Mandating Competence ... at the Expense of Freedom

Next week in Michigan, we are voting on six ballot proposals, including Proposition 1 to endorse Michigan's current version of its Emergency Manager law.  In general, Republicans support the EM law and want the Proposition to pass, while Democrats are seeking a "No" vote so that the law won't go into effect.  But I see a number of parallels between the EM law and the mandate in Obamacare, which I think should cause everyone to pause and consider their positions.

MLive Media Group brings together most of the non-Detroit papers in Michigan, and over the weekend they endorsed Proposition 1 (while the MLive-owned Grand Rapids press endorsed Mitt Romney).  The gist of the EM law is that when a local government mismanages their finances, local elected leaders can be replaced by an "emergency manager" who can break contracts with public employees and make other decisions with the goal of stabilizing the finances of the local unit.  These units can be municipalities, school districts, or other local units.


In the Prop 1 endorsement, the MLive Editorial Board wrote, "Leaders of local government units who consistently cannot live within their means are letting down those who elected them and deserve to be temporarily relieved of their power over the purse, harsh as that is.  No one likes to see such a loss of local control, and there is one sure-fire way for elected leaders to prevent it: Make the difficult decisions needed to keep the unit solvent while delivering needed services to residents."  They also worried about, "avoid[ing] the lasting financial mayhem of bankruptcy".  To save taxpayer money and rescue those who are "let down", the EM law allows the Governor to remove freely-elected officials and replace them with someone else. The Governor basically can say:  if you can't competently manage your finances, then you have lost the freedom to do so, and we are going to do it for you.

Now, I am going to change some words in the MLive endorsement:  "Leaders of families who consistently cannot manage their health care financing are creating a 'free rider' problem for taxpayers and deserve to be temporarily relieved of their power over the purse, harsh as that is.  No one likes to see such a loss of personal freedom, and there is one sure-fire way for citizens to prevent it: Make the difficult decisions needed to have health insurance ... and avoid large medical bills paid for by taxpayers or the lasting financial mayhem of bankruptcy".  President Obama is basically saying:  if you can't competently manage the way you pay for health care, then you have lost the freedom to do so, and we are going to do it for you.

Of course, Democrats love Obamacare, and Republicans think it is the end of the world.

To me, both laws come from the same premise:  mandating competence to save taxpayer money.  Another way to say it:  abridging freedom to save taxpayer money.   Yet another way:  crap happens -- to "local units" and to individual's health.  If we as a society are going to do something about one, why not the other?  If we as a society are going to ignore one, than why not the other?

Win hearts. Win minds. Win elections.

What can a politician, or a political party, say is their mission?

I work at a university, and occasionally I find myself in a discussion about mission statements.  For example, here is the mission statement of my employer, Grand Valley State University:  "Grand Valley State University educates students to shape their lives, their professions, and their societies. The university contributes to the enrichment of society through excellent teaching, active scholarship, and public service."  I like to believe that GVSU actually tries to live up to this public statement.  As faculty, we certainly discuss whether a colleague is an "excellent teacher" or pursues "active scholarship" at tenure and promotion time.

Some people think mission statements and their friends (e.g. vision, values, strategic plans) are a lot of baloney, but there is something to be said about sitting still and thinking carefully about what a person or an organization is trying to accomplish.  If nothing else, it leads to an understanding of what to pay attention to.

So, if you are the Republican or Democratic party, what is your mission?  If you are trying to change the laws of a state or our country, to fit your ideology or philosophy, you need to win elections first.  Some politicians are too focused on this fact, and end up spending all their time fundraising and pandering, as they see this as the path to election.  Others are so purely wrapped up in their ideology that they develop an "I'd rather be right than be elected" mentality.  But if you want to govern, you have to get elected first.

Being elected is not sufficient, though.  Politics is also about persuading citizens to come to your way of thinking.  This can be done on an emotional level.  This can be done on an intellectual level.  But it must be done!  And political parties that are effective in persuasion can set the tone for decades in society.  It seems to me the Democrats, led by FDR, were great at this in the 1930's, and into the 1960's, while the Republicans have been much more effective the past thirty years, starting with Reagan and helped by Limbaugh and Fox News.

Putting all these ideas into a simple mission statement?  How about:  Win hearts.  Win minds.  Win elections.

Potholes and Smartphones and Wavelets, Oh My!

Last summer, three students worked with me on the project of detecting potholes from data collected from smartphones.  Here is an article about the results:

Smartphones, Big Data Help Fix Boston's Potholes

How To Repeal the 20th Century

In the news the week: Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid said publicly that he will lead the Democrats to reform the filibuster if the Democrats hold on to a simple majority in the Senate.  If you haven't been following, a filibuster is a procedural move in the Senate that any Senator can use to tie up legislation and force a 60-vote supermajority to give the Senate permission to vote on the actual legislation.  In effect, it can create a 60-vote supermajority requirement to pass bills, and over the past decade, the filibuster is being used more and more.

Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell is publicly troubled about what Senator Reid said, but I suspect McConnell has been thinking the same thoughts while hoping that the Republicans take over the Senate in the November elections.

So, let's imagine for a moment that Mitt Romney defeats President Obama in November, that the Republicans retain hold of the House, and that we end up with 51 Republican Senators, a simple majority.  When you consider where the current Republican party is when it comes to the role of government, regulations, taxes, etc., would they be truly willing to use their power to repeal the 20th century?  When I am being a paranoid moderate Democrat, this is what I worry about:


Looking forward to the inauguration of Pres. Romney in late January, the Republicans take what they have learned from the work of Midwestern governors and legislatures and get to work:

Step 1:  GOP Senators eliminate the filibuster and other minority rights in the Senate.

Step 2:  The House and Senate decide to load up their wish lists and pass the Repeal the 20th Century Act. This will be one bill that does all of the following: repeals Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, the Voting Rights Acts, the Clean Air Act, the Civil Rights Acts, the Americans With Disabilities Acts, environmental protection laws, union rights, and everything else they don't like in the Federal Code.

Step 3:  The House and Senate pass the "Federal Revenue Act", eliminating the Income Tax, and instituting a payroll tax to the pay for the military and whatever else is left of the Federal government.

Step 4:  The House and Senate pass the "Abortion is Illegal Act", making abortion illegal in the United States, no matter what Roe vs. Wade says.

Step 5:  The House and Senate pass the "Emergency Manager Act", modeled after the Michigan law, allowing the President to temporarily replace governors in states with budget deficits, such as California.

Step 6:  Newly sworn-in President Romney signs all of these bills, starts a war with Iran, and then goes on vacation.


This sounds crazy, but I am certain my current congressman, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), would vote for all these without a sweat.  Then he would ask for a vote on his Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment (which is the best BBA proposal I've ever seen).

Replace the All-Star Game with a Tournament

When I was a kid, I loved baseball. I rooted for teams like the Cincinnati Reds and the Chicago Cubs.  My interest waned as I became an adult, and the 1994 strike did not help.  My interest was renewed a decade ago when I started playing fantasy baseball.

So, I know the Washington Nationals are having a great season, and that Tim Lincecum has lost his ability to pitch this season.  But I have had little interest in the All-Star Game for a long time.  Here in the 21st century, I think it is time to think outside of the batter's box, and re-boot All-Star Week.  Let's have a tournament!

Here's how it could work:

Last week in June:  Seed all 30 teams in an NCAA-like tournament, based on current W-L records, ignoring leagues.  The two World Series teams from the previous year get byes in the first round.  Have a "Tournament Selection" show, with ESPN analysts predicting who will win the tournament.  CBS, Yahoo, etc. can have bracket contests just like in March.

This year, using June 29 standings, the seedings would look like this:



1    STL        TEX         NYY        WAS   
2    CIN        BAL         LAA        SF
3    LAD        CHW       PIT        NYM
4    ARI        ATL         BOS        TB
5    TOR        CLE        DET        OAK
6    MIL        PHI         KC           MIA
7    SEA        HOU       MIN        COL
8     ---            ---        CHC        SD

Here's an idea for a schedule:

July 4:  First round (14 games) held at the stadiums of the higher seeds.  Games start at Noon on the East Coast and move west.

This year, it would be (8) CHC at (1) NYY, (8) SD at (1) WAS, (7) SEA at (2) CIN, (7) HOU at (2) BAL, etc ...

July 5-6:  Regionals -- second and third rounds.  Held in big cities, such as Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

July 7:  The Fast Ball Four -- Yankee Stadium day-night doubleheader

July 8:  Midsummer Tournament Championship -- Yankee Stadium -- winning league gets home-field advantage in the World Series.  Players on the winning team get $1 million each.

So, each team plays at least one game, and two teams play five games.

Yes, we'd have to worry about rainouts, etc.  But it sure would be more interesting than the current model.

Alternative idea:  Get rid of All-Star Week, end the season a week earlier, use that week for a play-in tournament of 24 non-division champions to determine the wild card teams.  Now that would get some attention.

Type 1 Diabetes

Since our son Zachary was diagnosed in 2007, I have become very interested in type-1 diabetes. Recently, I wrote a post for the JDRF Great Lakes West blog.

The Aboufadel 2012 JDRF Walk Team page can be found here:  http://www2.jdrf.org/goto/aboufadel

Welcome to my blog!

Politics, Sports, Business, and Everything Else:  I'm interested in a lot of things!  And sometimes I want to say something about what I am interested in.  That is the purpose of this blog.

Why Orion?  My favorite constellation!

Why Abduction?  To celebrate abductive reasoning!  Or maybe I have darker motives.

--Ed Aboufadel