Report from Hamburg/Pinckney Chamber Candidate Forum

Hamburg Twp/Pinckney Chamber – Candidate Forum

Yesterday, I was at a candidate forum which had the contested primary races for the 47th district candidates and local candidates for Hamburg and Putnam Township offices. I didn’t have the time to stay for the Putnam races , but I was able to catch the races for the 47th and Hamburg positions. The 66th district candidates were not there. This was a Hamburg/Pinckney based forum.

What shocked me was the high turnout. That’s extremely rare at candidate forums as the Argus will attest to. I think most of the people there were on a candidate’s team, it may not necessarily be the case.

I was typing as the candidates were speaking and tried to get the comments as verbatim as possible. The grammar would get me an automatic F grade by my professors, so apologies in advance. The comments are paraphrases and near quotes of the candidate’s words themselves. The speeches are on public access cable in Hamburg, and probably Pinckney areas.

As far as my impressions, I think the 47th district will have a good replacement for Joe Hune. Joe has done a good job for us holding the line with taxes and spending (when others have not), but he is termed out. I am supporting Cindy Denby for this race, but not because the other candidates are bad. They aren’t. My reasons for supporting her is largely based on the job Joe has done and the job Cindy’s done as Hune’s Chief of Staff. She has experience and she’s got a longer record than the other candidates. Right now with 45 termed out legislatures is key. With her connections, it is likely she would get good committee seats. My 2nd choice would be Frank Portelli. Frank is a businessman and builder and I liked many of his comments in the two candidate forums I’ve seen. My favorite line from him is that less laws mean the state runs better. He’s a very straightforward candidate. Charlie Aberasturi has a business background and is a school board member. Carl Konopaska is a substitute teacher and interned at Joe’s office for a period.

As far as Hamburg goes, I’m staying far away from this. I know a lot of the people running including some candidates running against each other. A lot of the political battles there have become personal instead of strictly political contests. I do not live there, and do not want to be drawn into these personal battles by making endorsements there this year. My writing here with the Hamburg race is strictly as many of the words taken from the comments as possible and an attempt to be as unbiased as possible. These are their words and not my opinion of them.

47th District race

Opening
Charlie Aberasturi – Experience in financial problems needed, dedication, education. Worked with TRW, lived in 3 Liv co locations. One of 6 walked into empty building in Tyrone. TRW become largest employer in Livingston Co. MBA – EMU. Married 19yrs. Teaches Religious Ed. Pro-life. Coach. Member of Hartland board Reached agreement with teachers within budget. Don’t claim to have all the answers but will get all info.

Cindy Denby – 52, married for 32 years. Two grown children. Served Joe Hune as legislative aid for 5 years. Current Handy Twp Supervisor. 16 years(?) as twp super. . Owned business for 10 years. Pro-life. On exec board Livingston GOP. Experience advantage. Have the Professional relationships in Lansing to be effective. Goal - Economic changes, transaprncy in government. Visit her website. Cindydenby.com Endorsed by Hune and Ward.

Carl Konopaska. – 1999 grad, Howell High. Lived in County all my life outside of college. Two degrees, looking at EMU teaching degree. Intered in Hune’s office. Lives in Fowlerville. Substitute teacher in Howell and Fowlerville district. Working class. Understands living by paycheck week to week. www.carlkonopaska.com

Frank Portelli – 11 years in Livingston County. MSU grad. Married 16 years, 4 kids. Custom home builder. Business owner, not politician, and underdog. 20 years as ops manager. Always looks to do things Better, faster, cheaper. 9 years VP construction. 3 years president. Tier 1 auto. Worked for Johnson Control. Legislature is broken. Ineffective – partisanship lack of statewide agenda. Needs to be penalties for non-performance. If Bugdet set for May, complete it in May. Prison budget ½ billion higher. Education system - some well, some failing. Frankforrep.com

Questions.
1. What can you do in Lansing to help Business in there tough times.
Frank – Tax cuts record is clear. Any time taxes cut stimulates response. Small Business Owners create jobs. Exploit new opprotunities. State needs to back off of small businesses on taxes and regulations. Get out of the way. Encourage existing businesses.

Charlie – Thank you Frank for reading mind. Allow market and taxes gained by increased employment, not rates. State out of the way.

Cindy – Along with reducing regs, revisit MBT – Big misstake and surcharge additional mistake. Redo and make it fair. Many taken by surprise. Hune got a lot of angry calls over MBT. New program by foundations to encourage entrepreneur. $75mill in new programs to encourage business.

Carl – Regulate less, and MBT is effective a little bit or not at all due to little profit in a few years. Tax isn’t only thing. Cost of insurance. Huge costs for them. Make it affordable. Encourage small business. Middle class/small business trampled. Let it go its own cost. Plenty of rules/regs already.

Q2 – State funding of schools. (Low end finding, and attracting students)
Charlie – Current funding is immoral. Particulary within Livingston County. Bottom end funding. Other districts 11,000. Ours Avg 7800. State considers Livingston children 7/8 person. 2x funding is a start. Legislation let us down.

Cindy – Need to equalize funding. 2x funding a band-aid. Higher funded schools campaign for more dollars so it is struggle. Short term help SB486?(or 786?) Have some work ahead of us and need several reforms.

Carl – Before problem, evaluate district. Each has own size and population. For populations in Howell/Pinckney, larger – getting $7204 per student. But up north with same mileage, getting more and more. They don’t have busses/fuel. Before equal, must evaluate so each gets right amount. 2x step in right direction. Not closing the gap fast enough.

Frank – Equality is only way to make it fair for whole state. Problem is funding districts that fail to provide education. As long as continues, won’t build prisons fast enough. Structure is failing. Two much partisanship and debate. Priority issues not brought up. Things that make difference does not get past committee.

Q3 – Term limits what they should/shouldn’t be.

Cindy – Opposed to term limits. Preference to chamber plan. 14 years combined house/senate. Less turnover that way. 45 members will change. Lose historical memory and education by leaving.

Carl – Agree with Cindy, and adds. Double edged sword. Better to eliminate, but make it part time legislature. Eliminate costs for salary, benefits, and expenditures.

Frank – Supported term limits when proposed. They proved to be a failure. Revolving door who turned over running state to staff and special pacs and special interest groups. Personal relationships that need to be grown take time. Caused less consensus and bitter partisanship

Charlie – Term Limits should be abolished. Let voters decided if they want to elect someone 100 years. When government jumps in to decide what is good for people, it is usually bad idea.

Q4 - Fiscal responsibility. Taxes/cut.

Carl – Won’t raise taxes. Always way to cut fat out of the budget. Our legislature can start by taking a pay cut. Show leadership for state. Go back to giving mileage back to inspectors instead of twp cars. Way to save money. Leaders in Lansing/Twp/Cities need to set example for state using new ideas, products efficient, green (hate term but use it), ways to cut fat out of budget without taxes.

Frank – Raising taxes off table. Michigan can not bear additional taxes. Granholm said she cut budget to bone. Don’t agree. $10000 per inmate spent more than other states. Can make cut there. 39 states part time legislature. Cut salaries/benny, but multiplier of staff/overhead. Additional laws/regulations cut – real savings. Less laws mean state runs better.

Charlie – Need adequate info first. Have 33 years results organization, working church/youth. Think out of the box. No specifics. Reason why doesn’t work. Live within the budget.

Cindy – No budget problem, but there is a spending problem. 37 billion six years ago, now 44 billion. There is less people in state. Frank touched on corrections. Community health – fund programs for illegal aliens. Pork projects. Need to be eliminated. All departments can make some adjustments.

Q5 – What changes in state law for townships?
Frank – In addition to holding legislatures to fire, encourage regional cooperation with townships. Owns rental house in Tyrone that burned down. Knows more about Hartland-Deerfield authority works, and Tyrone opting out. Poor service provided. Regionalism over turf battles. Difficult, can be forced.

Charlie – Need to be proactive, what happens when property reduced and revenues decrease. Prepare for addressing that.

Cindy – Forclosures escalating. Significant number. Freezing taxable value of homes.

Carl – Don’t know a lot about township, but what observed from Handy twp – township boards aren’t involved enough in regular community. Same as legislatures. What happens with builders? Need more regulations. Homes built 4 years ago, sold 40,000 less. Gouging? Wants to be honest. Doesn’t know about it.

Q6 – Foreclosures.
Charlie – Solution is finding jobs for people so they can afford homes. Job creations, small businesses.

Cindy – Encourage state/local financial institutions to restructure loans. Not free money, but larger interest only payments. If foreclosured home – months to sell. Value lost in winter with damage.

Carl – Agree with Charlie. Not just min wage and $10 job. Skill trade jobs, and higher education kobs. Hi-tech jobs. Bring more people and keep in homes. It’s like credit card now. Nino loans – regulate.

Frank – State’s response needs to be economic opportunity. Primary job state should be working on. Townships – Deal with townships across SE MI as well as cities – Detroit, Flint, Pontiac, etc) Dealt with all. Some run very efficient ship. Easy to work with. Other are lacking. Help those that need to to run efficiently.

30 second closing.
Cindy – Thanks everyone. Website – cindydenby.com.
Carl – Thanks all. Conservative Christian pro-life working class candidate. Website.
Frank – Vote August 5. These issues that need to be addressed and not kicked down for a couple of years. Some employers are facing bankruptcy. Get legislature in order.
Charlie – 33 years financial experience and billion dollar budgets. MBA. Worked in manufacturing plants. TRW. Started 7 employeed. Left thousands employed.

Candidate forum, August 5 primary. – Break.

Hamburg Township offices. Contested Races – Super, Clerk, Treasurer.
Treasurer – Roberta Balon-Vaughn , Patrick Evon
Clerk – Matt Skiba, Joanna Hardesty.
Supervisor – Don Burtaw, Pat Hohl, Cindy Pine

Opening:
Don – Remember gas 19 cents. 35 years county/township government. Started Alpena County, Alpena township assessor. Code enforcement, building inspector. Then went to Washtenaw County. 19 years with them. Worked with county commissioners, supers, every township in Washtenaw. Currently, enforcement office in Hamburg. Good relationship with current officials and employees. Can work as team to get township forward.

Pat Hohl – Most know me as balding bearded party store guy. Cut beard. Raised on Indiana farm. Lassie, way I grew up. First in family to go to school. BA at Indiana State. Got MBA, worked at Dow chemical for 6 years, various states. Settled down here
. Been here since 1984. Two terms as planning commissional. Worked with 6 supervisors. Been through growth, knows what it needs. Financial issues need to be dealth with. General Fund draining. Can not do that. Sewer fund.

Cindy Pine - Not at forum due to family committment. Statement was read by Brian Jonckheere. Apologized for missing family commitment. Listed accomplishments. Paved Lakeland trail, created water district to pay debt, collective bargaining agreement. Get along better with neighbors. Less lawsuits. Bond rating increased to AA-. Protect lake/waterways. Biggest challenge, declining revenues. Cannot raise taxes. Need to be pro-active. Look 5 years down the road for planning. Efficient services needed. More professional work environment needed. No conflicts in business.. Committed to transparency.

Clerk
Skiba – Been in Hamburg since 2002. Politics can get ugly. I ran as my tax dollars improperly spent. Formal business education and 10 years real world business experience. Government accountable to people.. Transparency needed. Should be dozens of accountants reviewing expenditures (referring to residents).

Hardesty – 12 years as clerk. Married for 35 years. 3 children and grandchildren. Worked hard for Hamburg. Responsible record on fiscal issues. Responsible for accounting functions, elections, oversee human resources. Appointed rep for DBA, and several committees. Work hard to deliever services while keep spending in check. Organized Hamburg Family Fun Fest. Community entitled to representation without political games.

Treasurer
Evon – Challenge, and what treasurer should be doing about it. Was easy for years with grown, but now it is stopped. Taxable values dropping. 2010 likely major trouble. Must be engaged in cash flow projections. Software can be used to translate to values. ID problem now, magnitute, and when it will hit. Take appropriate measures now, not over/under reaction. Won’t get that with incumbent. No planning, do not know when bond payments due. # board members voted against something? (Dan – I think that was referring to the vote on non-statutory duties) Won’t happen again if elected. Working at least 20 hours week, present 5 year plan of cash flow.

Balon-Vaughn – Running for 3rd term. 11 year resident. Brings experience, leadership, commitment, dedication. Built network of professional relationship with leaders and elected officials. Maximized investment of millions of dollars under township’s care. Active member of community and local organizations. Responding to Allegations of opponent. – does not understand office. Bond payments responsibilities of super’s office and accounting deparment, with treasurer’s assistance. Tax bills on time. County each year. Prompt service. Public Act 20. Tracked all investments on monthly basis. Info on institution, CD’s, etc. Reports at office. All due dates on calander.

Questions – Why should you vote for me?
Hohl – Challenger to Super. Serious problem. No long term perspective. Defecit in sewer enterprise. General fund problems. Not critical, yet. $750,000 depleation in 4 years. Must operate from tax collection to tax collections. 3 balanced budgets that were not real balanced budgets – general fund. Sewer infrastructure. Needs upkeep in enterprise fund. Wastewater treatmentplant problems. Threatened with 201 sanctions. Must be proactive and get DEQ off our back. Hartland was sanctioned. Do not need that in Hamburg.

Burtaw – What he said is true, but he’s on the board. Things are divided. Not working as a team. If trustee, dept head. All need to be involved. Can’t be done by one infividual. Team effort. If elected, we will work as a team.

Hardesty – Incumbent clerk. 12 years. Experienced and knowledge of general law government. Professional leadership and will continue to do so.

Skiba – Not as experienced. What was she doing prior to this? Was secretary from Green Oak. I have proven myself with some experiences. Can take on any challenges, statutory/non statutory duties. Two degrees and accreditations.

Evon – Worked for Chevy central office and retired from EDS. Experience to bring efficiency to the office. Will use treasurer numbers to look at cash flow. Will be transparent and effective.

Balon-Vaugn – Transparent – Anyone can come up to the window. Reports available. 8 years, and I still do not know everything. Takes a long time to learn issues. More than tax bills. Up until last couple of months, no negative press. No drama on staff. Nothing perfect, will listen to changes needed for township and treasurer office.

Q – Recent changes for employees. – Employees responsibilities reporting to. Morale, working together.

Burtaw – Right now, the zoning dept is a 2 man department. I report to Pat Hagman. We have great working relationship. I work well with employees and elected officials. Helped in other departments. I won’t say it is down, better than has been, can get better.

Hardesty – Board took action. Reasons because of current admin and way it was handled. Morale of employees great up until 3 months ago with public bashing of employees themselves and admins. Concerning. Reading about themselves in public forum. Needs to be fixed. Get nasty politics behind us. Pay levels – Compensation study and pay grades established. Competitive with similar departments. Not adhered to. 3 year plan, but participated in 1 year plan. Working hard to keep employees. As far as board goes. I’m board member. Open communication with employees.

Matt – I really had opp to go door to door. Leaning more and more about township run and board. Seen it myself. Learned that lot of stories that I don’t think taxpayers are aware of. Uestions – Don’t know as much as I’m not incumbent. Pay levels. Needs to be one. Why taken so long? I’ve been here since 02 and already upset with things run. If elected, I have 0 tolerance of a few things in Press and Argus. Take personality out of situation. Need someone in charge that can be good decision. Too many relationships formed past 8 to 12 years.

Pat – Not aware of morale problems. Only seen what is in meetings. Employees report direct super. What I know.

Balon-Vaughn – Change of reporting – reason is because Joanna and I were not informed of all situations. Needed more tranparence. Since changes, zoning gives daily emails. Most I’ve known in long time. Address the problems in real time, not catchup work. Morale – have been problems. Prior admin. Changed some. Drama is in last 4 months debilitating to morale. Countdown to election since people can’t stand it. Board – We always don’t agree and agree to disagree some ways. Don’t vote same way as all, I vote my mind. Don’t want rubber stamp board. If elected, will listen to concerns and vote accordingly.

Hohl – 7 people on board. Reason set up this way. 7-0 vote is wasting money. Nothing wrong with disagreement, but retribution. Not happened as much as in past. Report – needed open communication. Reiteration what heard, but not occurring. Water issue is threatening to township. 7 people on board. 5 in favor. There’s reason. Not game. Staff morale good. It is the season and goofy things happen. It’s a shame, and takes away from the board. 18 days and we’ll be back to work. Board has to address benefits issue, and pay issue.

Joanna – Property taxes do increase by cost of living. Not at issue of pass based on SEV’s With values decreasing, how handled. Services for general law – get tremendous pay for buck. Police, fire, rec. Have sewers, bringing water to township. Relatively small budget compared to others and give city services to community. 5 year projection. Working on that. Ask for that when budget prepared.

Matt – It’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that Hamburg has challenges. How are we handling this? Less revenue to work with. As real estate agent 10 years ago, agree we were in best seller’s market. Now best buyer’s market. How effects? Did prior not forcast this? Who knows how long recession will last? Some expected levels of service may be too high. Will look at it if elected. Need to focus on essential costs, and what necessary to run township. In time of decline property, not time to take two officers off street. Need them back in Hamburg.

Evon – Things are tough and need cutbacks, but certain level of services. Cash flow assessments needed to know what provide.

Balon Vaughn – Many communities operating in red. Many can not seem to function. 8 years ago, board put away money to build fund up. Still have 2.2 fund balanced. Need to maintain services within budget constraints. We will do so. Should have new cop on street.

Pat Hohl – Property values will be back inbalance. Sales taking place below SEV. That will filter through system and people will go to board of review. Adjustment will me made. Need to keep general fund balance. Nobody been on end of 1-6 vote balance as much as I have. We need to address this long term.

Burtaw – Agree to some degree with Pat. Spent 30 years as accessor. Counties dictate what will happen. They do studies – all classes of property. Mandated by law. If nothing done at local level, then county will make adjuctments needed to make. No getting away from it. In 80’s 11% interest. Poor risk 15%. Feds lowered rates, but it’s going to come back. Was against proposal A. Part of problem lending institutions – Countrywide. Interest only loans – can’t qualified – and own property. Market will turn around, but takes time. Funding balance June 07 – 2.435 million. July 08 – 2.079164. I think we’re OK.

Negitivity questions. – Positives.

Skiba – With a lot of changes in officials, the side effect will go away. Right people in place, and bickering will stop. What can happen positive? Great place in Hamburg. Got the lakes. Was vacation spot in 1800’s still Hamburg. It will come through.

Evon – Been here 34 years, will be another 34. People will come together and make it great place to live no matter who wins.

Balon Vaugn – Most part we get along. I have not engaged in neg campaign, will continue to do that and will campaign on my record. No problems in office until minor issues since corrected. No problem at any cost to twp. Open communication with residences and manage funds effectively. Can deposit checks same day to get day/2 of interest – every bit counts. Stretch dollars and make it work. Institutes passports since first elected. Need to find new sources of income.

Hohl – One of 5 safest areas in Michigan. Two jewels Huron Rivers and Brighton Rec Area in north. There’s a reason this place will hold people here. Gas prices problem, but very upscale community. Work together cooperate, and share benefits of community. Make township as good as can while we are here.

Burtaw- Moved here 22 years ago. Love this community and made commitment to what can to move this forward. FEMA audit (Flood insurance). Rating came in at one of the highest. Commend dept for that. Work hard to see those rates of those that need it kept at low rate. Rating fails, we are in trouble. Current admin makr sure it does function. Talked to 1000 people. Hands on. Knows what people want and are looking for.

Joanna – Hamburg awesome community to be part of. Positive of community is services offered – police/fire/library, erc. Efficent and friendly service of office on daily basis. Working with residences of community. Reduction in ISO rating saved thousands of dollars in fire insurance. Outstanding community. We heard challengers say when things settle down, we’ll work together. The challengers are creating it. We’re responding in defensive mode.

Hamburg Trustees:
Opening

Howard Dillman (not here)
Michael Dolan (Not here)

Bill Hahn – Best candidate for these reasons. 30 year resident. 30 years at Ford Motor. Senior management. 3 degress. BS (Purdue), MBA, Econ (UD). Flood prevention committee organized after 2004. Tells things like it is.Running for two reasons. 1. Turmoil on board. Gaming has to stop. Clear back in end of March when group of 4 voted to take away Cindy Pine’s non statutory duties. Decided because of that. 2nd reason – Spending v revenue. Agreed with a lot of what Pat Hohl talked about. Address those issues.

Jason Negri – Treating this job interview. Peacemaker. Training – Lawyer who asks tough questions. Both are critical qualities. Debate is good, but need to move in same direction. On Board of Review. Values decrease, assessments up. Prop A issue. Be prepared for challenges. Millages, business friendly community, environment, etc. Fiscal conservative.

Phillip Sempenivo – Wonderful quality of life here. Needs to be enhanced. Difficult economic times here. Problems with us for years to come. Services costs and economy issue. Education and experience is to id solutions to problems. Done that in boom and tough times. Problems not solved by things, but people. Conflict without resolution helps nobody. If you want more creative ideas, broaden audience. Techniques need to be different in boom time different than down time.

Kevin Wiley – Married 28 years, lived in Hamburg for 10 years. Education – Assoc engineering. BA Industral tech, MBA. Worked at GM. Member of board 2000-2004 trustee. Make sure spend less than receive. Avoid debt. Essential services funded. Police/Funding.

Michael Ziegeleski (sp) - Resident for 12 years. Working knowledge of government, functions, and powers. Excellent impersonal skills. Ethical manner with fosters trust. Manage adversity and hostility. Use consensus building abilities. Leaning policies, laws, contracts, and intergovernmental. Need change on board. Put end of turf wars, petty politics, and petty pickering. Put checkbook online. Best interest of people of township and bring change we need to bring effective township administration and government.

Chuck Menzies – Incumbent. Experienced. 8 years on board, and have knowledge and know which way it is going. Technical and admin knowledge. Running for right reasons. 21 years in township, married 38 years. Have no slate or political agenda. Vote conscience, do research and respond. Planning commission 18 years, appeals prior to this. Things are hard and changed, and running bare bones, but .(timed out)

Q1. Growth – positive and negative. What should/shouldn’t be done.

Michael – Hamburg one of fastest growing township. Issue adequately addressed in master plan. Growth for sake of growth can have downside, but anti-growth is not appropriate either. Well managed growth.

Chuck – Bone of contention since here. Can’t stop growth and development. Can control it. Master plan in place, still working on it. Residential is here. Won awards with open space. Have CVS/Kroger – not in overnight. Chilson commons, has character.

Jason – Demographic of business is changing. Failed to diversify economy. Not done until last two years. Smaller community. Livingston is still growth. Controlled growth is the entrepreneualrship. Livingston wireless. Does not need to compromise family friendly and rural character and quality of life.

Phil – When experienced it, worry out of hand. If not have it, worry about it. Balanced approach. Economic challenges. We want to curtail unchecked growth, but need to stimulate growth right now in this economy.

Bill – 30 years. Then cottages. Seen changes. Trails, open spaces. Lakes cleaner. Maintain those pluses. Problems. Traffic flow increase. 2nd issue flood prevention. Huron River water increasing. Effective flood prevetion committee, plan to keep working on it.

Kevin – Growth dependent on economy. Go back to Pat Hohl said earlier. Looks more like late 70’s/80’s with growth. Draw more commercial business to community to bring revenue. Lost industry in area.

Q2 – New Fire station. HQ not substation.
Chuck - First, people voted a millage for new fire station. Old one 100 yrs old. Need one in East part of township. Some closed sessions were on land. Voted by people. Needed it. Bidded. Is it Taj Mahal? No. Big? Yes. Plan for the future. Contractors were at their bidding on costs. 5-10 years, would be more. Doesn’t have stained glass or Italian tile. No dorms, etc. Needed to be bricked by master plan requirements. Better build now, than add on.

Jason – When voted on, people thought growth. Now second guessed. Running 2/3 complain. 1/3 coming around now and thinks it is needed. Echo Chuck on costs. Not going to be Monday Morning QB. In a couple of years, will probably think good decision.

Phillip – Wasn’t there for discussion. Did not see anyone saying that wasn’t future need of something to be done. Taxpayers said same. Some question (Pat Hohl dissent) and alternative strategy needed. Difficult to Monday QB. No sound argument not needed for future.

Bill – Less government, less spending. Never voted for millage until I voted for this fire millage. Downside, had I been onboard, would have voted for smaller substation concept building that 3 board members supported, but would protected or added some future plan to expand in most efficient lowest cost matter. Consistent message on door to door – Taj Mahal. Hopefully things work out, but I would have voted for less expensive building.

Kevin – It’s done. Voted no, but it’s there now, and we have it and need to keep it operating. Sided with Hohl on this.

Michael – Live on NE Quadrant. Problem with direct access to fire service. When millage came first time, in favor. Did research and benefited for it. Not aware of how much spent. 11,000 sq ft impression. Substation. Also not thrilled about renewing millage going with large building. Have money, doesn’t have to necessary be spent. Bad taste – move from volunteer dept to new department.

Q – Different personalities on board and opinions. How do you see yourself to bring working together of township. Loss of revenue, etc.
Jason – No illusions. Whoever realizes with scrutiny that expectation is on us to work together no matter what. No comment on current politics. Served on two boards with difficult situations. Was president on one, and they will say that I acted in professional matter. We’re supposed to be for the good of Hamburg. Would like to be voice of reason.

Phillip – Conflict not bad thing. Couple of members say nothing wrong with points of view. Reality with clashing – if managed right, can end up with better 3rd idea. I’m an effective facilitator. Can help people work through difficult situations and bring good group solutions. Whole greater than some of parts.

Bill – Turmoil at present board is bad. That’s reason I’m running as trustee. Help board get back to teamwork and cooperation. Adversity before decision is good. Different views need to be discussed. Leads to better decisions. Once decision made, needs to be supported and moved on. Have to get back to teamwork, cooperation in Hamburg. Period. New Clerk, Treasurer, four new trustees. That’s his vision.

Kevin – Challenging board members in meetings is good. Board did what needed to do and get business taken care of. He’ll do his part as he did 2000-2004 to make place better to us.

Michael – Here to serve people of Hamburg twp. See distinct differences in personality and viewpoint and not functioning in way cooperative. I don’t see being on winning side of all votes, but it’s best to move on after a vote when decision is made. Not about me or my agenda. We need to have some cooperation and stop not communicating and be about interest serving and not ourselves.

Chuck – Incumbent. Running for one seat. Cooperaiton – Can disagree without being disagreeable. Not turmoil. Disagreements. We all vote together, why have 7 man board. Some diversity. Some disagreements. We all can get along. 21 years active in township government on different commissions. Friends with 5 of 6 supers. No problem debating them, but will feel good at home. Situation with super - It’s too long to get into. I’m not running for super or clerk, but trustee. Will keep train on track.

Q. Can you talk about 1 specific change you will accomplish in four years

Phillip – Better understanding of what real costs are? When we look at service provided, what are component parts of cost. Not just total cost, but what goes into that. Modeling of services to understand what getting. Worst thing inbudget is 2% across board. That’s dumb. Need to look at components.

Bill – Look back after 4 years and be part of board that got costs under control with no property tax increase.

Kevin – Township reassess at whole where at with individual budgets and look for more efficient ways to do what they do today. Engage with those doing work.

Michael – I would like to see everything revenue/expenditure online so all citizens can see where money is spent and how (without FOIA). Transparency. Brighton Township does that.

Chuck – See big projects completed and under budget. Water project down M-36. We get water, we get business, and can pay it off. Brighton/Green Oak has it done, we’re still finishing.

Jason – We’re all concerned about budget. Target specific spending cuts. Chuck spot on with businesses coming in. Need there here, not another community. Need to look back at balanced budget and growth mode.

Obama Judges - a preview? (Chemerinsky?)

Arguably the number one star lawyer for the left just released a book. Erwin Chemerinsky just released a book called Enhancing Government

It was reviewed in the WSJ.

The relation between the federal government and the governments of the various states is a chestnut of constitutional theory, a perennial cause of angst and a gauge of American politics generally. In antebellum America, Southern states claimed the right to ignore federal law, presaging the Civil War. In the past century, Progressive arguments for the federal -- rather than the state -- regulation of labor set in motion the centralized administrative juggernaut that became Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. More recently, the Rehnquist's Court's restrictions on federal authority, in favor of state autonomy, captured the Reagan Revolution's enthusiasm for decentralizing governmental power.

In "Enhancing Government," Erwin Chemerinsky provides a kind of holograph of what federalism -- as the federal-state relation is confusingly called -- would resemble if the U.S. were to enter a period of liberal ascendancy. His timing could not be better, since the chance of such an ascendancy is not exactly remote: A Barack Obama presidency seems possible, together with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Mr. Chemerinsky sketches a vision of federalism that would empower government at all levels and delight civil plaintiffs and criminal defense lawyers of every description. The great virtue of Mr. Chemerinsky's book is that it serves as a blueprint for the Obama administration and a fair warning to its opponents.

Mr. Chemerinsky argues that no constitutional principle prevents the federal government from regulating any matter. Accordingly, he sharply criticizes the decision in United States v. Lopez, where the Rehnquist Court held that the federal government lacked the authority to prohibit carrying guns near a school. Second, he solves one of the great federalism controversies -- whether state or federal courts are more competent to adjudicate federal legal claims -- by allowing civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants to choose whichever court that they prefer: presumably the one that, in their view, will most likely vindicate their rights. Finally, he argues that state law should yield only to an express federal directive contradicting it. Thus, in his view, the Supreme Court was wrong to hold that the Food and Drug Administration's approval of a medical device precluded state tort suits impugning the device's safety.

Mr. Chemerinsky's brand of federalism expresses an enthusiasm for regulation and a distrust of the market. Fair enough, if that is one's (Democratic) sense of things, although businesses should beware. But are his ideas defensible on other grounds? Take his claim that the court's decision in Lopez had no basis in the constitutional text. You can arrive at such a conclusion only if you throw out the hallowed principle that the federal government possesses only enumerated powers. Congress passed its ban on carrying guns near schools under its authority to "regulate commerce among the several states," but carrying a gun is not a commercial act and affects only the state where the school is located. Thus the court's decision on behalf of local law.

.....

So how probable is it that Mr. Chemerinsky's ideas will make their way into American law? It is hard to say. He is a prominent legal scholar -- now the dean of the new law school at the University of California at Irvine. If elected, Mr. Obama, himself a former teacher of constitutional law, may well choose federal judges -- or Supreme Court justices -- who know of Mr. Chemerinsky's work and the work of like-minded scholars. The legal theorizing of today is the judicial opinion of tomorrow. Still, we can hope that prudence will trump politics. To obliterate constitutional federalism -- because "yes, we can" -- would return us to the orthodoxies of an era of centralized power, something Mr. Obama professes to have left behind. We'll see.

Clinton wanted to nominate him in the 1990's, and was told by the GOP that he was DOA in committee. With the dems in charge of the senate, that might not be the case if Obama wins.

Speculators and drilling

Larry Kudkow at the National Review has a good piece about Bush's push for drilling. As I said in my last post, I wish this was done when gas hit $2 a gallon, but this here is a start. Congress is in the way as usual.

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

Democrats are whining about this won't help short term. Maybe it will. Even if it is only long term, it is high time we start thinking both short and long term with our energy policies. I support nuclear energy and alternative energy as well as drilling. I also support energy independence from the Middle East so those country there stop having us by the nuts.

Where was this when gas hit $2.00 a gallon?

I was going to title this $3 a gallon, but make it $2, since I was mad when that happened. Bush is finally lifting the executive order ban on offshore drilling. I'm glad he's doing this, but this needed to be done a long time ago.

From Bloomberg

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said today he's lifting a presidential ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, setting up a showdown with Congress over a separate ban it put in place in the 1980s.

``Today I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS,'' Bush said in a statement at the White House. ``This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action by the U.S. Congress.''

Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress rejected the president's call, saying the move to end the moratorium would have no effect on prices and better options are available.

Pressure to permit drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean coastlines and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been building as oil and gasoline prices have surged to records.

....
About 17.8 billion barrels and 76 trillion cubic feet of gas are off-limits to drilling as a result of congressional and presidential moratoria, according to the Minerals Management Service, an agency of the U.S. Interior Department.

The oil available would amount to just over two years of U.S. consumption. Bush today said the potential reserve from the restricted areas would last almost 10 years.

Democrats have blocked congressional efforts to lift the ban, arguing that Republican estimates of available energy resources are overstated and doing so would have no short-term effect. Democrats in both chambers are pushing legislation to force oil companies to start drilling on 68 million acres where they already hold leases.

I don't give a damn about short-term effect. Does this help long term? Yes it does. It increases the supply as the demand increases. Everyone knows about supply and demand.

Now drilling is not the only solution, but it is ONE IMPORTANT aspect of the solution as it helps dillute the power of countries that hate us, and also helps bridge an eventual transition away from oil.

Livingston County Millage Proposals on August Ballot

Kudo's to the Argus for listing them. I only knew of the Hamburg one. Most of these are renewals, but Hamburg's is a new one.

Conway Township: Renewal of 2-mill tax for road improvement, maintenance and dust control projects that would run Sept. 30, 2008-Dec. 31, 2011. The tax would raise $254,900 in its first year.

Deerfield Township: The rolled back 0.9630 mill rate for dust control and road maintenance would be pushed up to 1 mill and last from Sept. 30, 2008-Dec. 31, 2011. The increase will bring in an additional $1,223 in the first year, resulting in a total of $17,295.

Fowlerville Area Fire Authority: Renewal of 1.1 mill for capital equipment, operation, facilities and improvements that would run from December 2008-December 2012. Tax would raise $618,320 in its first year.

Hamburg Township: A 10-year 1 mill tax for operation of the Hamburg Township Fire Department, which would replace an expired 10-year 1 mill tax. In it’s first year, the tax would raise approximately $1.04 million.

• Renewal of 0.4418 mill for operation and equipment cost of the Hamburg Township Library. The tax would run from 2009-2013 and bring in $438,000 in its first year.

Howell Area Fire Authority: Renewal of 1.1 mill for operation, capital equipment, facilities and improvements for authority that would run from December 2008-December 2012. Tax would raise $1.97 million in its first year.

Pinckney Community Public Library: Renewal of 0.9562 mill that would run 2009-2014 and bring in $338,800 in its first year.

Gas companies which don't import from Middle East?

I've been trying to find out for a long time which companies import from the Middle East or is owned Hugo Chavez (Citgo). I hope this is accurate.

Terror-Free Oil is a website which among other things, list companies which do not import oil from the Middle East - and some that do.

Ones in Michigan that do not import from the Middle East, according to this site are:

Sunoco
Cenex (Which has stores in the UP)
Holiday (North Michigan)
Flying J - Usually cheaper - Benton Harbor, Saginaw, and Lansing/Grand Ledge area.

They also list those that DO import from the Middle East. The three that surprised me are BP (I thought it was British and Canadian), Shell (Dutch), and Marathon. I remember Marathon ads bragging about "Made in America."

If you have any accurate (not chain email) information about which oil is home or at least not from the Middle East or from people like Hugo Chavez, let us know. I'd rather not pay money to places that finance people like Osama Bin Laden.

Michigan does not need a constitutional convention

Over on Right Michigan, there is a debate over whether Michigan should have a constitutional convention. Dennis Lennox, most known for being a thorn in the side of Gary Peters, eloquently makes a case that Michigan should have a constiutitonal convention and sited term limits and the snake oil "reform" proposal by the democrats for support of the con-con. Despite sharing his opinion of term limits and the snake oil ballot proposal by the democrats, I could not disagree with him more strongly for several reasons.

First off, too many elitist types will hijack a constitutional convention to get rid of our top safeguards against tax increases - the Headlee Amendment and Proposal A. If the constitution is opened up, that is fair game, as is our version of the 2nd Amendment (Article 1, sec 6) and a host of other issues.

The main pushers of this group pushing for the conbention is the current bunch at "Citizens for Michigan" lead by elitist democrats and liberal republicans. People like newspaper publisher and former UM trustee Phil Power (D), tax hike supporter Joe Schwarz and his buddy Harry Gast, Former AG Frank Kelley, Debbie Dingell, John Hertel, and Dan DeGrow. That gets my guard up if there ever was one. Most of those legislators were not exactly the epidomy of greatness while in Lansing. Anyone in Southeast Michigan who reads the Brighton Argus, Livingston County Press, and Observor and Eccentric Newspapers know the leanings of Mr. Power.

Back in late 2006, they had a study with several recommendations to change our constitution. Their recommendations are as follows.

1. Increase Term Limits

I do not have a problem with that. I oppose term limits at the state level. Thanks to term limits, we had our fee increases by Rick Johnson and company back in the end of 2004 - which I think is part of the reasons we lost the state house in 2006.

2. Make it harder for constitutional amendments to be passed here.

This was in response to the holy grail of the elite and the Richard Florida crowd - affirmative action. That's a large part of what spun this into action. Now the left is trying to gore our ox on the ballot initative. Maybe so, but that's not a good reason to throw this out.

3. - Eliminating the state Natural Resources and the Agriculture commissions and allowing the governor to appoint her entire cabinet

Why should Granholm have all the power? We need checks and balances in this state.

4. Allowing the governor to appoint members of the State Board of Education and the governing boards of the state's three largest universities, subject to advice and consent of the State Senate and a partisan balance. Currently, members of the State Board of Education, regents of the University of Michigan, trustees of Michigan State University and governors of Wayne State University are elected.

Again, why should Granholm have this power? While I'm not a fan of the convention nomination system and prefer old fashion primaries, I at least have SOME say with that system. I'd rather let people have the say as opposed to the elite. Maybe it's just my Jeffersonian roots. If this is going to be changed, let there be primaries.

5. Allow the governor to appoint Supreme Court Justices to a single 10-year term with partisan balance on the high court.

HELL NO! Dealbreaker right off the bat. Partisan balance does not exist and will not as long as there are appointments. The most powerful branch of government needs to be balanced by the people and not by politicians. While I do not agree with a convention nomination system, anything that takes away the checks and balances away from the people is damn wrong. If Stephen Reinhardt is appointed under this new proposal, I have no say whatsoever in opposing his disregard for the constitution. Under the current system, I can vote him out.

6. - Levy an additional statewide mill to fund school district building programs that over time would reduce bonding mills at the local level

A tax increase. No way.

7. Eliminate super-majority voting requirements spelled out in the constitution. Banking code amendments were one example of voting requirements.

Why? Why was there a supermajority in the first place?

8. - Eliminate restrictions on local taxation, particularly for transportation

No. I remember the days of the runaway millages back in the late 80's. People were taxed out of their homes. We need fiscal responsibility instead and less taxes. I don't have Phil Power's money.

9. - Eliminate the Headlee rollback provision in Article IX, Section 31

That is the number one goal of the leftists who want to have a constitutional convention. Eliminate the barriers so our taxes go up.

10. Alter language regarding local elected official recalls so that the only reason for recall would be malfeasance or misfeasance

The democrats are still mad about losing the state senate after the 1983 tax increase. Tax increases are a damn good reason for a recall. It's another check and balance the leftists and the elitists want to take away from us since they believe they know better.

11. Allow the governor the option of a "pocket-veto"

We do not need to give the executive any more powers. We have the veto and override. That's good enough.

There's a reason why we do not have a lot of constitutional conventions. People are rightly suspicious when it comes to changing it. I really would not want to see the elimination of Headlee or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, ex post facto laws, or tax safeguards in this state. They were enacted for a good reason. Government abused its power, and people moved to limit it. With a constitutional convention, all these safeguards are on the table to be removed. That is unacceptable.

I will say this. If there will be a constitutional convention, I will run for constitutional delegate and will knock on 15,000+ doors and try and raise $50,000+ if I have to win that delegate spot in an election. Freedom will be attacked, and it must be defended with absolute vigilance.

In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.

I agree with RM here, with this addition, copied from my response to DL on his item.
The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year. The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions. And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report. And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates. A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high. The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

Fight both the Con RMGN and the Con of the Con-Con.

That is something I missed completely and is why it the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of can get their people in there.

If "Hell No" was an option on this constitutional convention, I would vote for it. I'll have to settle for "no." The prospects of what can happen at the constutional convention are about as frightening as facing the business end of a gun.

The boy who cried wolf

One thing that irks me about many activist groups is what I call "The Boy who cried wolf syndrome." While my email box was flooded with the Obama's UN gun control bill email (not true, it was a bad spending bill but not a gun control bill and his record is so horrific on that issue that it doesn't need falsehoods) and the Obama's a Muslim rumor, it detracts from the real record of his that sucks. These false wolf sightings hurt the real disasters that Obama presidency will bring to us, like his appointments of Supreme Court justices and Federal Reserve governors that have a lasting impact on our country long after he is gone. At best, the real wolf is overshadowed by false wolf sightings, and at worst when the real wolf appears, nobody listens.

Now we have this battle brewing among the GOP. From the Detroit News

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of this summer's GOP convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles.

McCain has not yet signaled the changes he plans to make in the 2004 Republican platform. But many conservatives say they fear wholesale revisions could emerge as candidate McCain seeks to put his stamp on a document that is a paean to the policies and principles of President Bush.

"There is just no way that you can avoid anticipating what is going to come. Everyone is aware that McCain is different on these issues," said Jessica Echard, the executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum. "We're all kind of waiting with anticipation because we just don't know how he's going to thread this needle."

The convention platform is not worth a fight. It is symbolic and nothing more or nothing less. What the REAL platform is not given at the convention, but it given by the combination of all the candidates running for all the partisan seats across this country, from precinct delegate where I'll be serving a fourth term to township trustee to county commissioner to sheriff to state rep to state senate to congress to senate to president. The convention platform is a piece of paper, not a constitution.

I haven't even looked at the current platform until this article. That tells you how important it really is. 92 pages. I only needed to get to page 2 when I found a major domestic policy disagreement. His boondoggle prescription drugs plan and No Child Left Behind. Since when are federal expansions of government republican values? Now where I come from. It's inclusion in the platform doesn't bother me that much. The actions themselves are another story.

I have no problem with a total rewrite. I'd reduce the GOP platform to one sentence. The Republican party supports less government and more freedom. That's it. 92 pages dillutes its value. I'm not reading 92 pages of something that is purely symbolic. What's there may be important to the marketing crowds and cocktail parties in DC, but it isn't that important to real America.

The most important thing though isn't the platform language. It is the grumbling about McCain changing the platform....when it hasn't been changed yet. The wolf hasn't been on the hunt yet. Why is the Eagle Forum raising Hell before there is something to raise Hell about? If McCain is excluding pro-life speakers like Clinton did to Bob Casey Sr in 1992 than I would be raising a little Hell as that would be sending a clear message. We as conservatives need to pick our battles. Be prepared for the wolf, but don't sound the alarm until he's there ready to attack our pets and lifestock. If I was the Eagle Forum, I'd be pushing McCain more on the VP choice and judicial nominees than I would be on platform language.

Informed voters are the best voters

Informed voters are the best voters, and here are two events to help voters be more informed in their decisions.

The first is run by the TAR's (Teenage Republicans). This is July 11th. It's a candidate forum for candidates from the 47th and 66th district. Confirmed candidates there are Charlie Aberasturi, Cindy Denby, and Frank Portelli in the 47th District, and Bill Rogers and Jason Corosanite from the 66th District.

Admission is $5. The money goes to a non political account.

The event is at the Michigan Group Building
6870 Grand River Ave. (Between Hughes/Door Roads and Hacker Road)
Brighton, MI 48114

The other event is on July 17th and run by the Pinckney area Chamber of Commerce. They will have a meet the candidates event as well. That is at 6 p.m. July 17 and will be at Hamburg Township Hall which is at 10405 Merrill Road, South of M-36. I do not know which candidates will be there, but I'm sure the Hamburg candidates will be.

Granholm wants to lower the speed limit? Go to Hell!!!

In the words of Sammy Hagar, "I can't drive 55". Here's another idiotic idea from the "Matt Millen" of governors.

From Gannett/Argus

Gov. Jennifer Granholm suggested today that Michigan might want to consider enactment of slower speed limits on some state highways as a means of reducing costs in an era of high fuel prices.

“I think it’s something we might want to take a look at,” Granholm said in response to a question at a roundtable meeting with reporters to unveil a new state, Web-based service designed to help Michigan residents save money on housing, health care and gasoline.

Granholm said lower speed limits are “not a proposal,” but should be considered in light of the significant reduction in fuel consumption that results from reducing speed, and as one of many steps that could be taken to decrease demand for energy resources as the state and nation move toward alternatives to oil and gas.

First off, this won't help much. Very few drove 55 anyway when it was the speed limit thanks to the democrats of the 1970's. That law was broken by most of the population because it was a bad law unworthy of being followed when the expressways were built for 70 MPH speed limits. All this does is feed disrespect for the law.

Another reason this is bad is that it costs the state more money to replace all those signs changing the speed limits.

Another reason this is bad is that this creates bottlenecks. Some go 90MPH and some go 40 - look at US-23 for a posterboy of that right now. I hate bottlenecks with a passion and will go 80MPH (and be tailed by those going 90MPH) to pass cars just to get around wolf packs so I am not close to a chain of cars and can be as close to lone wolf as possible on the freeway. After than I go with traffic around 74-75MPH. Space between cars is good. It avoids tailgating (and me tapping my brakes if you do tailgate me). It causes less accidents as it increases reaction time in many situations (unless a deer crosses your path).

People who want to drive slower to reduce costs have several options without government pointing a gun at their heads. They can go 55 in the Right Lane. That's what the slow lane is for. They can drive on other roads besides the expressway. I often avoid US-23 myself when I go to Ann Arbor, Brighton, or the Detroit suburbs. I take fewer trips myself. I go to Meijer (Screw Walmart) less often and go more often to the local Mom and Pop place 3 miles from me.

If Granholm REALLY wants to lower fuel costs, she can get the state to fasttrack approval on a new oil refinery. "Build it here and it is approved, no questions asked." It's not like we don't need the jobs here. That will even increase the tax base in this state. She can also stop the sales tax on gasoline costing us more money. That won't happen anytime soon. Government is addicted to money.

County Commission: Concerned Taxpayers Group PAC endorses James Mantey and Ronald Van Houten

I just got this in the email box from Bill. I heard talk about interviews upcoming in a couple of primary contests, but I forgot about it completely. I wasn't on the panel here, but I trust the judgment of the Concerned Taxpayers Group and their PAC panels. This is the first County Commissioners race they are involved with. I hope it is not the last race either as I'd like to see the mission expand from its school board origins (enhancement millage).

I don't normally post press releases, but I make an exception for the Concerned Taxpayers Group PAC as I am one of the founders of that organization. I stepped down due to time constraints awhile back, and the position I had there was left in good hands. I can't ask for anything better.

The email:

CONCERNED TAXPAYERS GROUP, PAC, OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY

For Immediate Release - July 1, 2008
Contact: William Johnston (phone number removed)
Howell, Michigan

TAXPAYERS PAC PICK MANTEY AND VAN HOUTEN

The Concerned Taxpayers Group, PAC, endorses James Mantey, District 2 and Ronald Van Houten, District 4 for the Livingston County Commissioners race on the August 5th ballot. Both candidates are running in the Republican Party primary. Ronald Van Houten is in District 4, which includes all of Handy Township, Iosco Township, Unadilla Township, Precinct 1 of Marion Township and Precinct 3 of Howell Township. James Mantey is in District 2, which includes Precinct 2 of Howell Township, Precinct 3 and 11 of Genoa Township and all of Deerfield and Oceola Townships.

This evening a panel of Livingston County citizens interviewed four candidates from Districts 2 and 4. The interviewing process is done as a public service to the citizens of Livingston County. The voters of Livingston County should have as much knowledge as possible about which candidates will control taxes and excessive government growth.

Both candidates have the desire, the knowledge and experience to guide Livingston County through the difficult economic times of the present and the future. Livingston County is being hit by the declining economy of the state, collapsing real estate values and increased operating costs. The growth of Livingston County revenue has slowed and with no signs of improving in future years.

Paid for by the CONCERNED TAXPAYERS GROUP, PAC, of LIVINGSTON COUNTY with regulated funds
(Address removed)

NRA to expose gun grabber Obama

The NRA has a fairly lenient policy when it comes to guns. You can screw up a couple of times and still get a good rating. Even multiple times if you vote right on a couple of major bills, like Joe Schwarz did. The Cult of Obama's record is horrific however, and the NRA needs to kick Jim Jones' ass. He's a con man, but it's for this con job to be exposed.

From Politico

“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico.

That is the number one key. Obama voted against John Roberts. Obama voted against Samuel Alito. Those two made the difference in that decision. Now what did Obama say about SCOTUS nominees?

From MSNBC, hardly a conservative site.

Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

The Supreme Court justice's job is simple. It is to read the Constitution, read the law, and interpret it. Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to be legislative, or to even care what the criteria is. The other criteria is more important at Circuit Court level when it is time to dole out sentencing.

Back to the Politico article:

Since 2000, Democrats have made a conscious decision to avoid alienating gun owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts, as many in the party believe a NRA-stoked backlash cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee , as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, in the 2000 presidential election. In the days leading up to Election Day four years ago, Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) even went so far as to symbolically court gun owners, donning camouflage and hoisting a 12-gauge in what turned out to be a goose hunt in more ways than one.

The democrats haven't changed. While you have a few friendlies in rural and some social conservative and economic populist areas, along with a few schitzo types like Harry Reid and Pat Leahy who can go either way, most in congress and leadership are staunchly anti. Pelosi, Schumer, Conyers, Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Lautenberg, Boxer, and Feinstein for starters. They still run the show. What has changed is that these same people know that gun grabbing is a loser and will give politispeak in an attempt not to scare gun owners while they continue to vote anti-rights.

“Sen. Obama has always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms and will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, hunters and sportsmen as president,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Sen. Obama also believes that we can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”

That's a pile of crap. I'm not drinking your flavor-aid, Jim, I mean Barack. First off son, Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. Secondly, he never signed the amicus brief supporting the end of the DC ban (McCain who isn't perfect, did). Jim Jones voted in 2005 or 2006 (ban on firearms lawsuits amendment) to give the attorney general power to ban all rifle centerfire ammunition that may possibly penetrate a vest (That's all of them except a .22 as vests protect against pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Obama also supported junk lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. As a state senator he voted against supporting immunity for those who defended themselves in their homes with a firearm. Lastly, as a candidate for state senator he supported a total ban - like the one challenged in court right now in Chicago.

As far as the DC gun ban goes, Obama has had more positions on this issue than the guests on the Maury Povich or Jerry Springer shows. Besides that questionaire he filled out supporting a handgun ban, there's these statements.

February 15th in Milwaukee:

There's been a longstanding argument among constitutional scholars about whether the Second Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation....I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws...The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C. I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.

Bans are not common sense regulations, and unless you are real stupid for a constitutional law professor, you know what "Right of the people" means. I don't think he's stupid, and is instead trying to deceive us. Is this a new kind of politics? No, Obama the con man gives us the same ole song and dance, straight from the Mark Mellman (dem strategist) playbook on gun issues.

If Obama replaces any of the five justices who backed Heller, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye in a legal sense, and we'll just have to become outlaws instead.

Chicago gun ban challenged in court! Right in Obama's home town!

No rest for the weary. The gun ban supported by Obama is now being challenged in court on 2nd Amendment. McDonald et al v City of Chicago is probably how the case is going to be filed. Mayor Richard Daley was named individually as well. This was filed in US District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

ChicagoGunCase.com is the website. Everyone reading this should take a look. Like the DC case, public documents will be posted there. DC case is now binding, so it will be interesting to see how it is adapted to a local ordinance in a state with the federalism provisions.

The legal team here is Illinois attorney David Sigale and the DC v Heller attorney Alan Gura. It's certainly a competent team.

The plaintiffs are Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen and David Lawson, Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

If this case wins, it is bigger than the DC win. This is pushing for "incorporation" of the 2nd Amendment. Incorporation is through the 14th amendment. Many amendments(through case law) are incorporated and now binding on the states. Will the 2nd Amendment join them? It should, but that remains to be seen.

What is challenged?

1. The Handgun ban.

2. Annual re-registration of firearms.

3. Pre-acquisition registration of firearms.

4. Unregisterable status of some firearms.

5. Unregisterable status penalty under equal protection violations.

The Press Release is here

And there is the story from the Extremely anti-rights Chicago Tribune.

After reading DC v Heller

I wish I could find the text that I can cut and paste, but I can't. I'll refer to pages as we go here. Before I go on, I have to say that any decision with the word "hooligan" in it isn't all bad....

I'm not celebrating this decision. I am flatly amazed that four justices on this court did not respect the constitution. I shouldn't be, but how can those four who claim that abortion is a "fundamental right"(not in the constitution, but a major expansion of substansive due process born from the infamous Lochner case in the early 1900's) and turn around and say that the DC ban on functional firearms in the home is constitutional. We are one justice away from losing the 2nd Amendment. I hope every single gun owner realizes that, looks at which justices went our way and also look at the justices that went against us, and look at the appointers of them, and the votes for and against them. We are still playing defense. This was an aggressive defense here, but it was still defense.

Now as for this case, Scalia hit a home run. He first mentioned that the Constitution was intended to be understood by ordinary Americans, much as the Federalist Papers were back around 1787. This excludeds the technicalities as meanings that us present and future lawyers love to use so much in our arguments.

One of the most important things mentioned (page 3) was that the militia was the purpose - not the limiting clause. The operating clause is the "Right of the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is central to Heller's argument is that the Right of the People have the same meaning in the 2nd Amendment as it does in the rest of our constitutional rights. They are not individual rights in one spot and so called "collective rights" here.


The second part is a discussion about the meaning of the terms keep arms and bear arms with Justice Stevens, the main dissenter.

The third part is the operative clause. Page 19. It started with mentioning the English Common Law origin of the right, similar (but using different sources) so what I did in my five part preview of this case. He used the Stuart Kings in Britain as an example, and later mentioned the obvious - what King George III tried to do to the Colonists.

He then on page 25 goes to the "Well regulated militia". and "security of a free state." The militia is us, as the law plainly shows. I'm not referring to "Michigan Militia" either, but the constitutional militia. He goes on and mentions more of the history behind the amendment and its application. One of the more interesting references is "Bleeding Kansas." Bleeding Kansas was the "Civil War" before the Civil War. One compromise gone bad was the admission of Kansas into the union. There was a precarious balance between slave states and free states. The 36'30 latitute was the line between slave states and free states in the Louisiana purchase with the exception of Missouri. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed by Franklin Pierce who is usually considered the worst president in history, let the people themselves decide if they wanted a free or slave state. It sounded great on paper, but it became a partisan war between the two camps. Anti-slavery Jayhawks (where the name Kansas Jayhawks comes from) fought the pro-slavery forces mostly from Missouri. It was the Civil War before the Civil War. Massachusetts abolitionist and senator Charles Sumner mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in his speech and ripped South Carolina representatives for trying to disarm the abolitionists in Kansas. Two days later he was infamously whacked over the head with a cane and injured severely.

Scalia later (page 40) cites case law before and after the Civil War, and mentioned constitutional scholars such as Thomas Cooley and others. It then addresses the Miller case and Stevens "interpretation" of the Miller case. Page 49. Keep in mind that Miller was not overturned today. Scalia correctly mentions that in the Miller case, the problem is that the Jack Miller (who did not show up to court) did not convince the court that a sawed off shotgun was a MILITIA related weapon. It was the weapon that was important.

Scalia briefly mentions the weapons themselves, only to say that the weapons protected are ordinary equipment militia members would keep in common use and mentions about the 1933 Class III law. I'm not sure about that part however. I think Scalia here is trying to avoid getting the 1986 ban on new machine guns tossed out on this precident. Page 52-55. I wonder if that was left in there to keep Kennedy as part of the five, but that's speculation.

On page 56, he mentions the case itself with Heller. It mentions that total handgun bans are wrong and violate the right to self-defense. Licensing (to own and carry in the home) was allowed as constitutional (I may not like it on a personal level, but the precident for licensing and registration as unconstitutional is a very tough sell as a LEGAL issue since opposition is based on speculation of government nefariousness or costs through fees).

The most important part of the decision outside of the ruling itself is on page 63. I was looking mostly for the standard of review. In the simplist terms without studying my old con law notes - Strict Scrutiny is for "fundamental rights" (burden on government), then there is the rare intermediate (balancing mostly), and the common rational basis review (burden on petitioner). Scalia equated it to the censorship of unpopular speech. It's wrong. Period. No balancing test needed.

Lastly Scalia mentions the concerns about violence and says that many measures are constitutional, but blanket bans are not - and it is not the role of the judiciary to declare the 2nd Amendment extinct.

Overall, I think it was a great opinion. I would have gone with the strict scrutiny standard on its review, but that's probably my only difference. I encourage everyone to read the opinion itself, and also read the dissents by Stevens and Breyer. I do not agree with them at all, especially Breyer's living constitution claim, it is still something we all should read.

One last thing.

This does not address any other federal or state gun laws. The Chicago and New York gun bans are not thrown out. They are state laws and non-federal local ordinances which have their own systems. DC was a federal law. In order for the 2nd Amendment to be applied to the states, it has to be "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment. That is a separate matter, so be extremely careful if you think you can carry there. Don't be a test case and get yourself arrested.

On that note for the non-lawyers - don't get angry with Scalia and the Court for not addressing those other laws. They could not rule on them because those laws were not challenged. Only the DC federal law was challenged and ruled on appeals. Licensing was not challenged either. Courts do not rule on what is not challenged. Keep in mind than Alan Gura's client was not us - we the peope - it was Dick Heller, and his fidiciary duty was to restore Heller's rights - which he did.

Overall this was a good decision and the best we could have gotten. I can't complain outside of four justices who turned their back on the constitution and freedom.

Why I am flip-flopping from my 2006 view and am voting for McCain

Look at the DC v Heller 2nd Amendment decision.

For - Scalia (Reagan appointee), Kennedy (Reagan), Thomas (GHWBush), Alito (GWBush), and Roberts (GWBush)

Against - Stevens (Ford), Souter (GHWBush), Ginsburg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton)

McCain voted for Thomas, Alito, Kennedy (who isn't always right, but I think is better than conservatives give him credit for), and Roberts.

Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. Considering we were one vote away from the 2nd Amendment going completely down the crapper, this reinforces my current decision to hold my nose and vote for McCain.

DC Heller Case: Circuit Court Decision is AFFIRMED - DC gun ban overturned

I'm getting my information from SCOTUSblog

The decision is in. According to SCOTUS and the Supreme Court, the overturning of the DC gun ban has been AFFIRMED in a 5-4 decision. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion and was joined by Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens also dissented.

I was wrong in my predicition that it would have multiple opinions, concurrances, and dissents. There was only one opinion for the majority, and two different dissenting opinions.

I have to read the decision closely to see how much of a win or loss for freedom this decision is. I'm cautiously optimistic right now, but I want to see the standard of review and the rest of this before I can call this a victory.

Also in other news - the Millionaire Amendment of the Campaign Finance Laws (BCRA) is ruled unconstitutional. That's one I need to read as well in my spare time - Davis v FEC. I forgot about that decision with the hype on Heller.

SCOTUS Watch (Death Penalty)

Nothing so far on the Heller case.

One interesting case out is a death penalty case. First off, I'd to state that I am against the death penalty, but at the same time do not consider it cruel and unusual punishment. I'm against it on different grounds. I do not want to see an innocent person executed, and I have concerns about some DA's being in the mold of Mike Nifong and use the always high profile death penalty cases for political purposes and push for convictions despite the evidence not being there. Keep in mind that the Duke LaCrosse players had access to one thing that not everybody has access to - top level attorneys. That is my opposition to the death penalty.

SCOTUS overturned the death penalty in matters of child rape on 8th Amendment grounds. I do disagree with the decision and do not consider it cruel and unusual punishment for child molestors as it is historically one of the major felonies that brought the death penalty as a punishment. In the old days, almost all felonies were death penalty cases, and that went too far the other way. 1800's Britain had a death penalty case for stealing a loaf of bread. The punishment didn't fit the crime.

Much of the anti death penalty push on the courts comes from the legacies of Justices Brennan and Marshall who thought the death penalty was unconstitutional in all cases. Literally. Now there a major precident by the B