Thursday, November 15, 2012

Heads up this lame duck for gas tax increases and vehicle registration hikes

I'm hearing there is high potential of movement on this issue in the lame duck. Gas tax especially. This one pisses me off, and I'm not going to be very forgiving about it, at least on a professional and political basis. 

Once again. Don't blame me. I voted for Mike Cox. I voted for Prop 5. I'll vote for any reasonable or even semi-reasonable primary challenger to Snyder in a New York Minute especially if the democrat is beatable. One of the biggest reasons I voted for Proposal 5 is to put in the check the absolute cultist jihad among the Lansing elite in the dogmatic pursuit to raise the gas tax. This is shared by the tax raising Rick Snyder who is so brazen about this that he mentioned his support in September of this year soon before the election. It's not just Snyder either.

Of course there's no push to get rid of the sales tax on gasoline. This is another attempt by big government to be afraid of handling REAL budget issues and stop compartmentalizing different areas, and to instead ask - no demand - than we bail out the government's screw ups. This is all based on the false premis that the gas tax/registrations - and ONLY the gas tax/registrations can pay for roads. The transportation budget isn't just roads either, but WALLY trains.

From Bridge Magazine

Defeat of Proposal 5 means a simple legislative majority remains the threshold for statewide tax increases, perhaps opening the door to revision of the gas tax.
Did I call this or what.September - 41 cent gas tax isn't good enough for Rick Snyder

The bad news is that unless the 2/3 proposal passes, eventually this tax increase will pass, likely in a lame duck session. When I don't know, but there's too much of a sustained Lansing insider push from the government class. Click on the gas tax label on the blog and you'll see a ton of it, largely from termed out legislators, road lobbyists, and local governments. It's not just democrats either, but insider republicans (although definitely not a conservative) like Ken Sikkema who gave Granholm almost everything she wanted in her first term. Right now a lot of legislators are scared of this and rightly so, but this could kill us in a lame duck at some point, especially if the governor is also in lame duck.

This is a big reason why the 2/3rd amendment has to pass. It would have stopped the Blanchard, Granholm, and Snyder taxes that have been passed. It can also stop the gas tax increases whether it is pushed by Granholm, Snyder, or whoever is there in the future. The legislature does not always check and balance the governor who is mistakenly viewed as the leader of the party. Vote yes on Proposal 5.

Snyder wants this. Badly. Of course he can afford this unlike many of us. These high prices absolutely KILLED US (makes hammerfist and slams desk) in 2006 and most of 2008. We hit $4+ again this year. It's still over $3.50. At $4.10, 41 cents of every gallon goes to "With Republicans like him, who needs democrats" Rick Snyder. Right now it's about 37 cents.

As I explained about how bad this was with Snyder back in 2011.

There's three things wrong with the wholesale taxes.

1. Taxes go up even more when gas prices increase. That encourages higher gas prices to be even higher. We're almost $3.50 a gallon. That's damaging to any supposed recovery.

2. This does not address the 6% sales tax on gasoline - that does not go to roads. This will affect things more with a wholesale tax.

3. It continues the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, goes to fix the roads.

4. While the non-sales tax portion of the gas tax goes to transportation, that does not necessarily equal roads.

I've covered this issue more times than Matt Millen has lost games as a GM. This is the worst tax in the country, outside of possibly the self-employment tax.

Transportation doesn't necessarily equal roads either. Snyder also wants $120+ a year in registration fee increases as well to add insult to injury. He likes the WALLY type trains as well. You got to be shitting me.

Well if they vote for this, well, six months during the term for those who aren't lame duck, the recall option  - yes recall option - is open. 1984 style. Paul Scott  was recalled, and replaced by a Republican, so there is precedent of Republicans replacing Republicans in recalls if this is necessary, let alone the democrats. For those who are two year lame ducks and have higher office aspirations, they can get recalled and their push for higher office can be gone for good. Too bad Mark Schauer didn't get recalled as he was running against Walberg in 2008. That two years he was in Congress gave us Cap and Destroy and Obamacare.

Here's the statute.

168.951 Officers subject to recall; time for filing recall petition; performance of duties until result of recall election certified.
Sec. 951.
Every elective officer in the state, except a judicial officer, is subject to recall by the voters of the electoral district in which the officer is elected as provided in this chapter. A petition shall not be filed against an officer until the officer has actually performed the duties of the office to which elected for a period of 6 months during the current term of that office. A petition shall not be filed against an officer during the last 6 months of the officer's term of office. An officer sought to be recalled shall continue to perform duties of the office until the result of the recall election is certified.


This is also important to remember:
168.952 Recall petitions; requirements; submission to board of county election commissioners; determination; notice; meeting; presentation of arguments; appeal; validity of petition.
Sec. 952.
(1) A petition for the recall of an officer shall meet all of the following requirements:
(a) Comply with section 544c(1) and (2).
(b) Be printed.
(c) State clearly each reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall shall be based upon the officer's conduct during his or her current term of office. The reason for the recall may be typewritten.
(d) Contain a certificate of the circulator. The certificate of the circulator may be printed on the reverse side of the petition.
(e) Be in a form prescribed by the secretary of state.
(2) Before being circulated, a petition for the recall of an officer shall be submitted to the board of county election commissioners of the county in which the officer whose recall is sought resides.
(3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. Failure of the board of county election commissioners to comply with this subsection shall constitute a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.
(4) The board of county election commissioners, not later than 24 hours after receipt of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall notify the officer whose recall is sought of each reason stated in the petition and of the date of the meeting of the board of county election commissioners to consider the clarity of each reason.
(5) The officer whose recall is sought and the sponsors of the petition may appear at the meeting and present arguments on the clarity of each reason.
(6) The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal shall be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners.
(7) A petition that is determined to be of sufficient clarity under subsection (1) or, if the determination under subsection (1) is appealed pursuant to subsection (6), a petition that is determined by the circuit court to be of sufficient clarity is valid for 180 days following the last determination of sufficient clarity under this section. A recall petition that is filed under section 959 or 960 after the 180-day period described in this subsection is not valid and shall not be accepted pursuant to section 961. This subsection does not prohibit a person from resubmitting a recall petition for a determination of sufficient clarity under this section.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 66, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 456, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1982 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 45, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 137, Eff. Jan. 1, 1994
Popular Name: Election Code


If they vote for this, we can't use this as the "official" reason to recall someone - at least in the state house because it is in a different term of office. However, someone can be recalled for ANY reason as long as it is clear. Find a vote from the first six months in that current term, and use that as the "official" reason. The unoffical reason can be the vote to increase the gas taxes. There is nothing that stops those supporting the recall of State Rep John Doe from broadcasting his vote for the gas tax increases. Recall campaigns are campaigns like any other campaign. It is a check and balance on this lame duck and right after the election gamesmanship that politicians like to play because they can get away with it.

The House and Senate has a choice. They can LEAD, or they can be followers and yesmen because the Lansing culture pushes that. They were followers and yesmen over the pension tax and didn't do the right thing. They need to do the right thing this time and dictate to Snyder that he's the executive director of Michigan and not the boss.

On the same note, we need to remember those with courage to tell Snyder not to even think about this tax and vote against it if it gets to that point. I remember the votes of  Jack Brandenburg, Dave Hildenbrand, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, David Robertson, Tory Rocca, Anthony Forlini, Ken Goike, Pat Somerville, Rick Outman, Pete Lund, and Andrea LaFontaine when it came to the pension tax. They did the right thing and voted against it. We need more of that here with the gas tax.

While Clint Eastwood's RNC speech wasn't the best, one line was perfect. Politicians are our employees. It is best that they remember this. If not now, in the 2012 primaries or recalls if necessary. .

No comments: