No sale on the Genoa Township Road Millage

There's plenty of coverage on the millage in today's Argus over the Genoa Twp Millage. You can find in depth comments on this at the Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods blog. Here I'll comment on Mike Archinal's guest column. Needless to say, I disagree with it. On this blog, I'll speak for myself and not the group, so I'll be a little more blunt here.

On Nov. 5, Genoa Township residents will have a choice to make about the condition of roads in their community. They can vote yes on the Genoa Township road proposal to fund a 15-year, 1.5-mill increase to fund projects throughout the township or they can vote no. It’s that simple.
Anyone who drives in Livingston County — or in Michigan, for that matter — knows the condition of our roads is poor. That’s a hard fact to argue. Livingston County residents have been negatively impacted by a system that is tied to lane miles and vehicle-registration fees, making our county roads the lowest-funded in the state on a per-capita basis.
Without additional revenue, much-needed improvements will not occur. We, as Genoa Township residents, can fix our roads. We have control over what happens here.
That is why our Board of Trustees has decided to give residents a chance Nov. 5 to vote on a proposal to improve roads in our township.
The Genoa Township road proposal goes to voters Nov. 5. They will decide the fate of a 15-year, 1.5-mill increase to fund a number of road improvements throughout the township.
If the proposal is approved, a home with a market value of $200,000 and a state-equalized value (SEV) of $100,000 would pay $150 per year. The first bill would appear on the 2013 winter tax.
The proposed road projects affect all areas of the township and would be completed over the next three years beginning in 2014:

It's a $3000 tax for a $200,000 home as this is a 15 year millage. For many homes in the township, it would be closer to $6000 and in some cases like Pine Creek, $10000. Most I know would consider a millage, if it actually fixed the roads. As the PGTN postcard says - "Does not fix Brighton Rd, Grand River, and Chilson." It also doesn't fix other main roads like Hacker, most of Challis (the heavily traveled part), Coon Lake, Dorr, or the paved portion of Bauer.  Those are the main roads people expect to be fixed. If the millage passes, improvements on those roads will not occcur. This is wasting $22 million dollars if I trust the township's numbers regarding costs (I don't). In addition, how much will it cost to maintain these paved roads, as the paved roads right now aren't well maintained to begin with. This created more costs, with limited benefits (and in some cases detriments).

Some board members mention that Brighton Rd among others will receive federal funds for improvements. If so, why have the millage in the first place?

Archinal then describes the projects.

2014

• Crooked Lake Road would be paved from Chilson Road to the end of the pavement near Spring Hill Road. The paved roadway west of Lakewood Shores Drive will be crushed and shaped to provide a uniform, consistent cross-section.
• Latson Road from Aster Boulevard north past Conover Court will have a consistent three-lane cross-section with a center left-turn lane. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided for all of the residential developments within the project limits. This project will also include a traffic signal at the intersection of Latson and Hampton Ridge Boulevard.

 Latson I understand, but widening and paving this? 

2015

• The intersection of Challis and Bauer roads will be improved with the installation of a roundabout. Other road-alignment changes will include the abandonment of Bauer Road between the staggered legs of Challis and the connection to existing Challis to the west. Challis Road will be paved east toward the railroad tracks.
• Beck Road would be paved from Chilson to Nixon Road. (Nixon Road will become Latson Road after the interchange is opened).
• Conrad and Challis roads will be repaved from Dorr Road to Clifford. This project involves significant grade and right-of-way issues.

Beck Rd. Interestingly, Laurex Real Estate just had a development sale for duplexes off Beck Rd. What's Laurex? It's a company run by two of Genoa Township's board members including the supervisor.  Gary McCririe and Todd Smith.

Why Conrad? Is that so Gary McCririe can have a shortcut to Dorr Rd and not have his car dirty? That's not a repave, but widening and paving. Challis is dirt from Dorr to Conrad. That's not the part of Challis traveled heavily. As far as the roundabout goes, people love them or hate them. I think they are a waste of money.

 

2016

• Herbst Road will be improved along its entire length. On the western end, from Dorr Road to Acre Hill Street, the existing roadway will be crushed, shaped and repaved. On the eastern end, Acre Hill to Grand River Avenue, the gravel portion of the Herbst will be paved.
• Cunningham Lake and Bauer roads will be paved. Cunningham Lake will be improved from Sundance Trail to Bauer Road then north on Bauer Road from Cunningham Lake to the end of the pavement south of River Ridge. The existing paved portion of Bauer, from River Ridge to Brighton Road, will be crushed, shaped and repaved. Finally, the gravel portion of Bauer will be paved to the Township limit.
• Hughes Road will be repaved. The southern section from Grand River to Cherokee Bend will be milled and overlaid. The area north of Cherokee Bend to Golf Club Drive will be crushed shaped and paved.

For reference.

Hughes I support.  Herbst doesn't need to be widened and paved. Cunningham Lake residents made the opinions well known. Bauer doesn't need to be paved to the township line. There's only two homes on the Hamburg side. Do you think Hamburg's going to pave in the Brighton Recreational area along Ore Creek? I doubt it. 

 He closes to say:

If you have questions regarding the road projects, please attend our third Road Information Open House from 3-5 p.m. Tuesday at Township Hall, 2911 Dorr Road, Brighton.
I have given you the facts surrounding the Nov. 5 Genoa Township Road Proposal. It is now up to you — the residents — to decide. If you agree, vote yes. If you do not agree, vote no.
Whatever is decided, we will continue working to make Genoa Township the best place it can be for our residents.

I encourage all residents to attend the meeting. Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods didn't need to spin anything. If our residents know the facts, the results will be in our favor.  That said, this is an all or nothing proposal. That was made clear by the manager.  I'd support Hughes and Latson (near Grand River), but the other projects make this unworthy of support from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, as well as one from a protecting our rural character standpoint.

That's why we all encourage a no vote, so the township can come back with something reasonable.

Mass Transit Light Rail - Trains to Nowhere

One major topic right now in Livingston County is the local WALLY train, or one I've referred to as the "Train to nowhere." Light rail mass transit is a favorite project of urban planners, "cool city" advocates, Richard Florida gurus, and government contractors. It also costs a lot of money, is heavily subsidized, runs overbudget, and is a waste of our tax dollars. I am strongly opposed to government funded WALLY trains in Livingston County.

I've posted my thoughts on the WALLY "Train to nowhere" on several occasions.
March 2007 - People Mover Pt 2

Howell Approves - June 17 2007

October 07 - 2.3 million subsidy

October 23 07 - Federal money denied to train to nowhere

October 30 07 - County money denied

2009 - Authority seeks 32.4 Million

The "in" thing isn't always the right thing. New Geography had a great comparison piece today on light rails called Mass Transit: The Great Train Robbery

Despite promises that the $8 billion invested in rail lines over the past two decades would lessen L.A.'s traffic congestion and reshape how Angelenos get to work, the sad reality is that there has been no increase in MTA transit ridership since before the rail expansion began in 1985.

Much of the problem, notes Tom Rubin, a former chief financial officers for the MTA's predecessor agency, stems from the shift of funding priorities to trains from the city's more affordable and flexible bus network. Meanwhile, traffic has gotten worse, with delay hours growing from 44 hours a year in 1982 to 70 hours in 2007.

This doesn't shock me. Bus systems have a reputation as being for the so called "lower class" people while rail is a favorite topic for upper middle class white people that the urban planners love.

Sadly, this situation is not unique to Los Angeles. In cities across the country where there have been massive investments in light rail--from the Portland area to Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., and a host of others--the percentage of people taking transit has stagnated or even declined. Nationwide, the percentage of people taking transit to work is now lower than it was in 1980.

Then why are we still pushed for WALLY?

None of this is to argue that we should not invest in transit. It even makes sense if the subsidy required for each transit trip is far higher than for a motorist on the streets or highways. Transit should be considered a public good, particularly for those without access to a car--notably young people, the disabled, the poor and the elderly. Policy should focus on how we invest, at what cost and, ultimately, for whose benefit.

I don't disagree, if it is handled at local or regional levels. One system I thought that isn't all that bad was the CATA system in East Lansing/Lansing. It's good for those who have "one too many" at the bar, and also takes students who live increasingly away from campus over to MSU. It's needed there.

In some regions with large concentrations of employment, downtown major rail systems often attract many riders (although virtually all lose lots of money). The primary example would be the New York City area, which is one of only two regions (the other being Washington, D.C.) with over one-fifth of total employment in the urban core. In the country as a whole barely 10% of employment is in the city; and in many cities that grew most in the 20th century, such as Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles and Phoenix, the central business district's share falls well under 5%.

Some other urban routes--for example between Houston's relatively buoyant downtown and the massive, ever expanding Texas Medical Center--could potentially prove suitable for trains. But most transit investments would be far more financially sustainable if focused on more cost-efficient methods such as rapid bus lanes, which, according to the Government Accountability Office, is roughly one-third the cost of light rail.

Do you go with what looks good or works best in the situation? Dallas, Miami, LA, Phoenix, and Detroit are sprawled out areas. A large number of Detroit area residents commute to Oakland County, not Detroit. All those areas also have millions of people. Keep in mind that this Wally Train proposal covers an area less than 500,000.

Lastly:

Ultimately the choice to invest in new subways and light rail as opposed to buses reflects both a class bias and the agenda of what may best described as the "density lobby." The people who will ride the eight-mile long Second Avenue subway, now under construction for what New York magazine reports may be a total cost of over $17 billion, are largely a very affluent group. The new subway line will also provide opportunity for big developers to build high-density residential towers along the route. In contrast, the bus-riders, as the left-of-center City Limits points out, tend to be working- and middle-class residents from more unfashionable, lower-density districts in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Put your noses up in the air, snobs.

Clearly we should not spend our ever more scarce transit resources on a nostalgia crusade to make our cities function much the way they did in the late 1800s. Instead, we need to construct systems reflecting the technology and geographic realities of the 21st century and place our primary focus on helping people, particularly those in need, find efficient, economically sustainable ways to get around.

The first thing the Richard Florida types need to figure out is reality. Outside of a select few areas, people aren't moving to cities. Cities still shed population. New rail projects, lofts, and snobbishness isn't going to bring people in. Jobs not Fluff

Waste of Money by the executive branch

I'm sure you all have seen the ads from Census 2010. It's well known that every 10 years, we have the census. Soon the forms will be coming to be filled out. I thought it came in today. Nope.

Instead, I got a $0.44 first class mail telling me the census form will be in approximately one week from today. Thanks a lot. This is a major waste of my tax money. Anybody that is familiar with the costs of political campaigns knows how much mailings cost. This one is no different except that it is at our expense. There are about 110,000,000 households in the US. This .44 mailing adds up. About $48 million in postage alone. That doesn't include about 110,000,000 envelopes, sheets of paper, laser printer depreciation, toners, and labor for that gigantic mailing.

I'll give it one credit. It was quick. It was addressed from Phoenix yesterday, and I got it today.

Other than that, this was a gigantic waste. They should have saved the $50 million plus and just sent the actual census form instead of the one week warning.

This is just one more example why people don't trust Washington DC with their money. $50 million here, $50 million there. Pretty soon, it's up to 13 trillion.

$120 Million in stimulus spending creates 370 jobs

I called this one a long time ago. Stimulus packages only stimulate government, not the economy. 

From Ann Arbor Business

The 397 jobs created or saved in Michigan come from $120 million in contracts, amounting to a cost of about $300,000 per job. But contract spending is only a sliver of overall stimulus spending, with most of the money going to direct grants for state and local governments and school districts, tax breaks, loans and other programs, the Detroit Free Press reports

$300,000 for each job? That sounds like what we can expect from government waste.

Congress and their fiscal "responsibility"

It's like Democrat Jim Blanchard's helicopter all over again.

These jerks on Capitol Hill ripped the Big 3 a new one on national television for flying in private jets to their meetings in Washington. Leave it to Congress to say one thing in a snobbish haughty matter to private citizens while they do another themselves, as they are the "important people."

From Roll Call

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

This country has a $132 Million to spend on congresscritters. Here's a better suggestion for Congress. Fly coach like I do.

Carl Levin oinking at the trough

As dangerously incompetent Debbie Stabenow is, we can always do worse. In fact, worse is no other than Carl Levin who has been in his senate about as long as I've been alive....and I'm in my 30's. Levin is a common denominator with all of the country's problems regarding Congress.

Here's Levin's poor defense regarding Pork.

Michigan is getting tens of millions of dollars in 'budget earmarks' in a federal spending bill that the president is expected to sign today.

Republican lawmakers complain the entire bill contains $5 billion in wasteful spending.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin disagrees.

"They think, 'Gee if you eliminate all those earmarks there would be less federal spending.' That is not the case," says Levin.

That is called government math. If I spend money on a project, it takes money. If the earmarks are taken out, it is less money which is less spending. That is obvious...to anybody but Carl Levin aka Lenin.

Obama signs another "imperfect" pork bill

Just I said about Bush on spending and earmarks, the buck stops at the top. You can say alot of things about me, but on this issue, I am very consistent.

I ripped Harry Reid's pork bill here

I took my own party to task here

And Bush and the Democrats here

Now it's the same as it ever was here.

Here's the latest From USA Today

President Obama said today he would sign an "imperfect" $410 billion bill to fund the federal government through September, but hopes the bill will mark an end to the old way of doing business.

The bill has nearly 8,000 earmarks, which are pet projects inserted by lawmakers to benefit their states and districts. The practice peaked at twice that number a few years ago, Obama said, and played a part in corruption cases.

Among his proposals to clean up and open up the earmark process: All earmarks must be aired on members' websites and at public hearings, and money can be directed to private companies only after competitive bidding.

Yawn. I'll believe it when I see it. The bottom line is that Obama signed this bill, just as Bush signed the other bills. Presidents have this thing called a VETO PEN. 8,000 is a lot of earmarks. If Obama really opposed this, he would have vetoed it. Period, end of story.

Earmarks. Obama talks a game, but fails to man up when it counts.

Obama talks about fiscal responsibility, but this says it best.
From the Washington Times

President Obama, who repeatedly criticized earmarks while campaigning last year, is supposedly not happy with the 9,000 projects individual legislators tacked onto the $410 billion spending bill, but his boss will sign the bill anyway, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says.

When it comes to spending, meet the new boss, even worse than the old boss.

Bailout politics (Debates, ACORN)

First off, some people are complaining about McCain probably missing the debate. That's a big gamble, but McCain can make it to his advantage if there is a good deal that we can live with. Right now with Goldman Sachs man Paulson on Bush's team, and the democrats controlling the house/senate, I'm not real confident on this. We'll see.

As for the debate itself, what's more important. Two senators yapping behind a podium in the first of three or four debates, or doing the job they are currently elected to do right now in a near crisis situation. McCain and Obama have a job to do. They are needed at the capitol right now. I blame government to an extent for causing the problems in the first place with its atrocious handling of the house of cards over the past 10 years, led by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

A lot has happened with negotiations. The media was reporting a deal, but that was premature. There was no deal.

Is the revolt due to an earmark to the Vote Fraud kings where Obama used to do his community organizing work? ACORN? Apparently, on Fox News, moderate Republican Lindsay Graham balked at a lot of this bailout money going to ACORN. I didn't see it, but it's confirmed by one Republican (Ed Morrisey) and one Democrat blog (Larry Johnson).

From Morrisey's blog

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:

and Graham's quote

And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work.

Chris Dodd, the leading receiver of Fannie and Freddie funds? That gives me a lot of confort. I need a drink, and it's not even noon. Make it 151. I really hope Mike Pence and the RSC in the house can work a miracle, since I'm expecting a real turkey of a bill to pass. If I get half of what I want here, I'll be estatic. (No handouts to rich bankers like Goldman Sachs, only loans if anything, no pork, no crap to ACORN or other groups, no drilling bans)

No money for Train to Nowhere, Hamburg election developments (EDITED and UPDATED 9/13)

The latest from the Argus shows that there is no money for the train.

The chairman of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners says the county will neither fund a proposed commuter rail line nor be a part of any taxing authority.


Bill Rogers said county officials have told Washtenaw Livingston Line (WALLY) coalition members that the board cannot afford to finance the project, which would connect Howell to Ann Arbor. Officials have previously estimated annual funding from each county ranging from $75,000-$150,000.

“Not that we’re not in favor of mass transit or participating, but I just don’t think it’s economically feasible today,” said Rogers, who anticipates the county still being involved in WALLY talks. “We’re just not going to have the cash.”

Anticipated startup costs for the proposed 27-mile route came in at $32.4 million in a recent feasibility study. Meanwhile, Rogers and other commissioners were busy trimming 1.7 percent from all departments financed by general fund monies and are currently trying to deal with additional anticipated cuts in coming years.

Good move guys.

Also from the Argus,
Joanna Hardesty is running as a write-in for the Hamburg Township Clerks position. In a rather bitter primary election battle, Matt Skiba defeated her in the primary. There's some hard feeling there, and not just because of the election results.

Her comments followed Skiba's accusations that she and her supporters stole or tampered with his campaign signs; attempted to flatten one of his tires in the township municipal campus parking lot; and abused authority in overseeing the Hamburg Family Fun Fest.

Skiba also lobbed barbs at Hardesty for a lawsuit filed by her husband and son against the township Police Department alleging illegal entry to the family's home.

Hardesty said Skiba, who won the primary with less than 20 percent of registered township voters casting ballots, ran a "malicious campaign" that distracted voters from his lack of experience and own personal issues, including a bankruptcy filing.

"Mr. Skiba, you were not held accountable for your false allegations," Hardesty said, eyeing Skiba, who sat in the back row of the board room.

"I will be running a very vigorous campaign in the November election. Write in Hardesty, please," she added.

I can't say I'm surprised here. From a partisan standpoint, it hurts the Republicans in a bad way seeing two of them battle in a general election. I think the winner here is Debby Buckland.

EDIT/UPDATE (After Michael's comment)

I hesitate to take sides with these Hamburg contests, but it's time for me to do so. In this race with the information I had, I would have voted for Hardesty in the primary. Most of that was based on the debate between her and Skiba. I don't know either of them very well and don't have any personal dogs in that fight. I also would have voted for Michael Zelegelski and Bill Hahn. I know and like both Pat Evon and Bobbi Vaughan and I'm glad I did not have to make a decision there. Pat Evon will do a good job, I'm not worried about that. I don't vote based on slates, and I hope those who read this know that about me. I've always gone my own way with endorsements, voting decisions, and issues. I don't get into the grudge matches and personal contests out here. I've been there and done that with a different organization. It's not fun, and I avoid that stuff unless I have one hell of a dog in the fight.

That said, it's time for the Livingston County GOP to get behind Matt Skiba. The primary is over and the voters who showed up clearly made the decision. I trust the voters of Hamburg as they know their township better than I do. They made the decision to pick the candidates who run under my banner in that township.

Back on August 15, I posted this:

The question is whether with the house cleaning in Hamburg, is the infighting over. If the winner was all three incumbents, all winning by 50 votes, then I would have bet on the democrats. That was not the case, and all incumbents are gone. The primary I think made things tougher for the dems. However, do Pat Hohl (unopposed), Matt Skiba, and Pat Evon realize what happened and work to put this behind them? Do the outgoing incumbents provide a smooth transition? If the answer is yes, then I think we hold these seats. If not, then the papers will have a big story about an "upset" in November. Nobody wants to read about their township in the paper every day. Two of the newcomers I think are real strong candidates in Pat Evon and Bill Hahn. I'm not worried about them. One other candidate however concerns me. I won't say who it is in public, but I wasn't that impressed with that individual in the candidate forum. With the current situation, none of these are gimmes, but one of these actually scares me a bit.

We don't have a smooth transition, and commenter Michael's comment here was right on.
"It is time for an intervention, perhaps from a county and state level." I agree. County level. I missed the last meeting, and I know something is in the works. I hope this race is covered and covered well. It is now our most difficult race in the county, and while the McCain/Palin race is important, the Livingston County Republican Party can not forget the first two words in its name either. I had an eye on this race anyway, but now Skiba will need a lot of help. The Bucklands (both Dave and Debby) are experienced campaigners and need to be taken seriously. I have no doubt that Debby will run ahead of Obama (who I expect to get John Kerry percentages around here) to begin with due to the township politics. Skiba also now has an independent challenger as well who will take some GOP votes. John Kerry got 41% and Gore 42%. With a third party, that's enough to sometimes win.

There's an old saying used about rough language and profanity and I think it applies to politics as well. Time, place, and manner. This I do not believe is the proper time, place, and manner for the challenge. I think the best way for a defeated candidate who is unhappy with the campaign is to be a team player for a contested general election, and then run again four years later in the next primary. That is the proper time, place and manner.

If you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig?

In this era of budget crunches, school budgets, pork, and everything else, priorities needs to be set. $110,000 for this is not what I'd call a higher priority. I shouldn't expect anything less though from the city that is also the state capitol of Michigan.

From the Lansing State Journal

Lansing schools Superintendent T.C. Wallace Jr. is fond of mentioning how more than 15,000 students choose to attend the city's schools each year, rather than enroll elsewhere through schools of choice.
(snip)
Now, in an effort to improve the district's public image, Lansing officials will hire a cabinet-level communications director.

Stephen Serkaian, the former spokesman for then-Lansing Mayor David Hollister, will become the district's full-time communications director Jan. 1. Serkaian currently is contracted as a part-time spokesman through the public relations firm he owns, Serkaian Communications.

Wallace said hiring Serkaian full time will not cost the district more money. The $43,000 the district was paying Serkaian Communications will be combined with $70,000 from a vacant administrative position that will be rolled into his responsibilities. That $113,000 will cover benefits and salary, which will be prorated for the rest of the 2007-08 school year.

$113,000 for a PR guy? That's a principal's salary. I don't believe any school district in Livingston County has a 100K PR guy. Usually, our PR is through our test scores and sports teams. In fact, I'm not aware of any school in the state until now with that.

The two questions are this. What can Lansing Schools sell that East Lansing, Okemos, Haslett, Holt, Waverly, DeWitt, Mason, and Grand Ledge can not sell? Does Lansing need $100K+ to sell its strengths?

Everyone talks about educational funding and the chattering classes nearly wet their pants when there is talk about cuts to education or no increases in educational funding. The sky is falling. We're doooooooooooooomed if we don't pass those millages and headlee overrides. However, when the "Education" funding is going to PR and not real education, these things need a second look.

It's easy to complain about pork in Alaska like the bridge to nowhere. However, stopping pork barrell projects need to start at home. $110K to a PR guy is just another case of Jurassic Pork.

Outside of Tom Coburn, More fiscal irresponsibility in the Peter Principle Senate

One of the few good Senators is Tom Coburn out of Oklahoma. I wish he was running for president, but I don't think he wants the job.

A big deal was made over the veto of SCHIPP, which was a tax increase and major spending increase on health care which is not affordable. It was of course, "for the children," but how many senators really care for the children?

From the Washington Times

On Tuesday, Mr. Coburn offered an amendment that would have stalled funding for pork projects until Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt certified that every child in this country had health insurance. Mr. Coburn's colleagues smacked down his amendment by a 68-26 vote, a tally that included 23 members of his own party defecting from his movement toward fiscal restraint.

After rejecting Mr. Coburn's measure, senators then proceeded to attach $400 million in earmarks, many unrelated, to an appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. Such unrelated pork projects and their hefty price tags ranged from $1 million for a celebration at Vermont's Lake Champlain to $500,000 for field trips to the Chesapeake Bay. There was even a curious provision for $500,000 toward a "virtual herbarium" in New York and $50,000 for an ice center in Utah. It is unconscionable that senators were willing to place these projects above health-care reform.

There was one victory was last week, however, when Mr. Coburn was able to nix a $1 million provision that would have gone toward a museum memorializing the 1969 Woodstock music festival. The Senate voted 52-42 to reject the measure and instead fund maternal health care. Why did the Woodstock project got the ax while the other extraneous projects were rubber stamped?

No wonder why Congress has a 17% approval rating. They suck.

US Senate - The Peter Principle in Action

The Peter Principle is alive and well in Washington DC. Per Capita, I highly doubt there is as a whole a more incompetent group of jokers on the face of the earth than in the United State Senate. That goes for either party. The percentage of complete screw ups there is well over 70%.

While Bush deservingly gets a lot of the blame, particulary with the spending, the senate is even worse. That's not just John Kerry either, his opponent in 04. Bush finally grew a backbone and found his veto pen, but again, the US senate, including republicans there, are FUBAR'ing it all up. This is just in from the Examiner with an aptly titled headline. Oink! Oink! Senate Republicans still slobbering over earmarks. These idiots more than any other are the reason why we lost in 2006.

Charlie Rangel had one pork project in the house for three construction projects for a Harlem college in his district. The projects would be named after Rangel.

But when it came time to vote on this crude effort by Rangel to use tax dollars to promote himself, it was preserved on a 61-34 vote. Two Democrats — Sen. Evan Bayh, Ind., and Sen. Russ Feingold, Wis. — voted for the DeMint amendment, while 16 Republicans voted against it. The 16 were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kit Bond of Missouri, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Larry Craig of Idaho, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens of Alaska, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.

If the Republicans held firm, this would not have passed, but instead of pushing a new line on spending, we get the same ole 2004-2006 version of the GOP from them, not the 1994 version. I'm not surprised at most of these names here. Ted Stevens is the worst of the bunch - he's the Republican's version of Robert Byrd on pork. Larry Craig showed his "Brilliance" when he doesn't even know what pleading guilty means. None of the rest are prizes either.

Lott, Hatch, and Lugar get some credit - at least they voted against Jack Murtha's pork project. That's not saying much, but with the way the senate works, I'm not all that unhappy with them only screwing us with pork 1/2 of the time instead of all the time as it usually is.

A lot of Senators need some primaries in 2008. Time to Clean the house of these 16 jokers. Our party and our country will be better off long-term with the removal of this deadweight. Send the democrats home as well. 49 of them screwed us.

No Federal Money for Train to Nowhere

$1 million denied from the feds. From the Argus

A rail line project between Washtenaw and Livingston counties won't receive a $1 million federal grant to help fund the system's infrastructure.
The committee planning the system learned on Monday that the federal grant money — earmarked for other projects — won't be applied to the rail project, which would extend between Howell and Ann Arbor.

No tax money should be used for this. See the post below for why I call this the "Train to Nowhere."

Price of Commuter Rail between Howell and Ann Arbor - $2.3 Million subsidy

At least that's the estimate from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study.

From the Ann Arbor News, they estimate:

884,000 riders a year. (I think that's way high)
Annual Operating Costs - $4.8 million
Annual revenue - $2.5 million

For comparison's sake, they average $27 a day from a car commute from Howell to Ann Arbor. That's about 60 miles a day, round trip. 60 miles is between 1/5 and 1/6 of a tank in my evil assault SUV. I drive a V6 and have about a 20 gallon tank. For me, that's about $7-10 a day if I was still commuting to Howell - about 1/3 of what they mentioned. I haven't figured depreciation costs, but even with that, I'd like to know how they determined $27 unless I'm reading the media report wrong.

Almost 50% of the funds would be subsidized. That's not sometime I'm going to support.

Last March, I wrote my reasons and concerns about this becoming our own version of the Detroit People Mover..

.....I'm not completely against this, but I'm not sold on it for several reasons. Pro's and cons, assuming it expands to Howell. (It's worthless if it doesn't)

Pros
1. Less traffic on US 23 South of Whitmore Lake.
2. More environmental friendly than cars.


Cons
1. Costs. How much to build? How much to operate? How much charged to the consumer.
2. This isn't New York, Chicago, or Toronto. It's not even Detroit. Is there enough people in the area to use this? Washtenaw and Livingston Counties combined number under 500,000 people, and the population is spread out.
3. The Detroit People Mover is far from a success.
4. Parking. People would have to drive to the stations. Brighton is left out unless they drive (on US 23) to Whitmore Lake - 8 miles from Ann Arbor. For that much trouble, it's easier to drive. For me, and the stop is about 2 miles away from me, it's easier to drive.
5. Customers - While many, including myself, commute to Ann Arbor from the county, how many commute to Detroit, Oakland County, Flint, and Lansing? Livingston commuters travel in all directions. Secondly, I'm assuming more Ann Arbor commuters live in Pinckney, Hamburg, Brighton, Hartland, and South Lyon than elsewhere in the county. The proposed route covers only Hamburg. Brighton is left out, and that is a likely customer base.
6. US 23 traffic - If the main stop is in Whitmore Lake, the traffic problem from M-36 Northward is not even slowed.
7. Police presence required. Added costs.


Wildcards
1. Parking. Will there be enough?
2. Service - how quickly do the trains run
3. Expansion - Does the rail expand to Brighton? Hartland? Fenton? South Lyon? I can not see this succeeding at all if Brighton is not covered. That gets some people off US 23. Does this go to Oakland County? I've heard of proposals of a Detroit-Lansing link.
4. Private funding. How much?
5. How much public support is there for this?
....

In July, I went further and called it Jurassic Pork based on the numbers given at the time.

.....9 million will cover what? You have salaries, security, normal wear and tear, energy costs, and runs. 2.9 for startup? Between the trains, parking lot construction, training, etc? I'm skeptical. Even using that number, will you get a profit on that. 15,000 people (estimated number of commuters from Livingston to Ann Arbor at $225 a month (rumored price) will get you 3.37 Million a month - that's if EVERY commuter in the county uses it and pays that amount. I'm guessing most of the commuters to Ann Arbor are in Brighton, Hartland, and Hamburg. Hamburg has 20,000 people. I'll guess that 4000 of them commute to Ann Arbor, with 1000 in Howell (city has 10000 people) commuting. That'll give 5000 of the areas covered from the train. 5000 * 225 - 1.125 million a month - if all commute on the train. Anyone familiar with Hamburg knows how spread out it is. Part of it is "Brighton", most of it is "Pinckney", part of it is "Lakeland", and part of it is "Whitmore Lake". I'll be shocked if most of the commuters are going to drive a few miles to wait for the train. This area is spread out. Howell is denser, but has much less population - and it too is spread out a bit in its eastern and northern most areas near 59 - and forget about getting much help from Genoa (even with the Chilson stop - that area is flat out country), Marion, Howell Twp, and Oceola.

In order to cover the estimated operation costs from regular commuters - you need 408,334 a month - 1814 commuters a day (including weekends, so weekend warriors are very important). That leaves 2.9 million in debt from startup costs which can be paid for over a few years with good profit.

Can you get 15-20% of county's Ann Arbor commuters to use the train EVERY DAY - despite cutting out Brighton and Hartland from the route? If you can, then I'll cook up some fried crow.

Unless this pays for itself, I'm considering it the lite version of the Bridge to Nowhere - Jurassic Pork. I'm not against Mass Transit, and if convienent for me I'll consider using it. I am however against reckless spending of government's tax money on longshot proposals....

Right now, I'm about ready to call it the train to nowhere, in dishonor of Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere supported by 83 senators where it was cheaper to buy everyone a plane rather than build a bridge. Like the Alaska bridge, there isn't enough people densely packed in Livingston or Washtenaw Counties to make this profitable and an adequate solution.

GOP and Spending

An Interesting washington Times Editorial on the GOP and Spending. I agree with it to an extent, but there's more to mention.

Polling data on the issue of which party Americans trust to manage federal spending has turned upside down over the past several years. Republicans — viewed historically as more disciplined when it comes to fiscal responsibility — have now lost that advantage, according to many national surveys. In an Alice in Wonderland kind of reversal, more citizens now give the Democrats the edge on the question of stewardship over the federal treasury.

As the chart below suggests, Republicans held an advantage on spending discipline for many years, but that pattern reversed in 2003. And by 2006 and 2007, Democrats held a clear advantage on the issue.



As a longtime observer of Washington, I found this shift particularly odd. In all my years in Washington, rarely have I seen a debate where Democrats want to spend less than do Republicans. So why have the parties traded places on this issue?



One answer is obvious. Since September 11, Republicans have indeed opened up the spending spigots with alacrity. "We spent like drunken sailors" is a common refrain among many Republican lawmakers. It's repeated often in the halls of Congress and usually given as one of the reasons the Democrats won back the majority in 2006.



But there is a more subtle explanation, one that might cause the issue to swing back in the Republicans' favor over the next couple of years now that the Democrats hold the majority. Most voters didn't pay much attention to Democrats' spending proposals over the past several years. In the House and Senate, Democrats offered amendment after amendment increasing federal largess in budget and appropriations bills, routinely defeated by the Republicans. While in the minority, Democrats basked in the luxury of criticizing the Republicans, while never really being held accountable for their own spending initiatives — because none of them ever passed. In other words, they were shooting with legislative blanks. Democrats had big spending plans, but no ability to implement them. As a result, most voters heard criticism of Republicans, but never took Democrats' spending ideas seriously, because they never passed.

The problem is twofold. One, the GOP did an extremely poor job on mentioning how worst the democrat spending bill were. I knew them, but I'm not the guy that needs to be convinced about the worseness of the democrat spending. The other problem - and bigger problem - is that the GOP spending bills were so bad in the first place. Us fiscal conservatives have higher standards for the GOP. We expect the democrats to suck on spending. We don't expect the republicans to suck (even suck less) on spending. The GOP now has lost the trust of the people on spending and needs to get it back.

Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee were some of the few during the last congress to push on this and they were rebuffed by the leadership that caused the GOP to lose the house and senate. They have to continue to lead, and the GOP will have to propose smart alternative legislation on issues to lead the way. There will need to be Lastly Bush needs to actually use his veto pen on spending measures for once in his life.

This will take time, leadership, and something other than the same old talking points from the NRSC/NRCC/RNC.

We need more taxes so we can go to Hawaii

In a sickening use of tax money, 80 Michigan public officials are going to Hawaii on our tax dime.

From the Free Press

Nearly 80 officials across Michigan -- more than twice the number of any other state -- plan to fly off to Hawaii this month for a weeklong conference on public pension issues. And taxpayer-backed pension funds will pay the tab.

Leading the Michigan contingent are 13 officials from Detroit, making Detroit second to only Chicago, which planned to send 16 people, according to a list of registrants compiled by the event's sponsor and obtained by the Free Press.

Michigan communities investing in pension training at the Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa include:

• Monroe County planned to send nine people; the City of Monroe, five.

• Grand Rapids and Pontiac planned to send seven each.

• Oakland County planned to send five.

Among Detroit officials listed as attending are Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick; Fire Commissioner Tyrone Scott; Marty Bandemer, president of the Detroit Police Officers Association; the Rev. Wendell Anthony, and City Council members Monica Conyers and Alberta Tinsley-Talabi. All have roles in overseeing the pension systems.

Matt Allen, a Kilpatrick spokesman, said the pension board will pay for the costs of the Detroiters, but Kilpatrick will cover his own airfare, meals and incidentals.
Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings was also listed to attend. But, when contacted by the Free Press on Wednesday, James Tate, a police spokesman, said Bully-Cummings would not be going, adding that her about-face was "made some time ago" as other priorities arose.

Allen said Kilpatrick will use the conference to better understand issues facing the city's public pensions. "This isn't a vacation, this is a working conference, and the fact that it's in Honolulu, it's a bonus," he said.

Working conference? That's a pile of horse manure, and in this case, make it a clydesdale's pile. I have a few questions here.

1. Why is this conference essential to public policy? Are our pensions safer or will adequate pension reform not happen if our officials do not go to this conference?
2. If this "conference" was so vital to public policy on pension issues, why is it in Hawaii? Why not DC, Columbus, St Louis, or another city easy to get to from elsewhere in the country?
3. Why is our tax money paying for the Hilton? What's wrong with Motel 6?
4. Are we going to have an itemized accounting of all expenditures there? The golf trips, booze, and bills that our tax money is paying for? Riiiight.

This is a trip to Hawaii vacation, folks. No more, no less.

Leon Drolet said it best:

Leon Drolet, executive director of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, said he doesn't understand why so many officials in the state are traveling for a week in Hawaii when Michigan is mired in a fiscal crisis and many communities and school districts are facing budget shortfalls, employee buyouts and layoffs.

"The leaders of Detroit and Lansing keep telling the public they've cut spending to the bone, yet they can say that with a straight face while getting ready to fly to Hawaii on the taxpayers' dime. It's obscene," Drolet said.

"When you're sending a delegation of that size, that includes politicians, this is clearly a vacation on the beach while their constituents are struggling to find and keep jobs."

These city/county bozos living it up make a good case for consolidation.