Predicatble

A few days ago, I noted that the Oklahoman had published a rather sensible letter regarding Fallin's rejecting federal money for health care. At the time, I wrote:

It's curious that the Oklahoman would publish Mr. Womastek's letter, and one wonders if this is a classic Point/Counterpoint set-up by the editors.

Indeed. Don't say I didn't tell you, because today, we see a letter from Rich MacMillan of Shawnee, who predictably writes a rant straight from right-wing media outlets:

The federal government has no money. It's $16 trillion in debt. If Washington wants more money, it'll have to come out of our pockets or it will have to be printed or it will have to be borrowed from China. All of these alternatives hurt this country now and later.

We don't need to borrow. We don't need inflation. We need to eliminate a bunch of useless government. Government, in and of itself, produces nothing. It only tells us what we can and can't do. And, it's paid very well for doing that! The big question is this: How do you tell government to fire itself?

This is nuts. This guy has no idea how macroeconomics works and has totally bought into crazy scare-tactics about China. And what the hell is this that the government produces nothing? Is he stupid? Like, I'm pretty sure that an aircraft carrier is something. I'm sure that the high school that he likely dropped out of was actually something. The roads he drives on are something. It's delusional-- truly delusional to think otherwise.

As for the complaints about being told what one can and can't do-- holy hell. Perhaps he'd be fine if the government didn't tell the local fast food place what it had to put in its hamburgers and he could eat grilled sawdust and spoiled ketchup. Or if his anti-depressants were just Mike & Ikes.

People like Mr. MacMillan are truly stupid and it is insulting that a major newspaper would run such a letter. (And even bother to bold the "very"!) The Oklahoman should be ashamed. But unfortunately, they're probably all too happy to run this sort of drivel.

Mandate madness

Jim Dixon of Oklahoma City puts forward some standard right-wing spin in a letter today, arguing that there is no Democratic mandate because

Obama won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. In the Congress, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Percentage-wise, the majority for each party is the same.

Let's look at these claims more closely and see if they are at all compelling.

1) The President won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. First off, the tally is really 3.5 percentage points (50.9% vs. 47.4%) but that's only a minor quibble (though, does the Oklahoman ever fact-check letters before they run them?). The real question is what that number means. After all, it doesn't sound like much. But without some context, it's meaningless.

So what about context? Here are the last few elections:

2008: Obama by 7.3 (52.9% v. 45.6%)
2004: Bush by 2.4 (50.7% v. 48.3%)
2000: Gore by 0.5 (48.4% v. 47.9%)
1996: Clinton by 8.5* (49.2% v. 40.7% v. 8.4%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number considerably
1992: Clinton by 5.5* (43% v. 37.5% v. 18.9%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number
1988: Bush by 7.7 (53.4% v. 45.7%)
1984: Reagan by 18.3 (59.1% v. 40.8%)
1982: Reagan by 9.7* (50.7% v. 41% v. 6.6%) *Anderson's popularity skews this number
1976: Carter by 2.1 (50.1% v. 48.0%)
1972: Nixon by 23.2 (60.7% v. 37.5%)
1968: Nixon by 0.7* (43.4% v. 42.7% v. 13.5%) *Wallace's popularity skews this number
1964: Johnson by 22.6 (61.1% v. 38.5%)
1960: Kennedy by 0.2% (49.7% v. 49.5%)
1956: Eisenhower by 15.4 (57.4% v. 42%)
1952: Eisenhower by 10.9 (55.2% v. 44.3%)
1948: Truman by 4.5* (49.6% v. 45.1% v. 2.4%) *Thurmon's popularity skews this number
1944: Roosevelt by 7.5 (53.4% v. 45.9%)
1940: Roosevelt by 9.9 (54.7% v. 44.8%)

OK, we can stop here and have some idea of what's going on. We have wide range of victory margins here. Some are quite large (Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64), and some are quite small (Kennedy in '60, and Bush's non-victory in '00). There are also some skewed results where a third-party candidate was able to nab votes from the two main parties, making it unclear how big the winner's real margin would have been in a more conventional race.

It's also interesting how many times someone has won without a majority. Both of Clinton's elections were marked by a large anti-establishment sentiment, and there were others. (I had no idea Kennedy scraped by so closely!)

Obama's victory is somewhat small by historical standards (at least through "moden" history), but certainly not the smallest. And it is perhaps noteworthy that he won a majority-- something has has not been so common of late.

All of this is moot, though, since we haven't established what a mandate really is. Some searching on-line doesn't provide a clear picture. Left-leaning sites say that of course Obama does, while right-leaning sites claim he doesn't. And some sites don't know and ask people to vote on what they think!

If that's unclear, what about the rest of Mr. Dixon's argument? He notes that the Republicans control the House while Democrats control the Senate. Of course, since the GOP has gerrymandered numerous districts, the actual popular vote for House seats is in favor of the Democrats. It's also important to remember that the Senate gives each state two Senators regardless of population. So ultra-red states like Oklahoma are going to be giving the same number of Senators as is California or New York. Yet, the Democrats have a clear majority there (and even gained seats this election).

In all, it's hard to make a convincing case that the right's positions on the economy and social issues are ones that a majority of Americans want. Given that, Mr. Dixon goes out in left field and argues that since there are more Republican Governors than Democratic ones, the idea of a mandate belongs to the right. This is a particularly weak argument, unless he's willing to concede that places like Arkansas or Kentucky are really left-leaning.

The Oklahoman publishes letters that are factually inaccurate but that push an agenda all so they can keep their hands clean and stay out of the fray. It's pretty weak, but nevertheless par for the course.

Union Jack

The right-wing anti-union ferver is on at the Oklahoman, where they chose to run three (!!) letters condemning unions as the cause of Hostess' problems and, now, bankruptcy.

Consider the maddening letter from Dennis Miller (not, clearly, the comedian) of Edmond, who sarcastically writes:

Way to go, union workers at Hostess! You showed that terrible company who's boss! Of course, you're out of a job. No problem. Another company will buy up the rights to produce Hostess products and they must hire you. Wait, they already have bakeries and employees and your reputation of putting a company out of business won't put you at the top of their hiring lists. 

Again, no problem. You're a union and you got Barack Obama re-elected so he'll extend your unemployment benefits as long as you want them. Wait, he can't do that. Congress could but the country is broke. Once again, no problem. You can just retire. Wait, there's no pension since there's no Hostess. No problem! The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will take over your pension. Wait, they're technically broke, too — with more liabilities than assets.

What the hell is that about?!? I emphasized a few crazy lines, but I might as well have bolded the whole  thing, because it's all nuts. To understand, let's just look at some realities.

In 2004, Hostess filed for bankruptcy due to poor management with lots of debt-- most of it to a hedge fund. In order to keep things afloat, labor agreed to massive concessions in salary and benefits amounting to over $110 million a year. A worker who was making ca. $48,000 in 2003 was making ca. $36,000 after the concessions, not including cuts to benefits.

Then:

a private equity company called Ripplewood Holdings brought the company out of bankruptcy in 2009 for $130 million and rechristened it Hostess Brands. The hedge funds and other lenders forgave some old debt and extended some new debt. Ripplewood convinced the other stakeholders that it could turn the company around and, apparently, convinced them so completely that only Hostess Management and Ripplewood had seats on the board. Neither the unions nor the hedge funds acquired voting seats as part of the deals struck to keep the company afloat. They just trusted Ripplewood to turn things around, implement new technologies, introduce new products, and rebuild aging infrastructure.

That obviously didn't happen. Instead, by 2011 the company had lower sales and greater debt than before Ripplewood bought it. Still, when the CEO-- Brian Driscoll-- resigned, he was still able to walk away with his $1.5 milllion in salary.

Once the next round of negotiations came, workers were looking at taking cuts so that they could make something like $25,000 a year. Remember, just a few years ago, they were making almost twice that. As one employee said, "[i]t will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me." And that about sums it up. At $25,000 a year, you're looking at ca. $12 an hour. This is supposed to be the annual wage for a household's breadwinner (no pun intended), and the anti-union people think that that is OK?

As Jake Blumgart notes,

Pegging a horrendously managed company’s fate to labor’s larger troubles provides an exceedingly limited understanding of the wider context. The Hostess debacle is only half the story of labor’s decline: Manufacturing companies that are still organized from the glory days of the mid-20th century are seen as representative of the union movement because current American labor law makes it almost impossible to organize workers in, say, the growing service sector.

Back to Mr. Miller's letter, though. Would any serious letter include a gratuitous jab at President Obama here? And about those pensions...

In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be 'borrowed' by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level. 

This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn't repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year. I consider this money stolen. No other word in the English language describes what they have done to this money.

Somehow, though, this is all the fault of unions. Not management, but unions. This is the message the plutocrats at the Oklahoman want to push, and so they let their brainwashed readers do the dirty work. Ironically, this sentiment has left many Oklahomans struggling to lead a middle-class lifestyle as they, too, are forced to work for low wages and few benefits. But hey, at least they aren't in a union!

Bizzaro Oklahoman?

Today was an odd day for the Oklahoman-- perhaps the right-wing editors we normally find were still on Thanksgiving vacation. Of the four letters that the paper ran, fully half represented progressive views! One, by Steven B. Goldman of The Village critiques Gov. Fallin's actions regarding various 'Obamacare' provisions-- something we talked about yesterday. It is absolutely astounding to see the Oklahoman publish two letters in a row critiquing the governor acting in a way that is in complete accords with right-wing ideology regarding the Affordable Care Act.

Perhaps more astounding is the letter by Ernie and Teddy Schultz of Edmond. In it, they offer a pretty spot-on critique of posting the Ten Commandments on public grounds. In response to State Rep. Ritze's argument that the Decalogue "is a historical presentation of where we get our laws," they write:

Really? The first four commandments are about the real God, false images and sabbath observance. All are clearly religious admonitions. The fifth concerns honoring our parents and doesn't appear in any legal code I know of. The prohibitions against murder, theft and lying under oath are a part of just about every set of laws drafted anywhere, anytime, not just in this country. The prohibition against adultery may still be on the books, but when was the last time you heard about someone sent to jail for violating that commandment? And the last commandment about covetousness is violated in the very premise of the advertising industry and marketing in all its forms. The economy would collapse otherwise.

While one might quibble with some of their interpretations of the Commandments, their analysis is ultimately quite correct. Moreover, it is hard to really trace our legal traditions in a linear way back to ancient Israel. (And if it were, one could easily then keep going back to ancient Mesopotamia, and I doubt Rep. Ritze's family is going to pay for a fancy Code of Hammurapi to be put up!)

To reiterate: the Oklahoman almost never publishes letters that attack right-wing ideology, and letters that critique the Christian theocratic ideology that dominates much of the state are even more. To see such letters-- on a Sunday, no less!-- is a day to remember.

Of course, it's not like that was all we got; someone still managed to work in a letter pushing a typical right-wing lie: the poor are just lazy, and things like welfare facilitate the laziness. In her letter ("Government conditions people to stay on welfare"), Donna Symes of Oklahoma City cleverly (?) argues that just as birds in Alaska don't fly south for the winter because people feed them, poor people do not actually seek out work because they get welfare. 

The assumption, of course, is that living on welfare is a pretty good thing. No doubt thanks to spin from Fox News, AM talk radio, and, yes, the Oklahoman, the image that most conservatives have about those on welfare one of people driving nice cars, eating good food, and having a comfortable life. But is this true?

From the system's own webpage:

However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific. 

Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

Wait. What? So a single person living the high life on welfare is going to get about $200 for food, and an additional cash allowance of $300? So... that's $500 a month. One wonders what Ms. Symes is doing such that $500 a month is enough to kill the incentive to find an actual job.

Unfortunately, right-wing media are driven by the ultra-rich who selfishly hate the idea of paying more in taxes (even if it's a paltry sum compared to their vast fortunes), especially if it is in some large measure to help poor people (read: non-whites). To drum up support for this anti-tax sentiment, these media outlets push certain memes that play on religious Southern whites: namely that the poor are lazy, and that welfare is a great deal that only serves to help lazy people. Thus, it must be curtailed (or, abolished).

The Oklahoman loves to push this sort of thing, given the largely racist, plutocratic stance of its ownership (past and present). So a letter like Ms. Symes'-- complete with facile comparisons-- is entirely expected. Unfortunately, while we should await angry replies to the letters about 'Obamacare' and the Ten Commandments, it is quite unlikely that Ms. Symes will receive a similar reproach.

Shocking Sensibility!

Today's letters section includes a true rarity for the Oklahoman. Jon Womastek's letter, "Gov. Mary Fallin pandering with health care decision," actually makes a sensible and impassioned critique of one of the far-right's major anti-'Obamacare' ploys: rejecting federal aid for Medicare and refusing to participate in insurance exchanges.

Rejecting Medicare funding is done because, according to the Governor's spokesperson,

no matter how much money the federal government contributed for an expansion the state ultimately would not be able to afford its share of a larger Medicaid program without cutting funding for other essential services, such as education and highways.

Because, of course, trying to raise revenue is out of the question. And it's better to have a swath of uninsured poor at the mercy of fate rather than have a healthy and productive (and tax-paying) workforce.

As for refusing to participate in insurance exchanges, this is less about financial implications and more based in ideology. The governor argues that:

It does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support or fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government, that is opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans, and that will further the implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of the American health care system and the fiscal stability of the nation.

Note the "control of the federal government" line, nothing but a dog whistle to the AM talk radio-listening crowd. And why do "a clear majority of Oklahomans" reject 'Obamacare'? Mostly because they live in a right-wing media bubble that has told them that the Affordable Care Act is akin to socialism. (The editors of the Oklahoman can take a bow for their role in that!) And finally, it is clear that the quality of the American healthcare system at present is horrible, and that 'Obamacare' will only improve the fiscal stability of the nation. That she is allowed to make such statements unchallenged is a telling indicator of how bad our press corps is.

In any case, back to Mr. Womastek's letter. In it, he argues-- correctly-- that

[f]ar from being the conservative she claims, Fallin wants to score points with the party's right wing rather than doing the right thing for all her constituents. How is it conservative to turn down federal money for health care exchanges and instead continue to shove the cost of caring for the poor and indigent onto hospitals and insurance companies?

Indeed. But in general, this has been the mantra of the right for decades. Providing superior healthcare options for citizens of the United States is nothing but a march towards socialism, and helping the poor (while fine if provided by a church), is just facilitating their own laziness. All so we can make sure some billionaire is able to purchase a ninth Malibu home.

It's curious that the Oklahoman would publish Mr. Womastek's letter, and one wonders if this is a classic Point/Counterpoint set-up by the editors.

Disconnect on 'Obamacare'

I found this letter to be somewhat amusing. Raoul Carubelli of Oklahoma City writes that, among other things, "Obamacare can't be repealed but needs fixing. Romney was able to pass, with bipartisan support, a successful health plan in Massachusetts. His input is essential."

If he got real news from a real newspaper, Mr. Carubelli might know that Obamacare IS ESSENTIALLY ROMNEY'S PLAN FROM MASSACHESETTS. It is unclear what sort of "fixing" Mr. Carubelli thinks that Obamacare needs, given that he characterized Romney's plan as "successful" and further given that Obamacare is largely borrowed from Romney's plan.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carubelli obviously gets most of his information from the Oklahoman.

Point/Counterpoint, Oklahoman Style

As I noted at the outset, the Oklahoman rarely publishes letters expressing left-leaning or progressive sentiments. When they do, however, they almost always follow it up with a letter that directly references and attacks the author's left-leaning points (but never the author, of course). The end result, then, is a sort of Point/Counterpoint where the right-wing opinion always gets the final say.

A great example comes from just a few weeks ago, when Colleen Walker of Edmond wrote a leader headlined "Oklahoma should adopt path of progressiveness," that makes a valid point regarding the 2012 elections:

Many Oklahomans voted for a party that doesn't have their best interests at heart. A large number of Oklahomans have contributed time, money and lots of effort to a group of special, powerful interests that don't provide a platform beneficial to most Oklahomans. Too many Oklahomans have been manipulated to be pawns in forces that aren't friendly to their values. The initiatives in health care reform, financial institution reform, tax revisions and economy improvement that have been under way during the last four years will prove to benefit Oklahomans in the long run.

And indeed, it is easy to argue that on issues of the economy and environment, she is right.

This is the Oklahoman, however, so they won't just leave it at that. Instead, a few days later we see a letter from Stephen Butler of Yukon. The headline, "Oklahoma voted against Marxist principles," is classic in that it allows the paper to push a crazy right-wing idea ("We're all headed for socialism!!") without having to take ownership if it.

Mr. Butler rants that "Walker can't see the destruction these progressive principles have caused in Europe, where they've had the liberal utopia for years — countries buried in debt, high unemployment and a tyrannical government that controls your every move," when the actual data show that Europe's debt and high unemployment are a direct result of the austerity measures he is in favor of! (Or, to be fair, that he was told by right-wing media outlets that he should be in favor of.)

He goes on to say, "I'm self-employed. I've built my business for 18 years. Yes, I did build that! This is why Oklahomans voted against Marxist principles." But while Mr. Butler no doubt did build his business, it is certain that having roads, police, educated employees, clean air, safe food, and so on, helped him along the way. So yes, the President's point that business success happens in part because there is a functioning government to provide services and protections is entirely true. Yet Mr Butler, egged on by the various right-wing media outlets he surrounds himself with, believes in a sheer fantasy where "rugged individualism" is all it takes to succeed in the modern world.

In a parting shot, he concludes "[a]s for Obamacare, I hope Walker never needs a knee replacement or a pacemaker. She might be told to just take a pill." It's hard to imagine a more distorted understanding of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, his letter is nevertheless published because the editors know it pushes their agenda in a compelling way-- 'Obamacare' will rob you of proper healthcare!-- and without having to be responsible for the fact that such accusations are completely groundless.

But back to the point: Ms. Walker wrote a perfectly unoffensive letter expressing her views and wishes. The Oklahoman publishes several such letters every day. However, when those letters support a right-wing position (and often include statements reflecting a worldview that is counter to reality), they are never followed-up with a direct counter. Conversely, when those letters support a progressive opinion they are always swiftly followed by one (or more) attacking it-- usually with more inflammatory rhetoric, arguments based on faulty data, and so-on.

"California proof that taxing the wealthy doesn't work"

Let's look at a letter published today by Craig Blankenship in Edmond with the headline "California proof that taxing the wealthy doesn't work." It is easy to see why this letter was published. First, it pushes the plutocratic agenda of the ownership of the Oklahoman: don't tax the rich! Second-- and this seems to be a new angle for the paper-- it singles out California as some horrible example for how to do things. (Examples include here, and a crazy letter here.)

Mr. Blankenship's argument is this: Oklahoma's middle class pay higher state incomes taxes than California's, but California's wealthy pay higher taxes than Oklahoma's. Despite this, Oklahoma isn't "in the process of going bankrupt" like California is. Thus, President Obama shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy, because that is a recipe for going bankrupt.

Mr. Blankenship is hardly original in making this argument. A quick search on Google shows plenty of right-wing on-line publications pushing the same thing.

The question is, however: are these people right? Unfortunately the answer is a resounding no. In Mr. Blankenship's (and the Oklahoman's) case, however, the answer is an embarrassingly resounding no. Before getting to that, though, one wonders why Mr. Blankenship (and the editors of the Oklahoman) didn't take that next step and come to the conclusion that higher taxes on the middle class is the way to go! Indeed, one could easily use Mr. Blankenship's logic to produce a headline reading "California proof that taxes must be raised on the middle class" if one wanted to.

But back to the problem. Mr. Blankenship writes, "In California, those with taxable incomes of $55,000 pay only 1 percent state income tax." Wait. What? That is actually just a made-up lie. When you look at the actual tax table for 2011 (pdf), the tax on a taxable income of $55,000 is $2,763. That's 5%!!!

Think about that. At this point, Blankenship is just making things up. Worse, the editors haven't even bothered to check his point. They just publish it because it supports the agenda they're trying to push! Looking at the rest of his numbers shows similar flaws. It is impossible to know where Blankenship got his numbers, but that is the beauty of the letter.

Ironically, California's financial problems are due in some great measure to the very fact that it is quite difficult to raise tax revenue there. Its famous Proposition 13 severely limited property taxes. (Essentially, it capped the maximum increase at 1% and allowed reassessment of base value only upon sale of the house-- if you've had your mansion since 1990, you're paying taxes with only meager increases on its 1990 value.) And raising state taxes requires a 2/3 majority in both houses-- often difficult to do.

So, no, California's problems aren't that people like Kobe Bryant, Kim Kardashian, these people, and these people, are paying too much. If anything, it's the opposite. But that's not what the Oklahoman wants you to hear, so they'll happily use Mr. Blankenship as a surrogate to peddle their lies.

The Daily Disappointment

Welcome to "Letters from Oklahoma"-- a blog dedicated to discussing the Letters to the Editor section of the Oklahoman, Oklahoma's largest daily newspaper. The reason for this blog stems from the fact that the editors of the Oklahoman-- dubbed in 1999 as "the worst newspaper in America" by the Columbia Journalism Review (for some reason, older articles from that publication are not available on-line; if you can find a hard copy, though, it's worth the read)-- generally use their Letters section to promote their own far-right agenda without having to worry about accountability or credibility (even if the Oklahoman has little of the latter).

In general, a newspaper editorial is written with a bit of decorum and statements like "Obama was born in Kenya and wants to turn America into an Islamo-fascist state!" have no real place there. Similarly, syndicated columnists typically write toned-down pieces devoid of hate-filled language and where right-wing lies and deceptions are more subtle.

With letters, however, all bets are off. When "Jim Smith" from rural Oklahoma-- a man who lives in a right-wing media bubble fed by AM talk radio, Fox News, and, yes, the Oklahoman-- writes a letter to the paper, he is free to talk about socialism all he wants. After all, those crazed, fact-free attacks are the opinions of an ordinary citizen and not of a respected newspaper, right? Right.

Yet, of course, the message put forward by the very selection of these letters is exactly the message the paper's editors want to impart. You almost never see left-leaning sentiment expressed in the letters page, and there is no real mechanism to respond to the lies and half-truths that appear in these letters. (Indeed, it is often difficult to do so given the 250 word limit of their letters.) You similarly almost never see published counters to the letters advocating some far-right myth, and when you do, the paper cleverly publishes responses to those counter-points before ending the argument altogether. Moreover, the on-line version of the paper allows for reader comment in all of its opinion section save one. I'll let you guess which one that is.

It is an incredibly frustrating experience. And while I have no illusions as to the impact of this blog (if I can even maintain the energy to keep it going!), I hope that over time, some will come to stop here and find refreshing counters to the right-wing hate that the Oklahoman promotes with its letters.

Thanks for visiting.