O'Neil Perspective

 Or click here to listen to a recent comprehensive radio interview on politics and polling.

Tax Day is today.  Unless you are an anarchist, you recognize that taxes are a necessary evil.  Most discussions about reforming the tax code, however, conflate two entirely separate issues:

 

1)      the amount of taxes we pay, and

2)      what it is that we tax.

 

Let's set aside for today, the question of how much we tax.  There is great illogic in WHAT we choose to tax  . . . 

 

 Click here to see the remainder of the argument in today's Huffington Post.

When I was about five years old, my mother told me to that it was too dangerous for me to play in the street.  "But mom, ALL of the other kids' mothers let them play in the street!  It MUST be safe!"   Mom was, of course, right--the alleged behaviors of all of the other moms notwithstanding.

 

But replace "moms" with "major corporations" and we get deference to the dumbest unsupported practices imaginable. (More)

I'd like to share with you a piece the Airzona Guardian published earlier this week.   

 

In it, I discuss police statistics (and the recent scandal in Phoenix regarding them) and later relate these to educational statistics: they share some common flaws. You can click for a link to the Guardian article.

 

If you are not familiar with the Guardian, you should know that it is an online publication that does some of the best political reporting in the state.  It's worth a look.

 (More)

Early speculation on who's likely to be in the race to replace Senator Kyl: click here for Fox10 video.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD 

Many thousands of Egyptians, fed up with 30 years of oppressive rule, successfully called for Mubarak's resignation. Their rhetoric is all about Democracy. If their focus remains only on Mubarak, however, they're unlikely to end up with anything resembling real democracy.. . . unless other institutions are in established and new norms of civic behavior are operative, the version of democracy that Egypt may end up with may resemble that which we have seen in numerous countries elsewhere in Africa: "One Man, One Vote, One Time."

See the rest at the Huffington Post. Click here to view: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/egypt-now-the-hard-part_b_822583.html 

 

 

Or, for some observations on Senator Jon Kyl's seat and possible candidates for it, click here.

 

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD 

I'd love a tax break!  Pay less!  And that's just what the President and the Republicans in Congress just worked out.  And they are going to pay for it with. . .   No, wait! The deal was sweetened with INCREASED for unemployment benefits. . . and?

I think we now know the formula for split party government: LESS taxes and MORE spending!  $900 Billion dollars worth. 

....see the remainder of the posting, on today's Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/id-love-a-tax-break_b_794996.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

As the decade of the 1970s was ending a one-time Saturday Night Live comic deadpanned an ongoing routine that he introduced as follows:

 

“Well, the ‘me’ decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit.

 

Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade."

....see the remainder of the posting, on today's Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/stuff-and-nonsense-about-_b_792693.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD 

OK, the Republicans won big in a "wave" election. What happens next? I have two scenarios

The Optimistic View

Both parties recognize that they have to compromise in some matters of policy. There are two obvious ones from which each side could gain something . . .  

Click here to read the rest in today's Huffington Post.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

Education. The piece I sent you last week was published in the Huffington Post. Created a minor firestorm of comments.  Evidently pricked some sensibilities among that readership.  Regardless of your reaction, I'd love it if you would add your comments to that lively discussion.  Click here to do so.

 

Election Broadcasts. I'll be on Fox 10 (Phoenix) election night and Horizon (PBS, 8) on Wednesday.  But, if you want to keep me honest you can click here to see some of my earlier prognostications on the election-starting from things started to heat up earlier in the year.

 

Election Night Forecast.  We're really more in the analysis than the prediction business, but the world doesn't accept that, so I will play that game and tell you exactly what is going to happen so you can go to bed early tonight. Print this out and see if I have nailed it.

 

House. Republicans pick up 55 seats-plus or minus 20.  Since they need 39 to gain control of the House, that means that the outer reach of Democratic hopes are that they maintain a slim majority (unlikely, but possible).  Chinese Proverb: Be careful what you wish for.  With the Republicans in control of the House, the next election will be about which party people prefer, not a referendum on the Economy or Obama's stewardship of it.  The Republicans have made this election about the latter, and that's why they are winning -- and big.  If the election were about which party people like more right now, the Democrats would actually win, but narrowly.  The Republican Party is actually less popular than either the President or the Democratic Congress, but that will not matter tonight.

 

U. S. Senate.  I'll get specific: There are only 10 seats in real contention.  All are held by Democrats.  The Dems will lose three with certainty (North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana), two with near certainty (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), and will probably lose Nevada as well.  (Though note the slight changed in adjectives, that's deliberate). 

Now it gets fun.  I'd rate the Republicans as slight favorites to take Colorado and Illinois.  If they fail to carry both, Senate takeover hopes are toast.  Give them these and they are within one seat of an evenly divided Senate.  (While Joe Biden breaks the tie, don't count on that holding.  With a 500-50 Senate either Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson could jump ship.  That scenario would be both fun to watch and unseemly.   The Democrats really need 51, not 50). 

 

So we have the end result: the Republicans end up with 49 Senators.  (Keep an eye on who might get sick). My guess is that's where they stay.  They have a reasonable shot in West Virginia and Washington, but not quite as good as the Democrats have of holding Colorado or Illinois).  

 

The Democrats chance of winning any currently Republican held Senate seat: Near Zero.  This is a wave election, like 2006 or 2008.  What will make the numbers somewhat bigger this time is that many of the seats the Republicans will pick up are low hanging fruit: the seats they lost in the last four years.

 

Wild Card.   Really screwy things are going on in Alaska.  May well provide post-election night entertainment (think Al Franken's election which took weeks to count all the ballots) after which some Republican probably ends up with the seat. But a lot of people can see all kinds of things from their back yards there, so who knows?

 

The 2012 Presidential Election will start no earlier than Wednesday morning.  Maybe Tuesday night.  Something to chew on: a Republican takeover of the House will help Obama's prospects for re-election.  He will no longer have sole ownership of the economy, which is likely to be improving some but still sputtering in two years.

 

For the Locals.

 

The only interesting races will be the Congressional Seats.  Five of the eight (more than in Arizona history) have at least an interesting story.  Republicans sweep everything else in sight. (If there is an exception, it would be Felecia Rotellini: will the voters want a Democratic Attorney to keep the Republicans who will control everything else honest?  Maybe.)

 

Here's the congressional story.  Three seats are safe:   Ed Pastor (D, CD2), Trent Franks (R, CD4) Jeff Flake (R, CD6).  Don't even bother counting the votes: they have already won.

 

Three seats currently held by Democrats that are all traditionally Republican seats.  All were swept by Democrats in one or both of the last two Democratic sweep elections:  Anne Kirkpatrick (CD1), Harry Mitchell (CD5), and Gabrielle Giffords (CD8).  All three Democrats are in jeopardy.  All the races are close.  My guess is that Giffords hangs on, but that Kirkpatrick does not. The Mitchell race is the closest of the three, but most national prognosticators give his challenger Schweikert the edge.  Mitchell is a beloved figure in the District, and until this election, not seen as a particularly partisan one. But given the Republican tidal wave, will this be enough? They'll actually have to count the votes on that one.

 

Fantasy Wins. Each party has a chance to win in a district where they would normally have no chance:   

 

CD3: Ben Quayle has been an extraordinary weak and flawed candidate, providing an opening in a district that is as safe a Republican district as they come. If elected, however, John Hulburd would probably be among the most conservative Democrats in the House.  And, I'd bet he'd serve a single term: he could be beaten by a generic Republican in two years; this is way too Republican a district for any Democrat to hold.

 

CD7: Raul Grijalva supported a very unpopular boycott of Arizona. This district is the flipside of CD3, if people are peeved enough to vote him out for this reason (don't bet on it), his successor will serve two years and be beaten by any Democrat in 2012.

 

Neither of these upsets would have anything whatsoever to do with national trends.  But the three competitive races, Kirkpatrick, Giffords, and Mitchell could be national bellwethers. If the Democrats hold all three, the Republican wave will be on the small side.  If the Republicans carry all three, that wave is BIG.  My guess: split decision.

 

The only Blue State victory over a Red State this week was when the San Francisco Giants beat Texas yesterday.  The only suspense will be how big the puddle of blood is on the floor tonight.

 

But it could be short-lived. We have national political ADD: the Dems held the House for 40 years, and then the Reps for 12, the Dems then got it back for 4.  At that rate, the trend would suggest that the Dems will be back in 2.     

 

Print this out and see if I nailed it.  Accountability.

 

Micheal J. O'Neil, PhD

I have had my 2010 election ballot for almost a month now.  I found most of the choices to be fairly easy.  I have agonized, however, about one particular choice. I'd like to share my thinking with you, not to urge you to vote one way or another, but to explore the relevant issues behind my dilemma.

You have probably received endless communications at this point advocating various candidates and positions.  I want to share with you not so much my advocacy of a particular candidate, as the deep ambivalence that I feel toward the choices that we voters have to make for one office, the State Superintended of Public Instruction.  (The office is in Arizona, but all of the points are relevant throughout the country).

I have read the election materials of each candidate, read their election pamphlet essays, and watched them debate.  While they have substantially different positions, I am absolutely convinced that neither will do anything whatever to alter the pathetic status quo in American public education. 

While this is an Arizona election, the candidates are almost caricatures for the two major strains of thinking about what is wrong with American public education:

The Republican candidate, a state legislator, was an active participant in substantially reducing the level of funding for public education in the state.  From this I infer that he thinks we can improve our schools with less, rather than more, resources.  His position papers include all of the usual Republican canards, "high standards" and references to "English-only education."  The magic pill that he and many of his ilk offer is that of charter schools.  If we simply encourage private entities to create their own schools, these will compete with public schools and will solve all of our educational problems-with no increase in resources.   

The Democratic candidate is also typical of the Democratic view of most of these issues.  As such, she decries any cuts in educational spending, is silent or lukewarm on charter schools and generally thinks that the answer to our educational mess is just supporting the teachers that we have-with increases in funding.  But as head of the teacher union, she held a position whose central tenant seemed to be to protect the job security of the most incompetent teacher who ever walked into the classroom without any regard for the impact on students.

I watched both of these candidates in a public debate.  Superficially, each seemed articulate, intelligent and reasonable.  If I didn't feel I was able to read between the lines of their positions, I might have felt that either could improve public education. When I looked beneath the surface, however, what I saw was a pair of candidates, each completely beholden to the interests of their respective constituencies.  The more I thought about it, the more I was absolutely convinced that there is not the slightest chance that either would contribute in any meaningful way to improving public education.

Much has been made of the fact that American students are performing at a level near the bottom among its peers, the other industrialized nations.  In looking at these discrepancies and the differences, one fact stands in stark contrast.  The most successful counties pull their teachers from among the top third of college graduates, while most of our teachers are pulled from the bottom third.  And both these countries and ours pay accordingly: they pay a lot more than we do.  And value their teachers accordingly.

This stark fact suggests to me an obvious solution, one I am certain each of these candidates would reject out-of-hand (but for different reasons).  Let's announce that in the state of Arizona, effective four years from next September we will double the salaries of all public school teachers.  (I am sure the Democratic candidate would love this.)  Oh, but on that date, teacher tenure would end; all current teachers would lose their jobs, but be free to compete to be re-hired for their now much higher-paying positions. (Now the Republicans cheer). But, they would have to compete for their old jobs with a generation of recent graduates who would go through school knowing that Arizona values educators and is willing to pay them accordingly.  These would include students who would otherwise consider such professions as law, medicine, biosciences or engineering; the most challenging subjects that currently attract our best and brightest students. And current teachers would also have to compete with the best teachers from all over America, and perhaps the world. 

And in doing this hiring, I would favor persons who had excelled in the subject matter which they teach, rather than education. The dirty little secret is that education is the easiest subject in which to major in every college and university of which I am aware.

And to keep these now highly-paying jobs, these newly hired teachers would have to continue to deliver. Exactly like the doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists the best of whom are currently paid so much more. (The untold side of the lament that we pay teachers so poorly is that even the worst of them is guaranteed a paycheck for life: a paycheck equal to that received by the very best of their fellow teachers. All the highly paid professions offer NO guaranteed salary.  And the worst of the lot in these esteemed professions can actually earn less than the wages we guarantee for life to all of our teachers, regardless of their performance).

Is this the be-all and end-all of the educational reform we need?  Of course not.  I'll say more about the rest of the story in future missives.  But I do offer this as food for thought.

In the meantime, there is actually some hope for the employment prospects for Arizona schoolchildren-for jobs for which they will fully qualify under our current educational regime. If Russell Pearce gets his way, there will be a lot of vacancies for positions as maids and gardeners in the state.

Oh, a few minutes before writing this, I finally marked my ballot for Superintendant of Public Instruction: I cast a write-in vote for Michelle Rhee.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

As of today (September 23, 2010), four provisions of the healthcare reform become effective:

• As of today you can’t get dropped by your insurance company because you get sick (they call this “rescission”).  Until today, that was legal.

• As of today insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on your benefits.  If you get real sick, you know your coverage will not run out.

• As of today your kids can now stay on your family policy until they turn 26.  (Pretty timely in a time of record unemployment for new college graduates, no?).

This link will play a brief segment from an interview I did this morning on KFNN 1510 Financial News Radio's "Business for Breakfast" on the subject of last night's elections. It was early and I was half asleep.  More considered written observations follow.

 
Senator John McCain and Governor Jan Brewer cruised to easy victories last night.  At this point both Republican incumbents seem poised to win their respective November elections handily.

McCain and Brewer both rode the immigration issue to victory.  Brewer's fate was sealed when she signed SB 1070 which caused the almost immediate disintegration of her Republican opposition.  In McCain's case, he shifted his posture on the issue sufficiently that, coupled with a $20 million budget and flawed opponent, he was able to win decisively.

Interestingly, McCain's victory was big news on CNN and in international outlets such as the BBC. Here in Arizona, however, the outcome was so expected that the story was actually "below the fold" on Page 1 of the Arizona Republic.



Even though McCain has never been a darling of the Republican establishment in Arizona, it is hard to see him being beaten by a former city councilman from Tucson.

In the Gubernatorial race, the only question seems to be, "When will the Terry Goddard campaign begin?"  In the absence of a game changing-event, Brewer seems poised to cruise to victory.  A game-changing event could always happen, but none is currently on the horizon. Look for an "All SB1070/All the Time" Brewer campaign.  She knows that's a winner. 


Arizona's congressional delegation currently consists of five Democrats and three Republicans.  Three of the five Democrats hold seats that are logically Republican. Indeed, each was held by a Republican until the Democrats swept the last two elections.  All three of these seats, District 1 (held by Ann Kirkpatrick), District 5 (held by Harry Mitchell), and District 8 (held by Gabrielle Giffords), are distinctly in play.  In our judgment, Harry Mitchell is the Democrat among this trio most likely to keep his seat, even though the district is arguably the most Republican of the three. We attribute this to his personal popularity: he taught at Tempe High School for 20 years and was a very popular Mayor for eight years, as well as a State Senator. In addition, he has the luxury of facing an opponent he has already beaten. As a result, he is the Democrat most likely to withstand a Republican onslaught.

The wild card in this congressional arithmetic may be Congressional District 3.  This is a solid Republican district.  The seat is currently held by retiring Republican John Shadegg.  The primary victor, Ben Quayle, however, could only muster a little over 14,000 votes (about 22%) after spending $1.3 million. That's almost $100 for every vote he received.  But what does the public know of Ben Quayle?  Only two things: his daddy was vice president and he used to write for a risqué web site ("Dirty Scottsdale").  We think there is an opening here for a credible and decently funded Democratic candidate Jon Hulburd to make the case that Quayle's parentage and expertise on the Scottsdale club scene does not qualify him to be a congressman.  We think this race is in play.

We thus have what is probably the most interesting lineup of congressional races in the state's hundred year old history. Two Democrats, Raul Grijalva (District 7) and Ed Pastor (District 4) will be reelected as will two Republicans, Trent Franks (District 2) and Jeff Flake (District 6). Take these predictions to the bank.

The other four seats are absolutely in play.  All four are in arguably Republican districts, but three are currently held by Democrats.  If a Republican sweep materializes on a national level, the Republicans could end up holding six of the eight congressional seats.  On the other hand, it is not completely implausible that the Democrats could hang on to the three seats which they captured in the last two election cycles, and pick up a seat in congressional District 3 due to a weak Republican candidate (Quayle).  If this happens, it would actually give the Democrats a net increase of one seat. Not the most likely scenario in what otherwise will be a big Republican year, but it is a plausible one.

Joe Arpaio had a mixed night.  Arpaio's opposition to Rick Romley's candidacy for County Attorney seemed decisive, but it was apparently insufficient to get his buddy Andrew Thomas nominated for Attorney General. At this writing, Tom Horne is 373 votes ahead, with a handful of precincts and a few provisional ballots still to report.  The trend, however, favors Horne.  Thomas led in the early ballots but was evidently hurt by a spate of negative information about his actions as County Attorney that came out during the course of the campaign.  As a result, Tom Horne carried the day on the basis of votes that were actually cast yesterday.

Our reading of the tea leaves strongly suggests that after the November election the Republicans will control the Governors office, as well as strong majorities in the both the State House and Senate. When voters look at a likely outcome like this, they instinctively want to elect someone to keep the dominant party honest.  The ideal office to do this from is Attorney General.  We think this will aid the presumptive Democratic nominee, Felecia Rotellini (if her slim 1,350 vote lead holds).  Voters will instinctively prefer electing a Democrat for this office since Republican's look likely to control every other major office in the state. This sentiment worked out pretty well once before when a female first-time office seeker ran for Attorney General as a Democrat in a year when Republicans were poised to win every other major statewide office.  Her name: Janet Napolitano.  She parlayed this victory into a pretty good career.

There is another reason to think Democrat Felecia Rotellini will fare well.  Her apparent  primary victory occurred in a well-behaved, dignified campaign-one that will not leave scars.  The Horne - Thomas Republican primary, however, was brutal, vituperative and downright nasty. Those wounds may not ever heal.

 

-Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

Good interview discussing tomorrow's Arizona Primary election.

Scroll down on the left and you will see three videos, each conforming to part of the interview which aired on Fox TV yesterday.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/newsmaker_sunday/newsmaker-sunday-08222010

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

Financial crisis?  Demonize the culprit financial institutions.  Haul executives before Congress.  Watch them squirm.  (Remind anyone of our response to the S&L crisis of the 1980s?).  But when the shouting is over, don't implement any reforms that would seriously impact the incomes or operations of the financial firms.

Gulf oil spill?   Urge the President to trash-talk the President of BP.  But all but ignore whether there has been any serious effort towards increasing alternative energy sources or even regulatory reform of drilling practices since the Exxon Valdez. 

To read the full article on the Huffington Post or to comment, click here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/same-old-same-old-wall-st_b_632539.html

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Admin

«	February 2012					»
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

• Joplin . . . and the Role of Government
• Tax Day Observations: An Immodest Proposal
• Why Most Internet Surveys are Useless
• Lies, Damn Lies, and Police Statistics
• Senator Kyl Retires
• Egypt: Now the Hard Part
• Free Lunch!
• Stuff and Nonsense About Taxes
• What's Next: Two Scenarios
• Everything You Need to Know About Tonight's Election

• General [55]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom