Public education spending: An endless, futile black hole or not?

Context

One of the issues that concerns people is public education. A good education is generally seen as necessary to attain a middle class standard of living. As with most everything else in politics, there is a vast gulf of opinion and perceptions of reality about public education and spending. As usual, getting at the truth is very hard to do for average people who are open minded and not driven by ideology.

 The creepy-looking, but fast & agile USS Independence littoral combat ship

Messing around off the San Diego coast with another boat, May 2, 2012

In the November 2012 general election, Californians will get to vote on whether to increase taxes to pay for yet another massive budget shortfall. As usual, democrats are asking for more money and republicans are doing everything they can to fight it. The shortfall is about $16 to $17 billion this year. If the tax increase does not pass, cuts to public education will be even more painful that the spending cuts of recent years. The situation in San Diego is so ugly that one of the school board members is advocating bankruptcy for the public school system. Layoffs for 2,400 teachers and others are planned. Some other school systems nationwide are facing similar financial distress.

Many people believe that spending more money on public education is generally ineffective and should not be the way to fix whatever it is that's "wrong". Critics of more spending often point to bloated bureaucracies and pensions, intransigent teacher's unions and/or poor student performance in view of already high spending. Advocates for more spending often argue that students often do not speak English very well, sometimes they live in poverty and go to school hungry, sometimes have to deal with drug addicted parents or dysfunctional families, have to learn in run down schools with limited resources, e.g., internet access or new text books, do not have access to adequate health care and/or have one or more of a myriad of learning and/or physical disabilities.

 Air Force F-16 en route to inflicting some robust discipline on the always playful but
often unruly Taliban, Haqqani and other boys clubs whose members
are miscreants involved in local malarkey, mischief & mayhem

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, April 30, 2012

Some people complain that we teach to the test too much. Others complain that there is not enough teaching to the test. Some like No Child Left Behind and others don't. Some people argue that bigger class size won't make much of a difference, while others disagree. Public schools in wealthy neighborhoods tend to get more financial and other support from parents and local organizations than schools in other areas. Some argue that makes a difference in outcomes, while others deny that. Opinions on teacher salaries and benefits are all over the place. Many people inject their political ideology and that arguably makes a complicated situation intractably complex. Republicans generally want to eliminate the federal department of education and more spending, while democrats tend to see all of that as important to maintain or expand.

There appears to be no strong consensus on any of these disputed matters. In all that noise, its hard to spot a signal.

The spending issue

Given the complexity and lack of consensus, addressing issues one at a time may make some sense with the caveat that the various factors and issues probably affect one another. Depending on how one looks at it, the U.S. arguably spends a lot on public education. In one study comparing 11 countries, total U.S. spending was high ($7,743/pupil) and spent significantly more per student compared to the other countries but had mixed outcomes in student performance. Although which years are being compared is hard to figure out, other analysis put per U.S. student spending as being even higher ($10,441 in adjusted dollars for 2007).

 Navy SEAL candidate training @ Naval Amphibious Base Coronado

Coronado, California, April 26, 2012

A different study indicated that as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. spends 5.8% of its GDP on education. According to that study, that put the U.S. at 37th in the world in a tie with Austria and Estonia. The CIA estimates the U.S. spent 5.5% of GDP in 2007, which arguably puts the U.S. a bit lower in the ranking, depending on which year(s) the first study refers to. A study of performance for reading, math and science suggests that the U.S. ranks from 22nd to 33rd in these areas.

In terms of pay, U.S. teachers receive higher salaries, but generally spend significantly more time teaching in the classroom (about 300-400 hours/year), which brings their salaries in line with other countries on a pay per hour basis. U.S. teacher pay is generally lower on a gross GDP per capita basis (96%) than the OECD average (117%). Many teachers argue that they are being asked to provide more services and their time spent with parents and doing other things (grading papers, etc.) is uncompensated and therefore their hourly wages are low.

Of course, all of that is generalization based on the U.S. as a whole. Different states will have different cost-benefit situations. Also, none of that addresses the issue of vouchers for private schools. Private schools tend to provide education at a rate of about 50% of the cost in public schools due to lower teacher pay, among other things.

Our tax dollars hard at work:

Congressional staff person Michael Weinstein messing around with

an M203 Grenade launcher while marines stand around 

Marine Day, Camp Barrett, Quantico, Virginia, April 27, 2012

Mr. Weinstein and 440 other staffers were flown in on V22 Osprey 

What does all of that mean?

Of course one should not look at spending and salaries out of context. The situation is complicated. Other factors such as the state of school repair or disrepair or poverty rates presumably affects what impact the spending has. If one injects liberal ideology into the mix and relies on it, then it is fairly easy to argue that we do not spend enough per pupil. The factors that carry weight with people who want more spending will carry weight while other factors that argue for less spending will get less weight. That's no surprise. That's just how most people "analyze" things like this.

Also no surprise is people who believe that we already spend enough and should just fix the teacher union problem (assuming there is one) and so on, will give less weight to the arguments that support more spending. The question remains, do we spend too much, too little or just about right? Other questions are relevant too. For example, should we even want to boost pupil performance from 22nd or lower and if so, to what level? First? Eighth? Should we eliminate after school programs to save money? How does one weigh the impact of pupils going to school hungry or living in dysfunctional families? Is any of that relevant or not and if so, how relevant? Would money be spent more efficiently in terms of improved outcomes to feed hungry kids in public schools?

 Marine V22 Osprey with a howitzer

The baffled pragmatist

How on Earth can the average person reasonably answer the "simple" question of whether spending is too high, low or somewhere in between? It may even be the case that more spending in one geographical area would clearly pay back very solid gains, while in another area, the effect would be nil. If one can just step back and take one's ideology and preconceived biases out of it, it is easy to argue that this question is complex and the answer is unclear. One can easily argue that ideology alone will probably lead to the wrong conclusion. Instead of reliance on ideologies or special interest argument to answer the question, one should rely on unspun (unbiased, thorough and fair) analyses of all the main relevant factors and how or if spending on each affects overall outcomes.

From the non-ideological, pragmatic California Moderates (CM) point of view, no political party, partisan or special interest has clearly and convincingly made their case. As has been discussed here before, political 'debate' is raw advocacy. The point of raw advocacy isn't honestly informing the public. Its spin to win arguments and defend ideologies and special interests while maintaining the political status quo. The big question is where does one go for an unspun analysis of education spending and other important issues? CM has no answer to that critical question.

Marine V22 Osprey refueling

If CM had to guess based on what CM knows and without ideological bias or any skin in the game (no kids in any public school), the guess would be that we spend about enough overall, but maybe the distribution of spending is sub-optimal. Maybe increased spending is needed in California and some other states, but that assumes that it can be focused in a way that provides tangible benefit. Unfortunately, that's a big assumption. That requires trust in politics and politicians and its not clear there's much public trust in government in California or elsewhere.

Trust: The biggest factor?

When people do not trust either party or the special interests involved, additional spending for anything can be very hard to support even if the facts do solidly support more spending. That's a side-effect of what a loss of trust in government can do. That is also a point that has been raised here before. People's ideologies and biases (which are basically the same thing - belief grounded mostly in emotion instead of fact and logic) often trump reality, which is another point argued here repeatedly.

 V22 Osprey on a boat

Some people believe that more money for schools will be diverted to other things. They would not support a tax increase, even if the need for more money under current conditions was obvious. Diversion of money form the intended target to something else is a legitimate concern. The California legislature, in its dysfunction, diverts money all the time.* That costs the California government at least some of the trust it needs to convince the public that something like a tax hike is absolutely necessary.

* In their defense, governance of California is so profoundly messed up due to various conflicting and constraining ballot measures. Sometimes the legislature has no choice but to divert money from one thing to another just to keep the cart on the road. However, one can reasonably lay that source of dysfunction at the legislature's feet as well. If they just did their damn job like they were supposed to, maybe we would not be in such a stinking mess. Unfortunately, the legislature can't do its job. It is dominated by hard core liberals and utterly intractable hyper-hard core political and religious far right conservatives. The public has to vote on ballot spending measures or even less would get done. California is a hopeless mess.

 Marine V22 Osprey flying somewhere

For the public education spending issue, and probably most other spending issues, people who have lost trust will tend to let that concern trump or color another conclusion that they might have drawn if trust was there. Even if more spending makes sense and people agree with it, a lack of trust can nonetheless make just about anything a hard sell to a skeptical public. One probably has to look at this issue on a state by state basis to get a better view of reality and assess options. For California, it isn't clear what makes sense because it isn't clear that advocates for either side can be trusted.

Why political fundraisers are off limits to the press

Political candidates often try to impose a blackout on what is said at fundraisers. Microphones have to be turned off. At least they try to shut them off and stay away from reporters by banning them from closed events. Why is that? The simple logic and harsh reality is that candidates don't want the general public to know what they say to wealthy supporters because there are two different stories. The wealthy and powerful get the real story while the general public gets spin. Its not rocket science. Its just politics as usual.

 Marine CH-53D Sea Stallion

Camp Dwyer, Helmand province, Afghanistan, May 31, 2012

Hot microphones, awkward utterances and other goofs

Mitt Romney was recently overheard at a Florida fundraiser telling wealthy insiders that he would (i) eliminate and/or reduce Housing and Urban Development and Education department funding and (ii) eliminate some tax deductions that significantly benefit higher and middle class earners, e.g., deducting state taxes from  federal taxes. On balance, that seems to somewhat shift the tax burden to the middle class to at least partially pay for tax rate cuts for the wealthy. (That perception needs analysis from an unbiased expert.) According to the news source, NBC's Garrett Haake, these kinds of details were not intended to be heard by the public and had not been told to the public so far in this campaign. Only wealthy republicans deserved to hear that kind of good news.

According to Romney himself, it is a mistake to give the public too much detail about what a candidate would do in office until after an election - that would give an opponent spinning points for political attacks. Assuming that advice applies generally to candidates running for office, it makes sense to keep the public in the dark and then do whatever feels good because doing otherwise might cost the candidate the election. That apparently means that candidates believe that the public generally cannot or does not distinguish spin from reality. How interesting, especially if that is true. Is that true?

 Navy SH-60B Seahawk landing on USS Germantown

South China Sea  June 4, 2012

Things like this have happened before. Last year (2011), former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overheard telling president Obama "Netanyahu, I can't stand him. He's a liar . . . " To that, Obama glumly replied "You're sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day." Some Republicans took that as an opportunity to attack President Obama for his allegedly bad attitude and policies toward Israel. That would seem to confirm the wisdom of Romney's advice to keep ones mouth shut and tell the public as little as possible, preferably nothing whenever possible.

Similarly, in March of 2012, President Obama was overheard telling Russian President Medvedev to wait until after the 2012 U.S. elections for flexibility on compromising over a missile defense system. Republicans immediately attacked. What Obama said was something a republican president would have done under the same circumstances, but that's not the point.

Any opportunity to attack a political opponent is fair game, even if the attacker would have done exactly the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Hypocrisy isn't even a remote concern when an opportunity to attack comes along. How well the general public understands this is unclear.

 Security teams shooting at stuff for Jordanian King Abdullah II

Amman, Jordan, May 16, 2012

So, are all of these awkward moments about equal? Does the general public deserve to hear the same things that the rich and powerful get to hear in a campaign? One can argue that when a politician is doing things like speaking privately with world leaders, maybe the public should not hear it. At the least, the world leader might not speak candidly for fear of getting sucked into nasty U.S. politics. One can argue that when a presidential candidate is trying to keep the public in the dark about domestic policy goals, maybe the public should hear it before the election, not afterwards. One can argue that the public should hear all (or none) of it. One can argue all kinds of things.

However, when it comes to what Romney said and his attitude toward the public, California Moderates believes he has no credibility. His attitude is crystal clear. He is publicly campaigning as one thing, a moderate, while apparently being something else, a fairly hard core conservative government hater ideologue. If it were otherwise, his public statements would be hard core conservative (assuming the public was that conservative) and his private utterances would be more moderate. His real interest is what comes out in private, not in public. In private, there is money to be had from wealthy people. Money is necessary for getting elected, so that's where a candidate's loyalty has to lie. That's where at least some honesty has to come out or the money won't flow.

Don't forget, Mr. Romney denied recalling his cruelty to a classmate while he was a high school student. That also points to Mr. Romney's willingness to lie to the public when he thinks it makes sense to do so.

U.S. Marines taking a much-needed shower aboard their comfortable hovercraft

 Persian Gulf, May 1, 2012

They both do it

Its not the case that president Obama won't do the same when circumstances dictate. Given that reality, and it is reality, why should the public have any faith in much of anything any candidate says? Both democrats and republicans are spinning the public for their own benefit and for the benefit of the special interests who align with them. There is no reliable way to know what is real and what is spin. Maybe the best you can do is to guess about what general direction a candidate will take when in office based on what they say in the primaries.

One can argue that in the elections maelstrom, the public interest is mostly irrelevant - getting elected is more important. Political candidates do protect themselves by keeping the public in the dark instead of giving details and risking attack. If it is the case that telling the public more serves the public interest, what we have now arguably is an example of service to one's self before service to the public interest.

The California primary

California votes on June 6, 2012 in its primary. Now, finally the presidential primary gets interesting and merits some much-needed attention from California Moderates. So, how about that feisty Herman Cain? Or that scintillating and feisty Michele Bachmann? How about that feisty Rick Perry? What about the always slick but less feisty president Obama?

A strange cactus in a snake cage

Oh, yeah. Forgot. The primary contest over and has been for some time. California, as usual, is essentially irrelevant in presidential primary elections. What counts is Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and a few other states. The rest of us are mostly irrelevant and thus deserve nothing more that what the two parties give us. That has been argued here before, more or less.

California is relevant, by golly

But, there is one thing California counts for. Money. From time to time, the candidates fly in, take the black limo to where the money is (La Jolla, Beverly Hills, Menlo Park, etc.), harvest cash (schmooze) for a couple of hours, hop back into the limo to the airport and then get the heck out of the state with the cash pile. What a deeply satisfying experience for us regular voters. Its democracy in action! Thank you democratic and republican parties.

Question: Guess where all that California cash will be spent?
Hint: In battleground states, not California.
Answer: In battleground states.

A suggestion to save California from imminent ruin

California faces yet another of its massive annual budget deficits - about $17 billion for now. Everyone, even several republicans, is for sin taxes, so how about this? Tax 75% of every dollar that goes to the national candidates, the national parties and Super PACs, unless the money is spent in California, in which case it gets taxed at a mere 55% rate. Spending money on politics certainly is a sin, so this massive source of revenue should be a no brainer. California Moderates has just saved the state from financial ruin! And, we get all of  that benefit with no adverse effect on anything. It is a win-win-win scenario. It can't get any better than that.

At least some of us regular voters are disgusted with two-party politics and the two parties for some darn good reasons and this is one.

Self-service before public service

Context

The group Americans Elect (AE) recently held an online vote to begin its process to select a presidential candidate for president. Unfortunately, no single candidate received enough votes to qualify for the group's June online convention. AE was impressive in what it did accomplish by, e.g., getting a new political party qualified in California. That's not trivial. AE also suffered from flaws in its execution and communications and those appear to have contributed to the disheartening outcome. The group is trying to figure out what to do next. California Moderates CM has an idea for what's next in California and that is being vetted with them. There is too much promise in the AE concept, i.e., a direct attack on the two party system, and its accomplishments to simply walk away.

A central theme of California Moderates criticism of two party politics is that it has failed in part because most (nearly all?) players with power and influence serve their own personal interests before they serve the public interest. By players with power and influence, CM means people like elected politicians, wealthy business people and other great pillars of respect in the community. That's CM opinion based on cold, hard evidence, not simple ire over some slight in the past (which BTW doesn't exist).

The following is some evidence that this is not just made up. CM doesn't make its content up. Its all out there if one cares to face it for what it is.

The evidence

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 (two days after AE suffered its setback), the Los Angeles Times had the following to say:

"Why couldn't Americans Elect land a better-known candidate? It tried. Darry Sragow, a canny Democratic campaign strategist from Los Angeles, led a nationwide talent search to persuade top-tier names to jump in. Sragow says he talked with about 50 current and former officeholders, including incumbent senators and governors, but nobody was willing to take the chance.

 

"Everyone agreed that the system is broken," Sragow said. "The problem is that their risk aversion was too high. There's a fear of retribution if you break with your party."

Retribution? Sure. Not like in Syria, where dissidents are shot, or Russia, where they're merely jailed. But in Washington, a failed third-party presidential candidate could become a pariah — no Cabinet job, no ambassadorship, no consulting clients, no seats on corporate boards."

According to one source, the reluctant pillars of the community included centrists such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Olympia Snowe.

That's not all there is: There is other current evidence, e.g., the story surrounding San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, his betrayal of the two party system and the two party's planned punishment for that treason. Evidence pops up from time to time in all sorts of contexts.

Conclusion

In the LA Times story, note the statement "everyone agreed that the system is broken". That sounds a lot like a public service issue that needs attention. Also note the implied scope and reach that the two parties have in matters that should extend beyond their reach, e.g., seats on corporate boards. Different people will come to their own conclusions, but that explanation is solid evidence that the serving public really isn't a big motivation of people in politics. There is too much personal risk in serving the public. 

Defenders of the status quo will no doubt disagree and artfully spin their poison to create another, better, reality for themselves and public consumption. The question is what you choose to believe - evidence or self-serving spin. Its your choice.

Civil union vs. marriage

Context

Civil unions have been used to confer some or all of the legal rights attached to traditional marriage but without the historical and religious implications. Marriage is typically associated with religious tradition and historical authority, e.g., the married couple has God's blessing. According to one source, civil unions in the U.S. are recognized by Hawaii and Illinois. Another source says eight states recognize civil unions. In a marriage there are, among other things, federal tax consequences, rights associated with inheritance and rights associated with custody of children. In addition, under some circumstances, decision making and visitation authority attaches to a spouse when the other spouse is incapacitated.

Bog plants - Venus fly traps

In states where same-sex couples are in a committed relationship but civil unions are not recognized, few or none of the rights associated with marriage exist between the people in the relationship. Thus, if one person in a committed same-sex relationship dies, the other may not inherit from the other. A surviving same-sex partner may not have any child custody rights, regardless of the reality of the situation, e.g., the child loves the surviving partner as a true parent.

California Moderates (CM) has argued on occasion that religion is not a good source of authority for political policy or law. Religion does seem to serve an apparent and common human need for spirituality and in that role, it is fine. That common need appears to have existed in prehistoric humans and maybe in pre-human species. The need for spirituality appears to have evolved with the evolution of the human brain. Despite the need, CM is aware of no universally-accepted scientific proof that any supernatural aspect of any religion is literally true. Such a proof is beyond the capacity of human science and thus belief in those things is a matter of personal spiritual faith. That difference between science and religion is profound and fundamental. Science and religion simply are not the same, regardless of how hard some religious people sometimes try to deny that basic distinction. 

Venus fly traps

When people who want more religion in politics invoke the founding fathers as an authority, that source is nearly always the Declaration of Independence. It invokes God as a source of authority for what the founding fathers did. The word God (or religion, church, sin, Satan, hell, immoral, morality or moral) does not appear even once in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution invokes "We the people", not God, as its source of authority. The word religious appears once in the constitution in the Article VI clause "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". The word religion appears once in the Bill of Rights in the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. courts rely on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the Declaration of Independence or the Bible or the Quran, as the final and highest sources of authority for the law.

Bog plants - bug digesting pitcher plants

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, the state of North Carolina passed a state ban on both same sex marriage and civil unions. The ban was in the state's constitution. Many other states have similar laws on their books. On May 9, 2012, President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney has opposed same sex marriage for a long time and advocates for an amendment to the U.S. constitution to define marriage as a union between a woman a man. If Mr. Romney becomes president and is somehow able to get that constitutional amendment to become part of the U.S. constitution, that would be the first time since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1789 that a constitutional amendment explicitly favoring or protecting any religion would have been added to the constitution.

Pitcher plant with some bog flowers of some sort or another

Unconstitutional and cruel or an admirable 

defense of an admirable status quo?

Given that context, one can reasonably ask if it is constitutional to confer, e.g., federal tax differences or rights of inheritance, on a legally recognized opposite-sex marriage while not allowing the same rights for same-sex or opposite-sex couples who do not want to be married in a religious ceremony. By what constitutional authority can that be defended? The answer is clear. There is no constitutional authority for that difference. Religion is the authority.

Is it humane and caring to confer no rights in a partner in a long-term committed relationship when the other partner is incapacitated? Is it good, solid family values to take a child away from a same-sex parent after the other partner dies? Is that kind of cruelty really what God would want? Or, is that not cruel? Or, do things like that not happen?

Finally, for taxpayers, is it reasonable to allow tax differences between marriage and civil unions? If so, why? If such differences should exist, then why not confer advantages on the civil union because the civil union derives its source of authority from the constitution, which is the highest source of authority? Is there any constitutional authority to prohibit a civil union in any state? Is this a matter of state law or federal constitutional law?

Romney probably has it right that this is a federal concern and not a state issue. One can easily criticize the wisdom of his proposed constitutional amendment. Once again, religion shows itself to be a poor source of authority for secular law under a secular constitution, especially when he opposes equal rights for civil unions. It would be of much interest to hear him explain why a religious marriage should be "better" or even different from a mere civil union performed under the authority of the U.S. constitution. A reasonable guess is that he has no explanation other than something sort of like, "well, that's just the way it ought to be because God is great and the constitution isn't." Of course, that's just idle speculation. No one really knows what Mr. Romney might blurt out when pressed for an answer to that interesting question.

A fair counterpoint

A reasonable argument to not require religious organizations to do same-sex marriages is that that could contradict sacred teachings according to the beliefs of a given church or organization. That's a fair point. For the most part and within reason, religions do not have to concede any point of doctrine to any U.S. government entity. The constitution insures that protection. On the other hand, American taxpayers have been subsidizing religion in the U.S. for over a century (arguably since the get go) in the form of tax breaks for their operations.

Reasonable give and take or 

just greedy take and take?

Nothing in the constitution compels that kind of generosity toward religion. Its a gift given as a simple act of honest generosity each year. Taxpayers probably give religion tens of billions in tax subsidies and other support each year, maybe much more.* Its not as if religion isn't highly protected and pampered in the U.S. Asking for one doctrine or practice concession is reasonably characterized as a tiny thing in return for the staggering support the constitution and taxpayers afford religion. The constitution takes great pain to accommodate religion. What pain does religion take to accommodate the constitution? Is religion being selfish, arrogant and uncaring?

 A bog bunny living amongst the bog plants

* Don't forget, if federal tax dollars for Planned Parenthood (PP) are fungible as many (most?) religious people argue when they advocate cutting off federal PP funding, then tax dollars are obviously just as fungible for religious organizations and they should be cut off for exactly the same reason. Fund them all or fund none. And, if one wants to really parse it on constitutional grounds, fund PP and cut off funds for faith based organizations because money to both is fungible (thus tax dollars improperly support religion), abortion is legal and PP is secular. The logic is simple and clear.

Theocracy, secular or something else?

A fair question is whether America should be a theocracy guided by perfect, infallible religious authority, a secular nation guided by a flawed human constitution or some combination of the two. If religion is to be injected into the mix, why should that be the case and where, if anywhere, would be the logical limit for what is injected and what isn't? That's the old slippery slope argument.

From the CM point of view, there is only one reasonable, logical choice for all of these questions. However, all of these are things that each American needs to decide on their own. In deciding, don't ignore the context. Have the moral courage to (i) try to find unspun reality and then (ii) face reality for what it is before deciding. If you think that the context (reality) given here is spin, by all means go out and find a reality you believe isn't spin. It should be easy to do that. In the process of finding an acceptable reality, try the fun exercise of showing the fatal flaws or spin in the reality described here. Bet you can't.

What party is the most dysfunctional?

Hm . . . that's a tough call. Democrats tax, spend, over-regulate (and/or mis-regulate) and often (usually?) can't get complicated or simple legislation right. On the other hand, Republicans debt, spend, under-regulate (and/or mis-regulate) and often can't get legislation right. Special interests with money have bought and paid for both. Neither party puts service to the public before service to their own interests and other special interests. Both parties are blinded by their sacred but often (usually?) wrong ideology. Republicans seem to suffer this flaw more than democrats, but that's hard to know for sure - democrats are sneaky. It's a tough call indeed. Both parties are serious, dedicated contenders for the coveted most dysfunctional prize.

A crocodile

A tie breaker!

California Moderates (CM) has had its suspicions for a while, but parsing the details and being fair about it is very difficult. Hence, CM has mostly, but not completely held its tongue, out of CM's usual abundance of dispassionate professionalism. An impartial, authoritative study from allegedly impartial analysts would help to break the impasse. Alas! Where is such an authority?

 

Is the crocodile . . . . .

Not to worry, there is such an authority. Well-known congressional scholars (one highly respected democrat and one highly respected republican, both characterized as fair and reasonable in their opinions) have concluded that the Republican party is broken. Really broken. As the experts put it regarding congressional dysfunction:

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition".  (Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein from their book "It's Even Worse Than It Looks")

.  .  .  .  . like a political party .  .  .  .  .

See that part about blowing off facts and science? That's really good. Anyway, congratulations Republican party and republican hard cores on a bad job poorly done. Keep up the bad work. Or, is that an unfair and imbalanced way to see things? One can be sure the republican party will rebut the bad job assertion with great zest and vigor, to say the absolute least.

 .  .  .  .  .  stepping on people?

Heard, understood, dispassionately considered, but not persuasive

The republican rebuttal is heard, understood, fairly considered, but is unpersuasive from an impartial non-ideological point of view. The republican party is the most dysfunctional of the two dysfunctional mega weight contenders. Again, congratulations to the republican party! Sort of.

Religion: Still a poor source of authority for political policy

California Moderates has criticized religion as the worst source of authority or guidance for establishing political policy. That was not a criticism of religion as it functions on other, non-political areas of human affairs. Religion is innate to humans and that is just the reality of it. On one extreme, people can choose to inject religion so that it completely dominates politics and on the other they can restrain that impulse and apply reason and logic instead. Many (most?) people, consciously or not, probably apply with some mix of religion (emotion) and logic and that likely affects political perceptions and preferences.

People who advocate for more religion, usually Christianity, in American politics have become much more vocal and aggressive in their demands over the last few years. Some Christians demand federal budgets that accord with biblical teachings. Some Christians use the bible as an authority source to advocate for liberal causes, e.g., action on climate change. Others use it as an authority source to advocate for conservative causes, e.g., less government.

Fading, more powerful and more aggressive 
but still a poor source for politics

Americans politically driven mostly by religion have become noticeably more politically powerful over the last few years, e.g., the Tea Party. Over the last few months there have been a series of situations where people demand more aspects of religion in various aspects of government and/or less government in religion. Despite all of that, demographic changes suggest that religion's influence on mainstream American society is fading at least somewhat, e.g., regular church attendance is low and decreasing. That demographic change in politics (not necessarily most other aspects of society) is arguably a good trend from a secular pragmatic point of view. Presumably, the loss of religious influence is disturbing from a religious point of view.

Demography aside, reliance on religious texts as a source of authority for political policy under a secular constitution really doesn't make much sense in the abstract. The bible provides essentially no rational basis for dealing with the complexities of modern life in a dynamic global economy, e.g., how to deal with complex internet freedom and security issues, Iran's nuclear weapons, the Israel-Palestine issue or global warming. Despite that, it is obvious that people can and will continue to insert their religion into politics as they wish. The best that can be hoped for is that religion does not become a larger influence on political thinking or policy than it already is. Religion, like two-party politics, is not an encouraging place to look for intelligent or efficient politics.