of personal ethics or responsibility. Bachmann thinks: whatever is to my personal advantage, is right, is “of the Lord.” She’s perfectly willing to distort her own record to gain a politcal advantage–or lie to her supporters to gain any kind of political advantage. Witness:
Bachmann in 2004, telling a radio audience what would happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment failed to pass in 2004: “…Our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The Newsâ€, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.
““…Our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.â€
Do you think that is nuts? If you do you are being ridiculous. I would guess that 60% of the people in the 6th District would agree with that statement and many more sympathize.
Even people who are “tolerant” of homosexuality are very uncomforatble with the concept of it being a subject in schools. “Timmy has two dads” is not something most people want the schools delving into.
Children will see this in real life and then their parents can explain it to them in the manner they think best. Many people across the nation are very upset at the way that public schools handle sexuality. And they have the right to be upset.
Sounds like Wetterling is letting Bachman control the debate. I thought this was supposed to be the battle of who has the best family values. Knowing that Bachman would have to work harder at that she fliped the subject to taxes, and now Wetterling is in the corner.
I like the idea of the fair tax, let the materialistic consumers pay for our war. But Bachman is a theocrat who would stop at nothing to control what you do in your own home and to your body so I guess Im stuck with my income tax, oh well.
You know, when the Republican ad failed to mention the fact that the votes Wetterling missed were primary and not general election votes, it was all a big bad republican plot—
But now, when the Wetterling ad fails to include all the facts, it’s the republican’s fault for not clarifying things…..
I had a flat tire last week, was that the republicans fault too???
Hey Bill, we get the picture, you dont like Bachman, OK?
“Wetterling needs to hit the blue collar social conservative (pro-life anti-gay) with some similar attack ad that can change their minds. ”
Like I said before, negative ads are important. This is an efective technique but in this case it is targeted at the wrong audience.
The way you attack Bachman with these ads is to find some sort of transgression she may have committed. Call it the Dr. Laura Method. Find nude pictures of her. That will drive a wedge between her social conservative supporters that are more blue collar Democrats on econimic issues.
“perhaps you should try it?” Gimme a break. “Teaching homosexuality?” Give me another break. What a bunch of fearmongering hyperbole. This is the kind of nuttiness for which Ms. Bachmann is known.
If Wetterling wants to take on a social issue, maybe abortion wouldn’t be a bad one. Yes, the 6th is notably pro-life. But I wonder how many support a complete & outright ban, even in cases of rape & incest? That is a pretty extreme position & not even ‘conservative.’ Conservative is keeping things the way they are. Rolling back a law thats been in affect for 30 years is regressive. Imposing your beliefs on others is repressive & a government intrusion into people’s lives. Wetterling needs to tie Bachmann to her over-the-top, extreme, radical opinions.
Yes, Senator Bachmann is nuts. Why does not outlawing gay marriage equal compulsory indoctrination? The quote has her saying that schools will be teaching about, and even encouraging, homosexuality if her amendment is defeated. That is nothing more than a scare tactic, and a disingenuous manipulation of facts.
BYW, I have two kids in public schools. Neither has been told that homosexulaity is normal, equal, and perhaps they should try it.
Good lord Mark. I know you said you like negative campaigning but “find nude pictures of her?” What an asinine statement.
Maybe this will help you, Mark.
My point–Bachmann is an irresponsible nut who will distort and lie to achieve short term political gain.
In the statement I quote, Bachmann tells the public
1) that her “”ban on gay marriage amendment referendum” may fail to pass in 2004.
2) that if her “ban on gay marriage amendment referendum” fails to pass in 2004, Minnesota public schools will “immediately” “begin teaching homosexuality” to our children.
So what actually DID happened in 2004, after she made these claims?
Well, 1)she didn’t get her referendum or gay marriage ban amendment in 2004.
So “THE BIG QUESTION”, then is: did the public schools “immediately” “begin teaching homosexuality” to kids in public schools, as Bachmann promised would happen?
Well, I don’t know, let’s see. How many of you have third-graders who come home from school these year and say “Guess what I learned today, daddy? Sodomy!”
Is there a lot of that kind of thing going around the school curriculum these days? Or is Michele Bachmann a lying, irresponsible, hate-mongering, panic-mongering nut?
Her panicked prediction did not come true, did it? It was a ridiculous, unjustified warning when she made it, wasn’t it? What kind of a politician would make a panic-mongering, baseless warning like that to stir up homophobia in the audience? I’ll give you a clue, Mark–macadamia, filbert, cashew…
And what has this got to do with the Wetterling ad about the consumption tax? Right now Bachmann and her campaign staff are scrambling, trying to figure out what to say in response to the claim that she supports a consumption tax. Bachmann’s history of amoral lying to the public indicates that the position she finally adopts on the consumption tax will based on one factor and one factor only: what is to my political advantage, this week?
As to whether her previous enthusiasm for the tax was real–if you are a sincere supporter of the fair tax, you better hope that Bachmann’s enthusiasm for the tax is NOT real.
Why? Because she’s a NUT. And if you have a daring new policy initiative that would radically change the basis of taxation in the USA, and you look around the room and see that one of the people who enthusiastically agrees with you is wearing a strait-jacket and a little Napoleon hat–you will have to go back and rethink that policy from the beginning, from the very beginning, to see what it is about the policy that would appeal to a NUT like that.
Bill;
That guy wearing the Napolean hat,, What was his name, and when did he agree with Bachman?
Your rhetoric is getting a far out of hand as the candidate have.
“Bachmann is an irresponsible nut who will distort and lie to achieve short term political gain.”
Kind of like what Patty Wetterling has done in the case before the bar. If everyone who has not distorted and lied for short term political gain was forced to leave office, drummed out with a placard saying “Nut” around their body, the entire government body of the United States of America would be on the move.
“And if you have a daring new policy initiative that would radically change the basis of taxation in the USA, and you look around the room and see that one of the people who enthusiastically agrees with you is wearing a strait-jacket and a little Napoleon hat–you will have to go back and rethink that policy from the beginning, from the very beginning, to see what it is about the policy that would appeal to a NUT like that.”
That is just assinine commentary. The Fair Tax plan is a solid idea. Because it is trying to create a “progressive” consumption tax it has some mechanical difficulties. However, the idea behind consumption taxes are very well founded.
“Is there a lot of that kind of thing going around the school curriculum these days? Or is Michele Bachmann a lying, irresponsible, hate-mongering, panic-mongering nut?”
Many people think that there is a lot of that kind of thing going around the school curriculum these days. Are they right…..this is a matter of opinion. Your level of comfort with these issues and how they are handled in schools may be much different than others. That is your right. But they have the same right to express their views.
Further, my tolerance level for such things may be higher than most, but even I believe that in many cases they have a point. The slipshod way the schools handle many sensitive issues creates high levels of bitterness.
It is very clear that schools have decided that one of their proper functions is social engineering. They preach a very politically correct world view that steps into areas that I think are none of the schools business.
Further, I believe that they conduct this social engineering function to the deteriment of their primary purpose: educating children.
Public schools are not a place to free the child’s mind because that mind has not been developed to a point it can be free.
” know you said you like negative campaigning but “find nude pictures of her?†What an asinine statement. ”
Well, only a ass would take it literally. The way to beat a conservative in a conservative district is to either run a social conservative who agrees with the conservative on all/most social issues or to find some wedge issue that can reduce their support amongst this group.
The way to not beat a conservative in a conservative district is to run a liberal who runs on liberal policy and tries to portray the conservative as a nut.
Mark says “Kind of like what Patty Wetterling has done in the case before the bar. If everyone who has not distorted and lied for short term political gain was forced to leave office, drummed out with a placard saying “Nut†around their body, the entire government body of the United States of America would be on the move.”
What a strawman argument. Bachmann (or Wetterling, for that matter) being a nut has nothing to do with lying and distorting. The rest of your claim is accurate, however.
Mark returns to lucidity with this one however: “The way to not beat a conservative in a conservative district is to run a liberal who runs on liberal policy and tries to portray the conservative as a nut. ”
If the liberal wants to win that race, they have to portray themselves as a moderate, and expose the nut’s views for how truly radical and extreme they are. So far, this has not happened. Patty Wetterling is running her campaign as though its against Mark Kennedy. If she continues that strategy, she will lose. If she can wake up the electorate to how extreme some of Bachmann’s views are, she has a chance of either changing some voters’ minds, or at least incenting them to stay home. The latter would seem to be the best strategy.
Mark says: Well, only a ass would take it literally Does that mean we shouldn’t take anything you said in that paragraph literally? Get real. You could’ve just acknowledged that was bad form especially since you started out saying to find some kind of “transgression” but no, you gotta try to wiggle out of what you said. Tsk. Tsk.
You hit the nail on that one bsimon about how Wetterling is and should be running her campaign.
darn. forgot to close that tag again.
Funny, it’s the Bush Administration that calls the concept of a “prebate” an entitlement program. And it’s the largest one at that — about $700 billion a year. I think they are correct in labeling it so. It is redistributive in its intent and impact.
Mark - A federal sales tax is an idea you may like. There was much debate when the income tax was established, and the constitution was amended by popular processes to establish it beyond legal challenge.
I hope Bachmann agrees with you, and runs, in no uncertain waffling terms, 100% for a federal sales tax.
Please do what you can to convince her to do so. Flat earth, flat tax. Sounds like there’s a nice ring of similarity, for sloganeering.
The thing is Bachmann straddles and waffles and agrees with her friends about everything except giving stillbirths a birth certificate, naming stuff after Ronald Reagan, more days of prayer than Ramadan, and denying gay people civil rights if it appears likely to get votes. And teaching ID creationism as if it were science.
That stuff, she’s on record.
Tax reform, nada. No detail. Nothing you can debate, because there’s no real taking of a stand.
“Should consider” —- about federal sales tax and about nuking Iran - don’t take the option off the table, she says.
WHERE IS SHE, DECISIVELY, ON THE ECONOMIC ISSUES OTHER THAN IN OPPOSITION TO RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE?????? POINT SOMETHING OUT TO ME THAT IS NOT IHOP WAFFLE. LIST WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT FIRM BACHMANN STANCES. PLEASE.
Eric, the points you make are exactly those that Wetterling is not. You should be consulting to her campaign. Or Binkowski’s. Somebody has to wake up the people of the 6th to who they’re about to be ‘represented’ by in Congress.
(Though you are wrong on two things. 1) Flat Tax Fair Tax. 2) Major tax reform is necessary, be it flat or fair or something else.)
Mark,
How are schools supposed to deal with “sensitive issues”? I think that overall, they do as good a job as possible considering that they’re in an impossible situation. As you say, everyone has the same right to express their views, so (generally) they try to teach tolerance for all views, which turns out to offend some people. But not teaching about those issues at all is doing a disservice to the students. So they’re stuck. What do you propose as a solution?
In my 1:45 post it should say a ‘Flat’ Tax is not equal to a ‘Fair’ Tax. They are different names for different things. ‘Flat’ tax is applying one tax rate to all income tax payers, regardless of income. ‘Fair’ tax is a national sales tax. Binkowski is promoting the ‘Fair’ tax; Bachmann has conceeded it is worthy of discussion. Wetterling favors modification of the existing tax code.
MR, maybe the schools should take a pass at some of these issues. Especially with younger children. I’d be happy if elementary schools ignored gay relationships completely. General respect for each other without going into some of the specifics.
Once again–Mark misses the point! Is someone keeping track of how many points he’s missed?
I put the “BIG QUESTION” to him, and simply refused to address it.
Let’s see if he can answer it the second time around:
1) Bachmann told her radio audience that her “â€ban on gay marriage amendment referendum†may fail to pass in 2004.
2) Bachmann then told her audience that if her “ban on gay marriage amendment referendum†fails to pass in 2004, Minnesota public schools will “immediately†“begin teaching homosexuality†to our children.
So what actually DID happened in 2004, after she made these claims?
Well, 1)she didn’t get her referendum or gay marriage ban amendment in 2004.
So “THE BIG QUESTIONâ€, then is: did the public schools “immediately†“begin teaching homosexuality†to kids in public schools, as Bachmann promised would happen?
Mark, you cast about these sweeping generalizations about what public schools are doing/not doing (”politically correct world view”, “social engineering”) without providing a lick of evidence to bolster your statements. These are bold accusations with wide-reaching ramifications, if true. However, dictating these statements as truths (which is how I assume you want us to take them) without impartial supporting citations is irresponsible and really doing nothing more than parroting assorted right-wing rallying cries.
I encourage those reading these posts from Mark to not be blinded by his intelligently designed prose. These interpretive statements require impartial factual backup or they are worth nothing.
As usual, I encourage Mark to provide these. If he does, I will voraciously read them and learn from them. If he doesn’t, I assume that we’ll hear the same old platitudes of “I don’t have time to provide citations for conventional wisdom.” Otherwise known as a cop-out.
Peder, that works…for a while. Then a 7-year-old comes to show-and-tell with pictures of his two mommies, and now the issue must be dealt with–probably right then and there too.
Then you have biology class. At this point, contoversy is unavoidable there because evolution is the scientifically accepted theory that is the basis for modern biology. You can’t very well take a pass on that and still keep the class.
In the end, schools do have to deal with these issues, like them or not.
““…Our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.â€
Bachmann and the GOP has used this scare tactic.
Can’t it be taught as something that just exists without saying it’s normal or not normal or moral or immoral? Like it or not, it does exist in society and like it or not sometimes timmy does have two mommys or 2 daddys and like it or not, children will struggle with sexuality.
So why not include that it does exists in children’s education. Kids can make up their own minds what this mean in context of how they are raised, the environment around them, their own feelings, their own beliefs, their family’s beliefs etc… We short change our children if we assume they can’t think for themselves. We also short change the influence of parents.
If you want your child to have a sheltered life where they don’t have to any different than themselves exist…they can be home schooled.
Would this blog be as much fun without Mark? BTW, I’ve been accused of being a liberal on this blog (for insisting on data and a coherent argument), but ocassionally I agree with him. I think he is asking serious questions about the agenda of the public schools. We took our kids out of them for reasons that sound very much like Mark’s characterizations. We chose a school that emphasized education, though the irony is that, from Mark’s point of view, it may be considered extremely liberal.
MR, if I was a teacher (I’m not, but my wife is) and a 7 year old brought in a picture of their two mommies, I’d probably stay quiet and let events take their course. If this student became the target of bullies, I’d make a point of saying something like ‘everyone comes from different situations and we must treat them all with respect’. My fear is that districts are so afraid of this type of situation that they’ll try and preempt it and teach very young children that homosexuality is ok.
I personally believe it’s just fine but I understand that parents want to deal with it on their own terms. Eric highlighted a case in MA where a book was being read to third(?) graders about two princes that found true love with each other. That’s too young for my taste and I presume many parents would agree.
By the time students are learning about evolution they’re teenagers and they’re more able to handle a nuanced discussion. Totally different issue. And even as those kids become older and more sexually aware, I’d rather that schools stressed general tolerance rather than take sides in the culture wars.
MR: Yes, that’s the point. Of course evolution like that will happen. And it probably will begin to happen pretty quickly, in fact probably already is happening some places, and maybe that’s fine, but to deny that it would be given a kick in the pants by legalized gay marriage is disingenuous.
Obviously it won’t lead to classes the day after or something; but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that an effect would begin quickly-bordering-on-immediately. And there’s only one direction it can go.
I support gay marriage. Really. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there are reasons to be a little careful. And it needs to be argued honestly. Forcing through major social change on the grounds of disingenuous argument and moral fervor leads to problems, like with abortion.
The honest response to Bachmann is to recognize she’s saying something somewhat genuine and just say: “Look, maybe, something like that, over time. That’s good. That’s part of why we view this marriage thing as so important: it’s a symbol, and symbols have consequences. But there’s not gonna be curricula added by Thursday. Even gay people aren’t that organized. But don’t worry in any event: the rough proportion of gay people has remained stable for centuries, and it is not our goal, or our expectation, to double that. 10% more, at most. Tops. We can promise that.”
Wetterling should just hire John Waters or somebody to deliver that as an ad. Seriously. Make the anti-gay-marriage fixation just seem foolish, even to people tempted by it.
MR says, talking about same-gender parents of a student “Then you have biology class. At this point, contoversy is unavoidable there because evolution is the scientifically accepted theory that is the basis for modern biology. You can’t very well take a pass on that and still keep the class.”
How? What’s the controversy? In biology class it takes two genders for procreation. Excepting amoeba and the like. Funny thing, as a sidenote, those freaks at the Traditional Values Coalition sent me another email the other day about the evil transgender community’s goals for subverting schools and worse. Then I saw a special on PBS on how Grouper (a large fish) change gender mid-life. Surely we’d better not talk about such abominations in school!!
Something like the “Fair Tax” plan — a simplification of US tax policy would go along away toward restoring American economic vigor.
But Bachmann is wasting her breath even discussing it: it will never emerge from the rat’s nest of special interests in Washington.
Sometimes it strikes me how naive first-time candidates for office from Minnesota are about the ways of Washington. It will absolutely crush their fondest aspirations; survival is possible only if they quickly grow sufficiently cynical.
Peder and L. david, those are good comments. You’re right, it would be possible to simply treat it as a fact; when you look at it that way, what Bachmann’s problem boils down to is regret that we no longer actively condemn it. (Assuming we do now which we don’t.)
But I do think it’s a little non-fact-based about the nature of a great many public schools and teachers, who are very often decidedly liberal. Librarians, too, for that matter.
And it would be the case, maybe, that there would be no legal grounds for preventing someone from proseletyzing. I’m not sayng gay guys and gals would recruit, I’m saying some teachers would take it on as a mission, one more blessed liberal mission. That’s how a lot of liberals think about it now, after all, and maybe it is that.
In fact to deny there would be an effect seems like denying the basic nature of liberals: aggressive generosity. (Okay, maybe not “the” basic nature.)
Wow - Michael Blaine thinks the sales tax is a good idea. Careful, Michael - Patty Wetterling make take an ad out about you!
But seriously: it’s just so stupid for her to start talking about something being scary and unfair beause at first glance maybe it sort of seems that way. Every single economics-based idea in the world, I suspect, will look unfair from some perspective.
When your main goal is preventing any possibility of unfairness, that might get in the way of sound policy-making at times.
(The “it” I refer to as a teacher’s hypothetical “mission” would be to describe gayness as wonderful, not to therefore recruit little gays. I do believe the gay-numbers impact of an army of such teachers would be minimal, even counterintuitive. We all like to rebel against teachers.)
Paul, I think we’re in large agreement. I don’t know how much sway a teacher would have in any direction when it comes to young children and sexuality questions. But I’d rather let parents make those decisions on their own. When they become a little older (junior high?) is a much better time.
“How are schools supposed to deal with “sensitive issuesâ€? ”
They are not. THey do not need to deal with homosexuality and other social issues. Their job is to teach basic academic skills. You can do this without having to resort to utilizing these issues that will leave many parents uncomfortable.
” Bachmann (or Wetterling, for that matter) being a nut has nothing to do with lying and distorting”
I was commenting on what my friend Bill P. stated. I do not have a problem with negative campaigning. If I was running a campaign and my grandmother was the opponent I would rip her throat out.
“So what actually DID happened in 2004, after she made these claims?”
Probably not. But that is not the point. Her followers really believe these things. It is troubling for them.
“As usual, I encourage Mark to provide these”
I will give you factual basis. Home schooling. This movement is incredibly pervasive. I think the idea of teaching your kids yourself is laughable, but people are removing their kids from the public schools in droves because of the way the schools teach these issues.
“Like it or not, it does exist in society and like it or not sometimes timmy does have two mommys or 2 daddys and like it or not,”
And parents can teach their children how they should view these things in the home. It is not the school’s job to introduce these ideas to the students. They teach 1+1=2 and that the derivative with respect to x of 3x squared is 6x. Not if D’ has one father who is black and one father who is white, how many fathers does D’ have? [D’ is one of my son’s best friends by the way].
“We chose a school that emphasized education, though the irony is that, from Mark’s point of view, it may be considered extremely liberal. ”
That is perfect with me. I would send a $4,000 voucher per kids if I was dictator. And, you need to remember that I am not a social conservtive.
“But Bachmann is wasting her breath even discussing it: it will never emerge from the rat’s nest of special interests in Washington.”
Bachman is really not a fair tax proponent.
“But I do think it’s a little non-fact-based about the nature of a great many public schools and teachers, who are very often decidedly liberal. ”
Ya think? I know somebody whose kid came home and told the class of 2nd graders that their will not be any oxygen left and we are all going to suffocate because we bad people cut down all the trees {never mind that most of the US is much more forested than 100 years ago}.
The way they teach history is baffling to me because it is intensely politically correct.
I applaud the efforts to discuss “what kids should be taught about gays in school” and to discuss “the upside/downside of the consumption tax.”
But here’s the answer to the “Big Question” I put to Mark: despite Bachmann’s dire 2004 warning about what would happen if her “ban gay marriage” amendement didn’t get through in 2004: our schools are not “teaching homosexuality”, the public schools arent’ teaching students that “perhaps they should try homosexuality.” Bachmann was wrong and she was telling a lie–none of the consequences she warned about followed–legally or in fact–from her failure to get her state amendment banning gay marriage.
What you think we ought to do about educating children about the fact of gayness is interesting–but don’t miss the point: what Bachmann was telling her audience on that broadcast was crazy, irresponsible BS–she was trying to start homophobic panic in her audience so that she’d get a better turnout at her “no gay marriage” rally.
Irresponsible, crazy, deceitful, hateful–she’s a nut; the GOP has nominated a nut to represent us in Congress.
On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The Newsâ€, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
Paul S. says “I’m not sayng gay guys and gals would recruit, I’m saying some teachers would take it on as a mission, one more blessed liberal mission. That’s how a lot of liberals think about it now, after all, and maybe it is that.”
Please don’t tell me you’re serious.
That’s not really relevant though, in the end. I thought this statement much more worthy of discussion: “A great many public schools and teachers… are very often decidedly liberal. Librarians, too, for that matter.”
Why do you suppose that is? I think its because we pay teachers the absolute minimum we can get away with & therefore attract people that have a passion for teaching, rather than people who are looking to maximise income. That these people tend to be liberal should be no surprise.
Bill, I just don’t quite agree with that: with your view of her as a result of teh statement.
Yes it was overheated and exaggerated. Yes it seems kind of insane. But she wasn’t telling a deep, profound political lie: that’s the point of the discussion, it seems to me. It’s just not enough to disqualify her for considerationo as a moral actor in the universe, which seems to be your goal, and which by the way is not inherently a tough position to mount a case against. Speaking personally, that’s all I’m trying to do.
You’re demonizing her. Literally, almost.
She’s just engaging in hyperbole from within her perspective. Granted, no changes resulted from her amendment not passing; that’s because her amendment not passing did not equate to widepread legalization of gay marriage. That’s the main reason you can describe it so confidently as utter nonsense. But on substance, it’s kind of a trivial point. What she’s at bottom referring to is that mythical day when gay marriage is somehow legalized.
She shouldn’t do that, frame it that way, but the language is roughly the same as the fear language that was used to oppose welfare reform - which, I would say, was really less grounded in actual resulting trends and understanding of how things work.
b, why would I not be serious about that? Seriosuly? I think you can tell I’m far from alarmed at the prospect, but come on: especially given that it would be an ongoing battleground in society, the whole gay debate I mean (it’s not gonna end with legalized gay marriage) - how can it be avoided?
Mark, good responses above, for the most part. I appreciate that.
I do take issue with your statement that schools aren’t to deal with “sensitive issues”. In math class? No. However, you can’t teach a history class without delving into sensitivity. Let’s say you’ve got a class with twenty 6th graders. The teacher talks about Rosa Parks, what she did on that bus, and why it’s important in our history and in our country’s race relations. Let’s say one of those 20 kids has been raised by parents who hate black people. Those parents don’t want their child “exposed” to education that will “turn” their kids into lovers of black people.
Are you saying, Mark, that the history of the Civil Rights movement and what it’s done for this country shouldn’t be taught? It’s a sensitive issue to some parents.
(Maybe you missed my little clarification of what I mean by “mission.”)
““This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.â€
Again, this is a very common perception, even if it is true or untrue. People are very uncomfortable around homosexuality. The continued reference to “Not that there is something wrong with that” shows how this feeling pervades even Manhattan dwellers.
“I think its because we pay teachers the absolute minimum we can get away with ”
Guess what, everyone in a free market labor system is paid the minimum of what their employer can get away with.
bsimon, most teachers are liberal and it has nothing to do with their pay. And there are many many jobs that pay less without having an ideological slant. I don’t know the answer but that’s not it.
Bill, well you’ve convinced me that she was wrong about what would happen in schools in 2004. I guess that makes it ok for Wetterling to imply that she wants to raise taxes.
“Are you saying, Mark, that the history of the Civil Rights movement and what it’s done for this country shouldn’t be taught?”
I think that is taking the idea a little far. Racial issues are not tied up in religious beliefs like homosexuality is, at least that I know of.
However, it is clear that many teachers have gone overboard on these racial issues and many of their teaching methods can be questioned. [Everyone can fill in their own examples, you know they are out there].
Teaching historical concepts is great, even racial ones. Teaching white guilt is not.
mds, I don’t think that Rosa Parks is quite the same sensitive issue that homosexuality is.
In other words, the teacher should indicate how racism had its impacts on the blacks of the day and how this was part of the way Americans thought. They should not try to teach a “sensitivity”. The child should not be instructed they should feel bad about their own prejudice. The can come to that conslusion on their own.
“I will give you factual basis. Home schooling. This movement is incredibly pervasive. I think the idea of teaching your kids yourself is laughable, but people are removing their kids from the public schools in droves because of the way the schools teach these issues.”
They are freaks. On this we can agree. Some cousins of mine were telling me about homeschooling, which I found rather surprising & complimented them on taking such an interest in their childrens’ education. Then they said “We teach at home because public schools teach that its ok to be gay.”
A couple years later, at my grandmother’s funeral, we learned that she’d had a son who was raised as her brother; most of us had never met him before. So my cousins were asking me who his friend that also attended the funeral was. What do you say to that? I can’t imagine how they would have responded, finding out that ‘it’ was in the family. ‘It’ being homosexuality.
“They are freaks”
Maybe, but htey still ahve the right to feel the way they do. They can also vote for their candidates based on those feelings. Perfectly natural expression of political interest.
On the “it” I have found that most people are more tolerant of homosexuals than they are of homosexuality. I doubt that your cousins would have had much problems with it, but you never know.
Peder “most teachers are liberal and it has nothing to do with their pay. And there are many many jobs that pay less without having an ideological slant. I don’t know the answer but that’s not it.”
Well, your lack of a competing hypothesis is not a compelling rebuttal, to my eyes. I’m not sure what jobs you can list that require as much education and pay less. I can’t think of any. What would attract people to such an avocation, if not idealism?
“I doubt that your cousins would have had much problems with it, but you never know.”
You may be right. I didn’t particularly feel like testing for that possibility at the time.
“I’m not sure what jobs you can list that require as much education and pay less”
I am not sure what you are saying. Applicants to education majors are usually the lowest end of the SAT scale. Teachers are paid very competitive wages and benefits. They work a 9 month year and have easy schedules with 2 weeks off at X-mas and usually a long spring break. After a short time in their career they are tenured. They can retire at the age of 55 with a very nice pension.
The average teacher makes more than $50,000 for a 9 month year. That is very competitive with engineering and other technical fields on a 12 month basis.
“You may be right. I didn’t particularly feel like testing for that possibility at the time. ”
And I dont blame you.
The sample size is small, but literally every single person I’ve ever met who was home-schooled was bright-eyed, ambitious, seemingly happy and emotionally balanced, and intelligent. Maybe it’s different in red states. Maybe there the parent-teachers are all git-r-done wives.
In grad school I briefly (briefly) dated such a home-schooled woman, a better-looking Ingrid Bergmann type. Our first date was the area premiere of “Stop Making Sense” - David Byrne was on hand. What could be more hip? Then we went to a downtown establishment that still exists, and around closing time suddenly, up on the bar TV, there appeared for 30 seconds or so, with full sound, a delightful snippet of hard-core porn. Not gay, if it matters. Really strange way for a relationship to begin.
“What would attract people to such an avocation, if not idealism?”
Let’s grant your point. And of course self-identified idealism is always correct.
But anyway, as Mark says, many - not all - teaching jobs are a sweet ride. (Perhaps making the drive for idealism even more acute?)
Michele Bachman wants spoken prayer forced in public schools. Can it be a Muslim prayer one week, next week a Christian prayer, the next week a Pagan prayer, the next week a Wicken prayer, the next week a Scientology prayer? Gee…Michele Bachmann wants Pagan prayers tought in school.
Vouchers? That would rasie taxes. The bookkeeping, management of this system would be a nightmare. Plus, private schools have an unfair advantage because they don’t have to take physically challenged students, special needs students, english as a second language students..etc.. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were exempt from the “No Child Left Behind”.
I’m not up to speed on salary surveys, but I don’t think fresh-out-of-school teachers are making $50K. Some engineers are. Yes, if you stick with it, you can get tenure, but even now, that’s not quite the deal it used to be. Its only anecdotal, but I know my stepmother & my father in law both retired early to avoid new contracts that would cut benefits & pensions. Given the discipline problems teachers have to deal with, not to mention paperwork requirements passed down from politicians on high, you have to wonder why anyone would take the job.
bsimon, let me take a swing at it then. I think I mentioned up above that my wife is a teacher. She and I have talked about some of this before. I don’t have an over-arching theory but I do know some of the routes. (Many generalizations to follow. Sorry, unavoidable.)
Some of them are guided by the same mission that Paul speaks of. This is especially true for the ones that are going to urban schools. They see their job as saving neglected children. Mostly liberals of the bleeding heart variety. These people would still be teachers if the pay was doubled or halved.
A truly enormous number of them become teachers because they don’t know what else to do and teaching sounds easy enough. Hang around at their cocktail parties and you’ll hear this story over and over. This doesn’t have anything to do with being liberal but it does explain the lower pay thing.
Many of them become union liberals. This makes them anti-conservative/liberal. I suspect the same thing happens in gov’t sector jobs.
Paul S. says “many - not all - teaching jobs are a sweet ride. ”
I’ve yet to meet a teacher that’s said so. Maybe its a conspiracy to keep suckers from me from realizing what a sweet career option I’ve missed out on.
“Mark says:
United States has a national debt of 37.4%.”
Actually our gross federal debt is 66.1% of our GDP and rising. It is not meaningless because we will be reaching $500 Billion per year in gross interest on the debt by 2009 and we will have to start paying back the principle on the Social Security Trust Fund part of that debt by about 2018.
It is irresponsible for us to shift that burden onto our children.
Peder - I don’t disagree with your conclusion. Its a compelling hypothesis.
Peder says:
Bill, well you’ve convinced me that she was wrong about what would happen in schools in 2004. I guess that makes it ok for Wetterling to imply that she wants to raise taxes.
I don’t think what I proved to you about Bachmann makes it okay for anybody to imply anything about anybody else. How’d you arrive at *that* conclusion, from what I said? I’m not a Wetterling supporter, by the way. The only reason I’m “soft on Wetterling” is that she’s the sanest candidate with the best chance of beating Bachmann. If Binkowski had bigger numbers, I’d be for him–because MB’s a dangerous nut.
Paul S–You tell me she shouldn’t have said things like that. But she did, and there we are. You tell me it’s just “hyperbole” from within her viewpoint. It’s much more than that. She is stirring up hatred against a minority community in order to improve her political position.
That’s not just “hyperbole.” That’s a politician campaigning by directing hatred and fear at an unpopular minority. That’s something we should all oppose, regardless of party preference, because it’s the strategy of a dangerous, amoral nut.
“What she’s at bottom referring to is that mythical day when gay marriage is somehow legalized.”
That’s not what she said. She said the “awful consequences” would follow “immediately” if her amendment wasn’t passed. Please, let’s not debate what you’d prefer her to have said, let’s discuss what she actually said–that’s what she’s accountable for, right?
It’s not a “trivial point” when an elected official lies to the public about legal consequences that would follow if we fail to heed her warning. That kind of lie is an abuse of elective office. Nothing trivial about it.
And I’m not “demonizing” her. I’m demonstrating to you that she’s a paranoid, dangerous nut; I have the facts and quotes to back that up. The reason I dwell on it is that the newspapers just don’t report the most extreme and crazy things she says and does. If they did, she could never get the GOP nomination. I guess it sounds like “demonizing” to you–but taking a candidate at their word and reporting their words is not “demonizing” them– it’s reporting the facts.
And anyway–she’s the one who believes in demons, not me.
“but I don’t think fresh-out-of-school teachers are making $50K”
In Minnesota the average starting teacher salary is $30,000 a year. That is for a 9 month year. Annualized that is a$40,000 a year salary.
To compare, the average starting salary of a chemical engineer was $52,000, accountin $43,000, marketing $38,000 etc…..
“gross federal debt is 66.1% of our GDP ”
But GROSS debt is meaningless. Much of the difference between gross and net is held by the Federal Reserve. They are paid interest on the federal debt they hold.
Do you know what they do with the interest income they receive?
“It is irresponsible for us to shift that burden onto our children.”
In 1962 the net federal debt was 42.7% of GDP. Did these people pass off their burden onto us??????
“I have the facts and quotes to back that up”
And I have pointed out to you that those facts and quotes resonate with a large audience. And, the hyperbole sits just a little on your side.
I disagree with just about everything Michelle Bachman stands for on the social side of the ledger [except for maybe the death penalty which I assume she is for]. Prayer in school, creationism, gay marriage, abortion. Many people agree with her on these issues and vote that way. That is why she is a formidable opponent.
“It’s not a “trivial point†when an elected official lies to the public about legal consequences that would follow if we fail to heed her warning”
sort of how the liberal “lied” about the impacts of welfare reform? Or the consequences of ending the ABM treaty? Or the consequences of Reagan deploying tactical nuclear missles in Europe? Or how the Democrats consistently scare senior citizens about the Republican Social Security and Medicare plans?
Mark, you’ve found some lovely statistics about compensation. I’m still not sure you’ve refuted my point that there are not other career options that require the same or greater education, but pay less.
“the same or greater education”
Well, chemical engineers are paid more, but their education is much more competitive.
Teachers are paid right in the ballpark as other non-technical posiitions. THey need to stop whining.
They have been very succesful over time of convincing the public that they are so terribly underpaid.
Bill, sorry, I must have taken a wrong turn in the upper posts.
more Orwell-speak has been floating about …
“the agenda of the public schools” as if there’s 1 over-riding social engineering blueprint …. what nonsense
“teach homosexuality” as if it is a point of advocacy …. again, nonsense.
some schools try to teach ABOUT homosexuality, which IS a normal condition in human societies, , with age-appropriate accurate information, whether some approve of it or not
“social engineering” v education - false distinction …. education is about learning how to function effectively in modern social contexts
if there’s a glaring current failing in education, it’s that so few Americans can speak a modern language besides English or understand cultures different than their own US subcultural niche …. the war in Iraq would be going better if more of our troops could converse in Arabic
“the war in Iraq would be going better if more of our troops could converse in Arabic ”
Makes the translation of “take that towel head” a much easier task when you are waterboarding them.
“education is about learning how to function effectively in modern social contexts”
Yes it is but the public school is not the only EDUCATION going on. The schools have their roles and parents have another. IT is clear that there is much resentment, even amongst “normal” parents that too much “social engineering” is going on.
Actually I just realized something: we’re taking your word for it that her hypothetical was related to the failure of her bill, rather than to the eventual and perhaps-as-a-result inevitable legalization of gay marriage. I’m not accusing you of anything; I’m just wondering - are you sure that was the whole meaning? Because it does seem sort of stupid.
But anyway - I still think it’s a trivial point, the distinction between results occuring from her bill not passing and gay marriage being approved, in this sense: It doesn’t affect her underlying point at all; and if she’d employed accurate language - “the day gay marriage is legalized” or something - it would have been very little less inflammatory from your point of view and would have been identical in terms of her demonizing purpose that you see.
Which is the more interesting point in what you write here, I think. Is it demonizing, to talk about schools having to teach it? I can see why you’d react that way; as if teaching it is so shocking and all. Yet - as the discussion here demonstrates - there are legitiamte concerns about that, or might be; and since I believe the basic assertion isn’t totally merit-less, and it’s somethign regular non-hating people might want to think about: hm.
But in any event is it enough to make me always perceive any of her policy positions as devoid of any morality? Which again is what you are insisting? No.
As I say way too often: to conclude something that extreme about someone, there really can’t be any flaws in the facts or perspectives you’re basing it on. Zero. None. Any significant ambiguity at all, then talk like that quickly becomes not helpful.
Like with that woman I was talking about, the one I dated. Was it my fault the saucy flick came on the bar TV? No. And yet I felt blamed. Demonized. And I certainly was shut out of any further serious consideration, for whatever reason. Is that fair?
By the way, I also believe that approaching even someone like Michele Bachmann - or at least her supporters - with a sense of some kind of generosity would help a lot with opposing her politically.
“John Nothdurft says:
Some of the people on here need to read the New York Time’s best seller by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder called “The FairTax Book.†”
I have read that book and I found it full of misinformation and the major mistake in the book was so obvious that it could only be considered a fraud.
The author’s main claim is that there is a 22% embedded tax so changing to a 23% sales tax would result in the price you pay remaining about the same. The problem is that the author’s also claim that you will take home your full pay check, including the money you currently pay in FICA and income taxes so they are counting the same money twice. The Harvard professor whose work they quote has informed them that the money can not be used for both purposes, but they continue to use that obvious misinformation in such a way that it is clearly intentional and a fraud.
The result is that the sales tax would cause prices to increase at least 15%. It would also increase the cost of goods the government purchase making the 23% rate to low to make it revenue neutral in terms of buying power. It would also require state and local governments to raise their taxes to maintain the same buying power.
While they claim the Prebate makes the tax fair, when you look at the price increases and loss of the Earned Income Tax Credit many of the lower income workers could lose significantly.
The book basically promises lower tax to everyone, but still claims to be revenue neutral along with economic miracles. It is a fraud.
Doug, I think the basic point is that it’s an intensely complicated idea and topic that has adherents or semi-adherenets from several political perspectives, and doesn’t deserve easy scary dismissal.
But yes, if the article in question is flawed like you say, so be it.
Paul S says:
“Actually I just realized something: we’re taking your word for it that her hypothetical was related to the failure of her bill, rather than to the eventual and perhaps-as-a-result inevitable legalization of gay marriage. I’m not accusing you of anything; I’m just wondering - are you sure that was the whole meaning? Because it does seem sort of stupid.”
Yes. I’m sure. I have copies of the radio broadcasts in which she made the statements. I’m presenting them to you in the context they originally appeared. And the quotes are a transcription. She *did* like about the “immediate” legal and educational consequences of a failure to pass her amendment that year, 2004. And it was, and is, a stupid statement.
You are right to ask me if I’m sure; I think that calling an elected official a “nut” is a very serious matter, and I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have the evidence–in this case, out of her own mouth, and in the context in which it originally appeared. There’s a lot of other evidence of her nuttiness, it’s not just the “anti-gay paranoia.”
There isn’t any ambiguity to appeal to; that is what she said and she was trying to mislead the listeners about the immediate legal and educational consequences of a failure to get her amendment through the legislature. How do I know that? She’s an attorney and a state legislator; she knew that the consequences she warned of wouldn’t be required by law, if her amendment wasn’t passed that year. She was *lying*, lying to an audience of conservative Christian listeners, the ones who are most likely to support her at the polls.
“there are legitiamte concerns about that, or might be; and since I believe the basic assertion isn’t totally merit-less, and it’s somethign regular non-hating people might want to think about: hm.”
The basic assertion is: if the same-sex marriage amendment doesn’t go through in 2004, the school will immediately begin “teaching homosexuality” in 2004. That was her basic assertion, and it was totally merit-less. Untrue, false, a lie to make people paranoid.
Paul S said:
is it enough to make me always perceive any of her policy positions as devoid of any morality? Which again is what you are insisting?
That is not what I’m insisting. Never said it, never argued it. I am not trying to make you, or anyone, “always perceive any of her policy positions as devoid of any morality?” I’m saying that an elected official who would make a patently false, hate-mongering statement like the one she made about the “immediate” consequences of a failure to get a state amendment banning gay marriage in 2004–is a lying, paranoid nut.
I stand by that position. Here’s another of Bachmann’s positions, from 2001, after she was elected:
On education laws passed by the GOP majority US Congress: “Federal law forms a new governance structure that opposes both free enterprise and representative government…A new national curriculum is used that embraces a socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.†–Michael J. Chapman and Senator Michele Bachmann, “How New U.S. Policy Embraces a State-Planned Economy†© 2001
re shifting federal taxing to consumption (skip the “Fair” tax label, fairness is defined by whether you win or lose on these changes) …
poor people use all their income to “consume” food, shelter, clothing, transportation … rich people can and do save some of their income… easier when there’s more money around to cover the basics
any scheme that shifts all taxing from income to consumption will disadvantage the poor on that basis … prebates and other “soften-the-blow” approaches require a lot of specifics to find if the net effect is a tax system more regressive than the current one
note … unless states and local governments quit taxing, no one is going to keep 100% of their paycheck under a federal flat-consumption tax approach …
as any legislation must go through the meat-grinder that is Congress, and as advocates of the rich control Congress more than advocates of the poor, i suspect the net bill would simply help our well-heeled citizens … as has been the pattern for a couple of decades
and finally, if it is revenue-neutral at the federal level, we’ll simply build more and more debt until interest payments consume tax revenues now going to defense and social welfare
Makes the translation of “take that towel head†a much easier task when you are waterboarding them
Holy crap Mark, another truly asinine comment. Or are you kidding again? Sheesh, your insistence about campaigning dirty, willingness to rip your grandmothers throat out if she was the opponent, findiing “transgressions” to go negative with, and now this. You’re letting your ugly side show too much today.
“Mark says:
But GROSS debt is meaningless. Much of the difference between gross and net is held by the Federal Reserve.â€
Actually the difference is mostly in government trust funds, like the Social Security Trust Fund, that will have to be paid back in the future. We have been using the surpluses in Social Security to make the reported deficit appear lower. The problem is that by about 2012 that annual surplus start to decrease and by about 2018 we will have to start paying back the IOUs held by the trust fund
“In 1962 the net federal debt was 42.7% of GDP. Did these people pass off their burden onto us?????? “
No, they actually acted relatively responsibly. In 1962 the gross debt was 53.4% of the GDP and while they ran annual deficits, they were small enough that the gross debt had decreased to 32.6% of the GDP by 1981. That gross debt increased again to 67.3% of GDP by 1996, before decreasing again 57.4% by 2001. It is projected to reach 68.2% of the GDP with no end in site.
We don’t need a perfectly balanced budget, but we do need to start reducing the percent of the GDP the debt represents.
MN teachers rank 21st in the nation for starting salaries.
From 1994-2000 teachers earned 18 cents for every new dollar earned by private sector employees with similar educational backgrounds.
In 2003-2004 the average teacher salary increased 2.2% while the national inflation rate in 2004 was 2.7%
Teacher characteristics, 2003-2004
97 percent of teachers are licensed
48 percent have advanced degrees
56 percent have taught more than 10 years
Not to post on topic, but I think the Wetterliing ad fits Bachmann. It is no more misleading then the way in which Bachmann has presented herself and her values, or lack of.
It’s not negative, though Bachmann is. So there is that difference…
“Sheesh, your insistence about campaigning dirty, willingness to rip your grandmothers throat out if she was the opponent, findiing “transgressions†to go negative with, and now this. ”
Finding nude photos of your political opponent is always fun.
“We don’t need a perfectly balanced budget, but we do need to start reducing the percent of the GDP the debt represents”
Why? It really is unimportant. We have had even larger debts to GDP….well over 100% in the WWII years. The market already takes all of this information into consideration. Inflation and interest rates are extremely low.
THe reason why NET debt is the most important variable is that is what has to actually be serviced from treasury. THis is the amount you have to pay interest on. The other debt is like you writing a debt to yourself.
“that will have to be paid back in the future”
True, but the government can just issue new notes to cover these amounts. You will have to start paying interest on the notes but you do not “have to pay them back”. Governments pay off their principle by issuing new debt instruments.
“We don’t need a perfectly balanced budget, but we do need to start reducing the percent of the GDP the debt represents.”
Then I want to hear about the $100 billion in non-defense spending cuts you are proposing.
I’ll think about all that Bill.
I’d clarify that when I use “the basic assertion” in the last post I’m not using it in a way that depends on what she ‘really’ meant or something. I’m going to what I see as the underlying thing worth talking about, regardless of what she said, and which she’d agree is the basic issue, and which on its own is plenty imflammatory enough for you I think.
You deny that you’re trying to convince us that she should be afforded no moral merit or something; I’m going by this paragraph:
“You see, you gotta understand, Bachmann. Bachmann is an extremist nut who does not feel bound by any code of personal ethics or responsibility. Bachmann thinks: whatever is to my personal advantage, is right, is “of the Lord.†She’s perfectly willing to distort her own record to gain a politcal advantage–or lie to her supporters to gain any kind of political advantage.”
You’re saying is all she thinks about is her own advantage and has no morals in pursuing that. Doesn’t that amount to what I’m perceiving in your view of her?
But anyway, decent dicussion. Polite and all. Her statement does boil down to a weird lie to an audience she’s trying to sway if the description is without blemish.
Ironically, given the above, I have nude photos of myself for which there is absolutely no market at all. I can’t give ‘em away, I tell ya.
In response to bsimon’s hypothesis, I read or heard somewhere in the past couple of days that the lowest pay per years of education was among academics–college professors outside the schools of medicine. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I read this, so I can’t verify the validity.
“Ironically, given the above, I have nude photos of myself for which there is absolutely no market at all. I can’t give ‘em away, I tell ya.”
Do you have any photos of you and Patty Wetterling?
“net bill would simply help our well-heeled citizens … as has been the pattern for a couple of decades”
Again, another viewpoint held without any factual basis. THis is blatantly false in any measure. The “rich” pay a higher share of taxes now than ever before. Most households do not pay any income tax at all, and in fact, they have a negative income tax with their EIC.
When you realize that your claims are not worth your breath, will you finally stop making them? I know that CLASS WARFARE is the Democrats stock in trade, but it really is a lie.
“Mark says:
We have had even larger debts to GDP….well over 100% in the WWII years.â€
Yes, but that was following the great depression, during WWII and had a big push for public savings to finance the war. They also pushed to reduce that debt with surpluses or minimal deficits.
“The market already takes all of this information into consideration. Inflation and interest rates are extremely low.â€
Maybe that is why the stock market has lost value to inflation during the Bush administration. Foreign governments have financed just about all of the debt and there are other factors that effect inflation and interest rates. The government borrowing does take money out of the equity market away from other types of investment and it still has the potential to raise interest rates in the future.
“True, but the government can just issue new notes to cover these amounts. You will have to start paying interest on the notes but you do not “have to pay them backâ€.â€
It would convert the internal government debt into debt that would need to be borrowed from the public. I doubt that we can just borrow as much as we want without a significant impact in interest rates. How do you think those increased interest payment will be paid for? We would need to make significant butget cuts or increased taxes on the next generation.
“Then I want to hear about the $100 billion in non-defense spending cuts you are proposing. “
First you stop digging a deeper hole by not extending the estate tax cut, some of the higher income tax cuts and the many other tax cuts that some politicians are promising. Phasing our way out of Iraq will save a significant amount of money and there is no reason the defense department should be exempt from savings attempts. While I don’t have a detailed list of cuts, there are other areas that could be cut and everything needs to be on the table. Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) helped bring the budget to balanced during the 90’s and needs to be reinstated.
Bill: “Bachmann thinks: whatever is to my personal advantage, is right, is “of the Lord.†She’s perfectly willing to distort her own record to gain a politcal advantage–or lie to her supporters to gain any kind of political advantage.â€
Paul S.:
“You’re saying is all she thinks about is her own advantage and has no morals in pursuing that. Doesn’t that amount to what I’m perceiving in your view of her?”
Bill P:
No, Paul S.
Your view/of my view/of Bachmann is…
Paul S: (Bill P wants me to) always perceive any of her policy positions as devoid of any morality. Which again is what he is insisting.
My claim (Bachmann is perfectly willing to distort her own record to gain a political advantage–or lie to her supporters to gain any kind of political advantage) is different from the one you incorrectly attribute to me (People should always perceive any of Bachmann’s policy postiions as devoid of any morality.)
When you see the two statements side by side, you should be able to see that they do not mean the same thing. I vouch for the former, never said or claimed the latter. The claim I actually made and stand by is not an “always” statement. The claim I actually made and stand by doesn’t say that “any and all of her policy positions are devoid of morality.
Paul S. says:
Her statement does boil down to a weird lie to an audience she’s trying to sway if the description is without blemish.
You are right, her statement is a weird lie. I think the reason that she can enjoy the support she does in the Republican Party is that people simply don’t know she says this kind of stuff.
I refuse to believe that the rank and file voters of the GOP would would lend their support to a lying hate-monger. Bachmann’s attractive and personable and telegenic; she makes a great first impression on voters. When the TV cameras and reporters are around, she doesn’t do the “weird lie” stuff. But she is what she is–a paranoid, lying nut in an attractive, camera ready package.
I blame the media, including our sponsor, Mr. “Is That A Fack” Black, for not bothering to tell readers the significant facts about Bachmann–a six year long, documented trail of bulletproof quotes and evidence that lead to one inevitable and inarguable conclusion: she is a nut.
The day she was nominated for Congress was a dark day for Minnesota.
“This is not about hating homosexuals. I don’t. I love homosexuals.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The Newsâ€, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?â€
Bachmann: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)‖Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.
>
the rich pay a higher share of taxes because their share of total income has grown so dramatically relative to the vast majority (bottom 80%) and that occurred even tho the rich pay lower marginal rates on both earned and unearned income due to republican tax cuts
it’s simply bs to say most households don’t pay income tax - you, Mark, are simply misinformed -
i’m a professor in hr, work with surveys all the time, teach about compensation trends …and i get tired of your misrepresentations and slurs - you assert beyond your expertise constantly, and you do it with little grace
my opinions are no more valid than yours or anyone elses’, we all are entitled to our own opinions, well-founded or otherwise
but i’ll waste no more time quibbling with you over reality - no one is entitled to their own facts, and your assertions of fact don’t pass muster often enough
I’ll agree with Bill Prendergast, the Strib has yet to give the real story on Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is good at charming reporters. (I personally don’t understand why they keep on falling for her after lie after lie).
Amen Howard Miller, amen. Many have tangled with him over his assertions. Then again many just ignore him. Although it’s difficult to let egregious misrepresentations go by unchallenged. And sometimes I just like to yank his chain cuz he can be real outlandish like many comments today. You have to read alot of posts, if you can stomach it, to find an occasionally lucid comment.
I just saw a Bachmann ad, one I saw the other night, and it is striking how she manages to avoid showing anyone other than white people. It’s quite odd - doesn’t everyone make sure to at least appear inclusive? It almost has to be conscious.
Mark: no, but I got one of me with Everett Dirksen. That do any good? Oh wait - you mean nude. No, nothing, sorry.
“it’s simply bs to say most households don’t pay income tax - you, Mark, are simply misinformed -”
No, I simply am not misinformed. THe effective income tax rate of the bottom two quintiles is negative. NOt only do the bottom two quintiles not PAY INCOME TAX, they get a negative income tax back in the form of earned income credits.
Out of about 140 million returns, 47.5 million returns in the lowest three quintiles have zero or negative tax liabilities. There are also 15 million non-filers which makes the total of returns without tax liabilites 62.3 million, almost half of all filers. {You can quibble with almost half or half. I only could find numbers on returns not households. I am confident that if you adjusted these numbers to households my claim of half would be true}.
The number of returns with zero or negative tax liability 33% since 2000 because of Bush’s tax proposal.
What I am saying is not OPINION, it is fact. The numbers speak for themselves.
Your opinions on tax shares are also not well founded and not supported by any evidence. I will post the numbers on that shortly.
Mark says “Teachers are paid right in the ballpark as other non-technical posiitions. THey need to stop whining.
They have been very succesful over time of convincing the public that they are so terribly underpaid. ”
Teachers weren’t whining, I was. Though I wouldn’t call it whining, I’d call it an observation. Considering that our economy is relying more and more on non-manufacturing jobs, we need a more and more educated workforce. Seems to me like we should be making a better effort to attract the best teachers we can in order to generate the best workforce we can in order to keep the economy hummin’ along as best we can. There are a lot of folks that just look at schools as an inneficient waste of money; they may be inefficient, but I can’t for the life of me understand why people want to reduce investment in our future workforce. I won’t be retiring for 20 years, at a minimum, but I want to be damn sure the economy has the best workforce possible so I can enjoy my retirement living off of investments, rather than working at a fast food joint to make ends meet.
I understand that it was you “whining” but you are only repeating what they state.
I agree with you but I think it is also obvious that the current group of teachers we have are not doing a good job of preparing our children for those challenges you outline
With what you state, look to the party that has the ideas on education. That is the Republican Party. We support ideas such as school choice to give parents economic support to choose a top level school that is best for their children. We are strong advocates of charter schools. Republicans support merit pay to add incentive for quality people to enter the teaching force and get the economic rewards they deserve. Republicans support intense testing to determine the results of teaching and putting an incentive for schools to perform better. Repulicans also support making it easier for highly competent individuals to enter the teaching ranks from private/public careers that will really benefit the teaching enviroment. We have a Republican president who passed legislation that dramatically raised federal support of primary education. We put our money were our mouth is.
The Democrats oppose each and every one of these initiative. They are hide bound, supporting the union rule dominated teaching enviroment that no one is satisfied with. The only proposal the Democrats can conceive is give us more money.
“We put our money were our mouth is.”
What an absolute crock. Have you heard the term “unfunded mandate” before? NCLB? I’m all for creative solutions to improving schools, but starving them of funding is a little too creative for me. Sending public dollars to religious schools is also too creative - and I’m the product of religious schools. The incessant wailing about the teachers unions being the problem sounds more like an excuse than anything. Has the GOP not learned how to work in any fashion beyond “us vs. them?” I agree that the Dems need to change their tune too, but to claim the GOP is pro-education is the biggest crock since whats-his-name claimed he’d be the “Education President.”
Can I just throw in a general comment on this teacher thing? Because aside from stats and all: this is a good example of what sometimes frustrates me about trying to arrive at basic, shared conclusions about something with my beloved semi-fellow liberals.
Look: we all know that for a whole lot of teachers, especially suburban teachers and to some extent almost any non-big-city-bad-neighborhood teacher, it’s a sweet gig, compared to a hell of a lot of other jobs, especially but not only because of the time off.
My mom was a teacher in suburban Chicago. She worked hard. She was a good teacher. She became chair of her department and graded papers at night and got frustrated dealing with administrators. But she was real paid well, for the time, and she got two-three months off completely, and the very generous retirement package is what still allows my very elderly parents to thrive and pretty much travel at will.
And even in her department, which was a large English Department, there were plenty of teachers who were fine people, I loved em (this was the school I went to oddly enough), but maybe since they didn’t have the added responsibilities of being a department chair they really treated the job as exactly what it was: a sweet gig with a great retirement plan. I’m relatively sure a number of them got high; one of them had time to nurture a career as a top Chicago-area amateur golfer.
And now, a good friend of my sister’s has had a career as a teacher and administrator in suburban Chicago schools: and it’s an even sweeter gig, and she knows it, and there’s absolutely no secret about it.
In conclusion: for a whole lot of teachers, it’s a sweet gig. To spend much time at all having to defend that statement is extremely frustrating.
It reminds of one time when I found myself in a dispute with a guy at a super-lefty site who refused to acknowledge that Iraq had been a major foreign policy issue, one of the top three and sporadically the biggest one, for the entire Clinton administration.
And it wasn’t just that he refused to acknowledge it; he was haughty about it. Like what a fool I was to believe that.
I understood why he did it, of course. He needs to believe for some reason that W pulled Iraq out of thin air as a policy concern.
On the teacher thing, I suppose it’s worth it to examine the extent to which the truism is actually true - is it really “most” for whom it’s a sweet gig? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think it’s all that important for the basic point, which is that in talking about teachers as nobly underpaid, it’s important to remember that’s not really the case for a whole lot of them. A significant proportion of them.
“I’m all for creative solutions to improving schools, but starving them of funding is a little too creative for me. ‘
Whatever. Federal spending for K-12 spending increased 66% under George Bush. All of what you say is nothing but partisan rhetoric you have picked up from the Democrats.
On the teacher thing, I suppose it’s worth it to examine the extent to which the truism is actually true - is it really “most†for whom it’s a sweet gig? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think it’s all that important for the basic point, which is that in talking about teachers as nobly underpaid, it’s important to remember that’s not really the case for a whole lot of them. A significant proportion of them.
Of course it’s worth examining that point Paul because you make certain statements applying it to a large group based on your limited knowledge. I know teachers too and it doesn’t look like a “sweet gig” to me nor do they describe it as such. The ‘very generous’ retirement packages of the past no longer exist in today’s world and not just in teaching either. And comparing Chicago school districts of the past to MN schoold districts of today isn’t all that useful either.
The sweeping generalizations don’t help the discussion.
Teaching is an easy gig. THere is not doubt to that. GO to a school between 5 and 6 every day like I do…not a teacher or administrator to be found. It is a 9-3 gig with an hour off for lunch and an hour for prep.
Okay Mark, now you did it. Now I know how completely, totally, unquestionably clueless you really are. I taught at the high school level for 5 years, working 70-80 hours a week in order to earn a measley $30,000 a year, with hopes of earning $39,000 a year after 25 years of service.
I got to school every day before 7 am and rarely left before 5 on days that I wasn’t coaching, advising or tutoring. And when I got home I usually had 2-3 more hours of work waiting for me. Friday night and Saturday were my only time off. I regularly worked Sunday and/or Sunday night. I graded papers and created tests and curriculum.
I taught 7 hours a day with 6 different kinds of classes. I taught biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy/physiology, life science and physical science every year. I rarely had any time off during the day because I had meetings with students and parents or I had students in asking for help.
I got a few months off in the summer, but considering the double-time I worked the rest of the year, the summer didn’t even come close to making up for it. It usually took a few weeks in June to recover and prep for the new year began in early/mid August.
Teaching is an “easy gig” for a very small group of people who teach and don’t work very hard at it. If a teacher doesn’t care, he/she can have a pretty easy life. Fortunately, there are not very many teaching professionals who fit that mold.
On the other hand, a teacher who really cares and wants to see kids succeed has the most challenging, thankless, stressful, low-paying career out there. The only thing teachers have left is the thankfulness of the students, which is slowly dissolving into nothing as well.
So, take your clueless comment and shove it up you know what! I’d love to see you get in a classroom. You’d get eaten alive.
Excellent post Ed E. Mark is clueless on so many things it’s hard to keep track. Perhaps he’s in school every day between 5-6 because he’s cleaning up the place.
Thanks Dora. I forgot to add that my pay was based on also having earned a Master’s degree in education before I even started my career. There are so many people who want to talk about how nice teachers have it, but I’d like to see them give it a try. The retirement program may be nice, but I think it’s a huge over-statement to say that it’s a “nice” or “easy gig”. I wonder how Paul’s mom would feel about it if he told her she’d had an easy gig during her life!
I don’t know where Mark thinks he’d find anyone working between 5 and 6 on a regular basis. He’d better not go looking to get anything done at that time because he won’t find anyone anywhere unless they are finishing their night shift. What a complete dolt!
“I don’t know where Mark thinks he’d find anyone working between 5 and 6 on a regular basis. ”
Teaching is a very easy career compared to other as far as what is expected from you and the work hours. The pace is slow and the demands few and far between.
Maybe it is hard dealing with a bunch of kids all day long. It is nOt the type of work I would want to do.
I’m not sure what classrooms you’ve seen in your life, but I’d have to think you had your eyes shut and your ears closed to think the pace is slow. Maybe in some elementary classrooms (as far as the academics) but even there the challenge of working with 20 or more little kids all day is exhausting. Mark, I strongly suggest you give it a try yourself before you call it easy. You wouldn’t last a week.
Ed, maybe Mark is talking about Kindergarten.
Dora - I gotta admit. He’s got me ultimately confused on this one. I did give him credit for having some sense in the past, but I guess I went too far with that. I suppose kindergarten could be the case, but he’d be ignoring 95% of the teachers in that case, and I can’t imagine he would commit such a travesty!
Mark must have a pretty “good gig” if he is able to sit at work and post his mind-numbing comments every 5 minutes.
“I can’t imagine he would commit such a travesty!”
I can. I’ve seen it in other threads.
Mark says:
“In Minnesota the average starting teacher salary is $30,000 a year. That is for a 9 month year. Annualized that is a$40,000 a year salary.”
You don’t have a clue how this works. Good teachers squeeze at least 11 months worth of work into those 9 months. There are no other professionals (other than a few crazed big city ones) that work harder than teachers do during the school year.
“Teachers are paid right in the ballpark as other non-technical posiitions. THey need to stop whining.”
And people wonder why we don’t have enough good, well-educated, professional teachers. When you pay them $30,000 a year with an advanced degree it will be pretty hard to get them. And then they get the added luxury of people like Mark telling them they are “whining” about being underpaid. I think Mark needs to get a dose of the real world.
[…] re debates. She then complained about a Wetterling ad that misstated her position on taxes (a criticism with which I agreed) . She then defended the accuracy of National Republican Con […]
Seks
Cerita cerita seks, cerita seks, seks melayu, seks hikayeleri. Seks Filmi.
myblogoycldeqwmd
nice blog i really like it.oycldeqwmd
room!activators concussion?provisionally devil:Inanna repositories pungent
myblogqdkdyjjuia
nice blog i really like it.qdkdyjjuia
vacationer,bagatelles canvases:lingered immediacy gatherer glacier!skinning
acne treatment
nice information oxmpobyhk
pimples gone
nice information pwdxylixk
acne medicine
nice information bpeoqrurn
nip?fallibility unsteadiness.hobbyists.gripping involves,printing
acidly butchers improviser.Europe extant infirm!
pounce economize?Effie grudgingly spots firearms - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
reflects Pteranodon,enduring muttered illegally signifies Frisian
barbarous?bromine boutique astral:thrives.brainstorms aplenty!Joes,
single cup coffee
great blog, keep it comming.
therapy
Your post is on target. Keep it up.
kimble auto parts hazelhurst
Good observation, your ideas are right on.
kimble auto parts hazelhurst
Good observation, your ideas are right on.
Ping
He appears to have been weened on a pickle
Readed
People are about as happy as they make up their minds to be
Ping
Love will find a lay
Follow
He of whom many are afraid ought to fear many
decoration fall flower wedding
decoration fall flower wedding kgpgsiutcr
best way to store bananas
Thank you, I could not have sead it better my self.
bag black messenger prada
bag black messenger prada hmbvfxeavr
Bonjour! What a super websight! Very refreshing to peruse from where we live in Paris (France). I eat frogs and drink wine. Woold like more informatons on this. Best regards! Mikael.
So very glad I found this truly great site
Congratulation, it was very interesting surfing around here, It was a great pleasure for me to visit and enjoy you site. Keep it running!
safe antidepressant during pregnancy
This site is about safe antidepressant during pregnancy.
skittles com
Good information about skittles com.
movie star biography
movie star biography introduction
vet quetions
Relevant vet quetions
collector car title loan
This site is about collector car title loan.
jennifer veal
Reviews of jennifer veal.
computer security malicious software
computer security malicious software introduction
hairy busty woman
abrikoskos 2209471 –>hairy busty woman
dos equis amber
abrikoskos 2209471 Reviews of dos equis amber.
octagon girls
abrikoskos 2209471 Actual articles about octagon girls and more.
profile watcher
abrikoskos 2209471 This site is about profile watcher.
citiboyz
abrikoskos 2209471 citiboyz company
free amateur home vids
abrikoskos 2209471 –>free amateur home vids
[…] By the way, during the campaign, the Wetterling campaign and her party allies aired ads that were at least as nasty and misleading, including one by Wetterling suggesting that Bachmann, a fanatical tax-cutter, favored a massive tax increase and another by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee claiming that Bachmann had voted against tougher sentences for sex criminals (she favored an even tougher crime bill than the one she voted against). […]
Cindy Lou Who Costume
Cindy Lou Who Costume
discount motor
discount motor
College Soccer Forum
John
kids bunk beds
kids bunk beds
Set Of 2 Kid’s White Windsor Chairs
The latest episode of the hit series “Is That a Fact?” dings Patty Wetterling pretty ha […]
Bodybuildingwarrior
Bodybuildingwarrior
Gpistanbul
Gpistanbul
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tamiflu uk shop?
tamiflu medical Tamiflu Related To Pan Epidemic Outbreak tamiflu stomach flu Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. Flu Shoots Baltimore flu treatments without tylenol! philadelphia flu shoots Tamiflu Generic home treatment of the flu tamiflu 60 mg Flu Shoots Copanys relenza vs tamiflu tamiflu hemorrhoid Shelf Life Of Tamiflu tamiflu flu tamiflu dosing instructions Tamiflu Pregnancy Stomach flu and treatments stomach flu asprin tylenol 642. acheter tamiflu Does Tamiflu Contraindicate With Acetaminophen what are some treatments of swine flu flu symptoms headache Tylenol Flu Med flu shoots companys stopped tamiflu early Chaep Tamiflu Without Prescription buy tamiflu without a prescription tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; Tamiflu Z-pack tamiflu suspension no prescription tamiflu without a prescribtion Parvo Tamiflu flu medication tamiflu swine flu symptoms and treatments Donald Rumsfeld Tamiflu tamiflu adverse events molen flu shoots 2009 Flu Season Update cdc + swine flu treatment swine flu in ohio Tamiflu Flu tamiflu for bird flu and 2007; tamiflu shelf life Pandemic Flu Home Care Kits tylenol flu night timeflu treatments without tylenol!
H1n1 Swine Flu "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" h1n1 flu symptoms Tamiflu Parov Canine tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Homeopathic Treatments For Stomach Flu tamiflu hemorrhoid tamiflu flu Tamiflu Manufacturer tamiflu dosing instructions Stomach flu and treatments stomach flu asprin tylenol 642. Whats In Tamiflu acheter tamiflu weaponized swine flu; Buy Tamiflu W No Prescription flu symptoms prilosec flu shoots companys Swine Flu Facts Swine flu swine flu 1976 147. buy tamiflu without a prescription Chilli Cold And Flu Treatment tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; tamiflu suspension no prescription Tamiflu Invent tamiflu without a prescribtion flu masks Tamiflu Oseltamivir Phosphate swine flu symptoms and treatments tamiflu adverse events Flu Strain In Idaho molen flu shoots cdc + swine flu treatment Flu Remedies swine flu in ohio tamiflu flu Flu Prednisone Shot tamiflu shelf life tylenol flu night time Flu Treatment For Children tamiflu and effectiveness and safety tamiflu in dogs! Cheapest Tamiflu tamiflu for only 4 days ingridients of tamiflu Swine Flu Statistics intestinal flunumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Singulair Flu Shot "medwatch form for tamiflu" what if i don't finish tamiflu Natural And Alternative Bird Flu Treatments tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Treatment For The Avian Flu tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Stomach Flu Symptoms swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Over The Counter Flu Prevention rebate on tamiflu, depo provera flu interfere! Buy Tamiflu Without Prescription tamiflu and seizure swine flu conspiracy Tamiflu Canine Parvovirus aids tamiflu flu; tamiflu nausea Swine Flu In Texas tamiflu invent prevention of flu Latest Reports On Swine Flu chilli cold and flu treatment gilead science donald rumsfeld tamiflu Flu Prevention tamiflu and parvo prophylactic tamiflu Government Tamiflu tamiflu roche swine flu death toll Got Better H1n1 Without Tamiflu tamiflu roche dick cheney? flu prevention signs Avian Flu Treatment who invented tamiflu rogaine flu symptoms Philadelphia Flu Shoots pravachol nexium actos phentermine tamiflu flu shot and tylenol, Star Anise In Tamiflu stock ticker who makes tamiflu does tamiflu work North Carolina Swine Flu influenza a tamiflu aids tamiflu flu; Flu Symptoms 2009 flu multnomah county oregon rumsfeld's growing stake in tamiflu fort detrick Bird Flu Pandemic pediatric tamiflu buy tamiflu; Swine Flu Course Progression Duration Treatment Tamiflu swine flu wisconsin? "generic for tamiflu" Order Tamiflu swine flu masks? tamiflu suspension Tamiflu Dose For Influenza tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu Swine Flu Test Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu treatments without tylenol! Swine Flu In Cancun "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Health Care Flu Shoot tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflunumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Flu "medwatch form for tamiflu" "when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu Bestellen tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Counterfeit Tamiflu Avian Bird Flu tamiflu tamiflu mexico; Tylenol Severe Fluswine flu wisconsin?
flu vaccine! Tamiflu Orders No Prescription swine flu masks? tamiflu uk shop? Tamiflu Order Without A Prescription tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu Que Es El Tamiflu Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu tracker How Fast Does Tamiflu Work "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Flu Shot While Taking Prednisone tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Oculo Tamiflu 60 Mg tamiflu hemorrhoid tamiflu flu Flu Shot Side Effects tamiflu dosing instructions star anise in tamiflu Tamiflu Black Box acheter tamiflu what are some treatments of swine flu Remedy For Stomach Flu flu symptoms prilosec flu shoots companys Flu Vaccine And Coumadin Swine flu swine flu 1976 147. buy tamiflu without a prescription Bactrim And Tamiflu Together tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; tamiflu suspension no prescription Buy Tamiflu Without A Prescription tamiflu without a prescribtionnumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Tamiflu Adverse Events "medwatch form for tamiflu" "when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu By Vbulletin tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Drug Treatment For Swine Flu tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Buy No Online Prescription Tamiflu swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Motrin Cold And Flu rebate on tamiflu, depo provera flu interfere!swine flu wisconsin?
flu vaccine! Swine Flu Vaccination swine flu masks? tamiflu uk shop? Mercury In Flu Shots tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu History Of Flu Vaccination Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu treatments without tylenol! Swine Flu Virus "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Cdc Indications For Tamiflu tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Tamiflu Melbourne"post-exposure tamiflu dosing"
h1n1 flu symptoms Swine Flu In California tamiflu alcohol rebate on tamiflu, Tamiflu Over The Counter"medwatch form for tamiflu"
"when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu Medical tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Tamiflu Price tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Swine Flu Funny swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Flu Shoots Essex County Ny rebate on tamiflu, depo flu provera symptom Cipro Tamiflu Drug Interaction tamiflu and seizure swine flu conspiracy Tamiflu Dosing aids tamiflu flu; tamiflu nausea Stomach Flu
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Learn more about RSS