How could anyone be THAT Wrong?

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports LLC, a national polling firm, is an active conservative author, speaker and columnist.  The GOP relied heavily on Scott's company to produce polling numbers during the election season.  Scott's polls became daily headlines on conservative websites like The Drudge Report.  Fox News outsourced all their polling to Rasmussen.  His polls were used repeatedly by conservative media types such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.  Scott was the darling of conservatives, an advocate who appeared often on Fox and in conservative print media.

It was Rasmussen's poll numbers that helped give the illusion of widespread momentum toward Republicans in the weeks leading up to the election.  After the first debate, all of a sudden, it was 2004 all over again.  Rasmussen Reports showed Romney surging to the lead in swing states.  Republicans had the big "Mo" - Momentum.  Except, they didn't.  On election night, it wasn't even close.  Democrats won the presidency and gained seats in the Senate and House.  And, GOP political pundits had few explanations for what happened.  Scott Rasmussen's polls turned out to be a total fraud - so badly wrong that it begs the question - how could a professional pollster be THAT wrong?

In Senate races, Rasmussen had Missouri candidate Todd Akin (R) closing the gap on incumbent Claire McCaskill (D).  Todd Akin, if you remember, was the candidate who uttered the phrase "legitimate rape."  After Rasmussen's polling supported Akin's internal polling that showed him down by only 3, GOP super-pac money poured into Missouri.  In the final week, Newt Gingrich toured the state with Akin.  McCaskill destroyed Akin by 16 points.

In Florida, Rasmussen had incumbent Bill Nelson (D) ahead of Connie Mack (R) by only 3, within the margin of error.  Nelson won by 13, well beyond the margin of error.  Rasmussen had the Wisconsin Senate race tied.  Tammy Baldwin (D) beat Tommy Thompson (R) by 6.  In Connecticut, Rasmussen had Murphy (D) winning by 6 over McMahon (R).  Murphy won by 12.  In Ohio, Rasmussen showed Brown (D) and Mandel (R) tied; Brown won by 5.  And, Rasmussen's presidential polling was just as inaccurate.

The weekend before the election, Rasmussen had Romney winning Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Iowa, with Wisconsin and Ohio tied.  Obama won all of them, many beyond Rasmussen's margin of error.  For instance, Rasmussen had Romney winning Colorado by 3, yet Obama won by 5.  In Rasmussen's presidential popular vote tracking poll, Romney led Obama twelve straight days before the election, and up by an average of 6 points in swing states.  So, how could a professional pollster get the election so wrong?

Rasmussen polled only landlines, a huge mistake.  Most polling organizations include a mix of cellphones because they skew toward younger voters while landlines over represent older voters.  Rasmussen's explanation was that he included results from online polling.  That is grossly inadequate -  online polling represents a different methodology and there's little to prevent a landline voter from being polled twice.

Since many Tea Party members identify themselves as independents, Rasmussen's polls over represented Romney's strength among true, unaffiliated independents.  When Rasmussen compared his sample data with past voting histories of districts, counties, and states, he came up with overall totals that consistently skewed Republican.

Rasmussen was unable to identify demographic trends that altered historic voting patterns.  White voters, as a percentage of the total vote, dropped from 77% in 2004 to 72% in 2012.   Rasmussen's robocalls could not keep people on the phone long enough to ask follow up questions.  It's not as though Rasmussen's sample size was so large, polling couldn't have been conducted by real people.  Rasmussen's samples were as small as 500.

Yet, in spite of producing different results than most polling organizations, Republicans believed Rasmussen's polls to be accurate.  Republicans have this perception, promulgated by conservative talk show hosts, commentators and libertarian think tanks, that there is a vast liberal conspiracy at work in the country.  It's a conspiracy that includes the mainstream media, polling organizations, even going so far as to say educational institutions brainwash college students to be liberal.  In other words, according to Republicans, the other polls were biased toward Democrats.

It is clear the composition of the American electorate is changing.  On issues such as immigration and continued support for social programs, voters endorsed the Democratic point of view.  There is irrefutable evidence that the GOP must modify it's positions on key issues and address demographic changes or risk continued losses in national elections.  One would expect a polling organization to identify these trends well in advance.  In the case of Scott Rasmussen and his company, Rasmussen Reports LLC, apparently not.   

After being so wrong, if I were Scott Rasmussen, I'd consider another line of work.  Oh, I forgot - Scott doesn't need a job; he's rich.  He's a co-founder of the ESPN Sports Network.  Why is a sports network guy doing political polling?  I have no idea.



         

E pluribus unum - Out of Many, One

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney's comments at a GOP debate in June echo loudly.  Asked by John King (CNN moderator) about the how the federal government should deal with natural disasters, Romney said this:  "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better."  Offered a chance to back off that statement, King followed up, "Including disaster relief, though?"  Romney responded, "We cannot afford to do those things..."

Disaster relief has always been bipartisan because only the federal government is strong enough to address large scale emergencies.  Not anymore; disaster relief has become something of a political football.  House and Senate Republicans have attempted to eliminate FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) numerous times over the last two years, while Democrats have fought to preserve it.

Today, however, there are no Republicans or Democrats on the East Coast.  There are only survivors.  When lives are at stake, people work together, regardless of political affiliation. 

Republican Governor Chris Christie's comments today regarding President Obama's efforts (taken from the New York Times, 10/30/12):  "Wonderful,” “excellent” and “outstanding” were among the adjectives Mr. Christie chose.  And, while national Republicans complained about Christie's remarks, the governor said, "I have a job to do in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics."

President Obama's comments today:  "America is with you. If they are getting no for an answer somewhere in the federal government, they can call me personally at the White House,” adding: “Get resources where they are needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible, and for the duration."  He offered praise for Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Governor Christie of New Jersey for "the extraordinary work they have done."

This is the way we have always handled emergencies - together, as one.  And, this is the way we should handle our fiscal crisis, too - as one.  

However, Mitt Romney's approach sounds more like a budget manager than a statesman.  Here's what Romney told the Weekly Standard in an interview published April 2nd, 2012:  "...I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So will there be some that get eliminated...? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now."   That should give you a clue about the real Mitt Romney:

"Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market... Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt...and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale."  David Stockman - October 15, 2012, The Daily Beast

The question should not be what departments and agencies will be eliminated.  Mitt Romney does not make our country stronger by eliminating FEMA, unemployment benefits, food stamps, pushing Medicare seniors into private insurance, privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicaid and education - while at the same time eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.     

The question should be this:  How do we keep EVERYTHING and still keep our country strong.  Everything is important and everyone is important.  The answer is everyone contributes a little more and everyone sacrifices a little more.  Whether it's a corporation or a person (is there a difference these days?), let's make it patriotic to support our society - all of it.  We don't balance the budget on the backs of any one group - we don't cut the support out from under seniors and the poor.  And, we don't prohibit people from making a fortune, either.  We simply ask everyone to sacrifice a little more, while asking everyone to accept a little less.

Whatever the challenges are, whether it be a national emergency, or whether it is solving government deficits, we do it together, each person making the contribution they are able, while sacrificing what they can, moving toward a better future as one people, as one nation.  Let's take our motto seriously - E pluibus unum.  Out of many, one.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Don't Tax Me, Bro!

One of the main elements of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign is his proposal to cut personal income tax rates by 20%.  Romney is careful to point out he intends to offset the rate cut by eliminating individual deductions, such as home mortgage, but somehow it's all going to work out:  Taxpayers will pay less, but the government will receive the same amount of revenue.  It isn't true, of course, and Democrats are correct to point out Romney's proposal doesn't add up. 

Here's what Romney's proposal means for individual taxpayers:

70% of taxpayers do not itemize deductions, which appears to mean the larger portion of taxpayers can simply receive full credit for a 20% rate reduction on their taxes.  Not true because of three words:  Alternative Minimum Tax.  A 20% reduction in tax rates pushes the AMT farther down into middle class wage earners.  Be aware that the Romney proposal does not address the AMT.  If you're thinking Congress will pass an AMT patch (which raises the AMT minimum income eligibility), as they have done in previous years, forget about it.  The AMT patch is being held hostage by dueling spending bills in Congress.

If you are among the 30% who do itemize deductions, deductions will be capped, except for people in the highest tax brackets because Romney also proposes eliminating all capital gains, interest and dividend taxes.  In 2011, middle income wage earners received only 3% of their income from capital assets, while 70% came from wages.  By contrast, the top 1% received 35% of their income from capital assets, while only 30% came from wages.  Since Mitt Romney reported no income from wages on his tax return last year, the effective tax rate for him, and others like him, would fall to near zero under his proposal.

Romney's 20% across the board rate reduction is actually a plan to allow the wealthy to pay less tax while shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class.

Here's what Romney's proposal means for government revenues:    

Even the most conservative economists admit the elimination of deductions, even if all of them were to be eliminated, does not pay for a 20% across-the-board reduction in tax rates.  Estimates of a government shortfall go as high as 5 trillion dollars.  What Romney is counting on is that tax cuts will promote economic growth to make up the difference.  There is no data that supply side economics actually works.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

The history of tax cuts does not favor the Romney proposal.  The Reagan tax reform act of 1986 slowed the economy to negative economic growth.  George H.W. Bush and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy boomed.  The George W. Bush tax cuts, over time, contributed to economic collapse.  Romney's proposal is a recipe for disaster, both for individual taxpayers and the economy. 

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, may have said it best, "I think he (Romney) and his advisers simply made up a proposal that was everything to everybody without checking for internal consistency." (NY Times, Aug. 21, 2012)

And, that is a view from Missouri.




 

Are These Guys Out of their Mind?

The reason many childhood diseases have been eliminated from the United States is simple:  All schools, public and private, require immunizations.  Children can't attend school without them.  As a result of mass immunizations, once feared childhood diseases have been eradicated.  This is an example of great health policy - complete coverage for the protection of everyone at the lowest cost.

That is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be out of their minds when Romney says, "When I'm elected president, my first day in office, I will repeal ObamaCare."  The key to great public health is to cover everyone.  Over the long term, it produces a better result at less cost.

If a "cover everyone" system is cheaper and healthier, why hasn't it been adopted until now?  Health care didn't start out as a national program in the same way that Social Security did.  As a result, health insurance came to be regulated by the states instead of the federal government.  While health insurance companies have grown into corporations that transact business across state lines, state insurance departments don't regulate across state lines.  Without a national health care policy, companies have held states hostage by unilaterally setting rates, defining coverages, and if state insurance departments refuse to accept the terms, companies pull out.  As costs have escalated out of control, health insurance companies have become effective lobbyists, political contributors and no president has had the political will to take on the health insurance industry and establish a national health care policy.

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is not a government take over of the health care system, but rather a coordination of health care policy that sets minimum standards for consumers and insurance companies across the country.  It fills the coverage gaps that private insurers have failed to address.  Republicans readily accept such national policy coordination over the entire spectrum of business and industry.  With health care costs approaching 20% of the entire economy, isn't a national health care policy needed?

Medicaid and Medicare are also big parts of the health care system, but the G.O.P. doesn't like those improvements, either.  Republicans claim the Obama administration would cut 716 billion dollars from the Medicare program.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Obama administration would slow the future growth in Medicare costs by 716 billion without any cut in services to beneficiaries.  Romney claims controlling costs in Medicare would force hospitals to refuse to accept Medicare.  Again, not true.  Any hospital which has accepted any federal funds for any purpose whatsoever is required by law to accept Medicare.  Romney claims doctors will stop accepting Medicare.  Again, not true.  Physicians are already free to accept or decline any health plan.  The real problem is not the lack of doctors who accept Medicare, it's a basic shortage of primary care physicians.  Many primary care practices are closed to new patients, no matter what insurance plan they have.  That will be made worse by Romney, who plans cuts to the student loan program, something which is essential to pay medical school costs that are nearly $250,000 for every graduate.

While the Obama administration has used some of the savings created by the Affordable Care Act to increase coverage to low income seniors, children and the disabled through Medicaid payments, Republicans have fought the adjustments.  Republican governors have declined to accept funding increases even though they are fully paid for by the federal government through 2016 and 90% funded through 2020.  Romney would actually cut the program in half by 2030.  Quoting the Congressional Budge Office: "Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending under the (Romney/Ryan) proposal... states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding. To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues."

The Obama administration has done what no other president has been able to accomplish: put the nation on a course toward a national health policy that reduces costs and increases care.  I'm sure Governor Romney agrees since he helped pass a nearly identical plan as governor of Massachusetts.  But, candidate Romney doesn't - he's running for president.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Walmart Logic

The Walmart near my home is a huge facility with 30 check-out stations.  But, they only keep 3 or 4 lines open at any one time.  How many times have I waited in line and thought, "Why don't they open more check-out lines?"  The answer, of course, is demand determines the number of open lines.  No business is going hire more workers than they need.

To hear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about pro-growth tax policy, you'd think that reducing corporate taxes is going to cause businesses to hire people.  News Flash:  Reducing corporate tax rates is not about increasing employment - it's about increasing profit and shareholder value.

But, wait!  Maybe Romney is talking about cutting individual tax rates.  Well, Romney says his plan for individual tax rates is a flatter and fairer system.  That should offer no comfort to the middle class.  But, Romney believes Obama is vulnerable on the unemployment issue, so he has been pushing pro-growth tax policy as a means to create jobs.

Here's what Ben Stein (noted economist and speech writer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) had to say about Mitt Romney's position on the economy, "He has bought into what I think is a bit of nonsense about supply-side economics. He has bought into the idea that by cutting taxes, you automatically spur the economy. That would be wonderful if true, and it may be true, but there's no data that it's true,” he said. "And it certainly isn't true that by cutting taxes you spur the economy enough so you make up the lost tax revenue." (from Politico 8/31/12)

Economic growth is something of a chicken or the egg argument.  Which comes first, do jobs create growth or does growth creates jobs?  I'd like to talk about jobs - Steve Jobs.  Let me use Apple, Inc., Wall Street's highest priced stock, as an example of how problematic the question of jobs actually is.

Apple employs 43,000 workers in the United States, but over 700,000 overseas. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12).  When you buy an iPhone, only 6% of the purchase price of an iPhone goes to American workers.  The other 94% goes overseas where the iPhone is actually produced.  What does Apple have to say about this: “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” as an Apple executive told the New York Times. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12)   In other words, Apple's corporate responsibility extends only to it's shareholders.

In today's economy, it is new technology, like the iPhone for example, that produces growth.  But, unless that technology results in increased jobs here at home, the only growth possible is shareholder value.  It's education, research and development, producing new products and services in the United States, creating jobs up and down the supply chain - that's what creates growth.  Romney's business experience is in eliminating jobs, not creating them.  His ideas increase corporate profits at the expense of labor and do nothing to address long term, chronic unemployment.  

The Obama administration created The Bring Jobs Home Act, which provided tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back to the United States and eliminated tax deductions for companies that move jobs overseas.  Sponsored in the Senate by Debbie Stabenow (D- Michigan), it was a brilliant bill designed to promote jobs for American workers.  Republicans, however, through a filibuster in the Senate, blocked the bill.  Why?  Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, said it would threaten economic growth.  Economic growth for whom?  Executives and shareholders?  The richest 1% of Americans?

As you can see, I have plenty of time to think while I'm in line at Walmart.  On the way home the other day, I decided to call it Walmart Logic; the idea that tax cuts are going to increase employment.  Republican tax cuts are designed to increase shareholder value and put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest among us.

And, that is a view from Missouri.         

That's a Clown Statement, Bro!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his comments about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care act) called it "the single biggest step in the direction of Europeanizing America."  Excuse me, Senator, but the language you're speaking came straight from Europe.  Have you eaten any Italian food lately?  The neoclassical style of the building you're working in?  Straight from Europe.  The guy who built it?  French.  The individual rights we have as Americans were derived from the Magna Carta.  Senator, I'm sure you're praying every Sunday for an Obama defeat, but the church and the service you attend were patterned after European tradition.  Even the American legislature you work for came out of the English parliamentary style.  To suggest that American society is fundamentally different than Europe is a clown statement, bro.

American business and industry is supported by government subsidies and tax breaks which puts the United States more in line with the governments of China, Russia and most European countries.  You protect nearly all those subsidies, Senator. 

What would the G.O.P. do if they ever obtained a majority government again?  Force Americans to put their social security into the stock market.  Supporting American business and industry with Social Security money sounds like a lot like European style governance. 

What about auto insurance?  Requirements that drivers purchase private auto insurance sounds a lot like an individual mandate to me.  State auto insurance funds for individuals who cannot access the private auto insurance market sounds a lot like requirements under the health care law, but Senator, you don't object when it comes to transportation.

It is the health care law, of course, that Senator McConnell is talking about in the above quote and if one believes health statistics, Europeans rank above Americans in nearly every health category.  The Senator doesn't mention that.  Of course, Senator McConnell's home state of Kentucky ranks nearly last in state rankings of public health, but he's not keen on pointing that out, either. 

The Senator, himself, is in a pretty nice position.  He has his government health care plan to take care of him and his family, unlike the people he represents who, according to statistics, rank high in percentage of uninsured.  I haven't heard Senator McConnell offer to give up his government health plan or cut his cushy government pension in the face of budget cuts.  Cut everybody else, but not me.  That's a clown attitude, bro. 

I suggest that in the real world, people like the Cobra plan when they're laid off; they like having their kids remain on health plans after the age of twenty-one; they like the elimination of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions.  I also suggest that employers would like to be relieved of managing health insurance coverage for their employees.  Of course, Senator McConnell doesn't live in the real world.  He and his G.O.P. colleagues believe people go without health insurance by choice.  That is a clown belief, bro

I suggest Senator McConnell's number one legislative agenda in Washington "to make Obama a one term president" is a clown agenda.  He's completely devoid of new ideas about health care, tax policy, government debt or anything else.  His one idea, which he repeats often, is cut taxes.  What I'm saying is Senator McConnell sounds a lot like a clown, bro.

Socialism

Republicans often use the word "socialism" as a scare word like the word "communism" was used in the 1950's.  Any proposed legislation by the Democrats is labeled socialism by the G.O.P.  None of them define exactly what socialism means; they just want to make everyone afraid it.  Here's what the word socialism means according to a dictionary:

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

As a practical matter, important segments of our society are highly socialistic if you judge them by definition, but people don't seem to be frightened by it.  Why?  The public has control of it.  Take public utilities, for example, which are regulated by state commissions.  Utilities, telecommunications, transportation, education and other large segments of our society are socialistic in the sense that there is a public interest in the quality and quantity of service, and at some level, public control of it. 

 

Take a closer look at society's infrastructure, though, and you find that all those industries are public/private partnerships.  A school district contracts with private companies for support services; state highway departments bid construction contracts to private industry, public electric companies contract with private suppliers for fuel, and so on.  It is this balance of public interest and private enterprise that brings most infrastructure to our lives at the highest quality for the lowest cost. 

 

In a time of financial stress, should public services be cut?  The answer is maybe.  When politicians cut government, they also cut the underlying private sector jobs that support them.  However, budgets are about balancing revenue versus expenses so every aspect of government should be fair game.   

 

However, Scott Walker, Republican governor of Wisconsin, took budget cutting one step farther.  Governor Walker removed the rights of public employees to bargain.  Mr. Walker survived his recall election largely by framing the issue as a budget debate, which it was not. 

 

Governor Walker's actions were an attack on individual rights.  If the governor were truly interested in budget cuts, he should have shown some leadership by asking the legislature to cut his own salary and benefits.  He didn't because his actions were not about cutting budgets; they were about the elimination of individual rights.  

 

Across the country, using the buzzwords like socialism and budget cuts, Republicans are rolling back the rights of individuals, whether it's voting rights, women's and minority rights, the right to free access to information, the right to free speech, the right to collective bargaining.

The next time a Republican says the word "socialism," grab your Bill of Rights and hang onto them.  The G.O.P. wants to eliminate your individual rights.