Matt Millen announces run for governor as a democrat

I found this from the news.  It has to be seen to be believed. After eight years of Jennifer Granholm, I'm not voting for her former Detroit Lions counterpart. This is my last choice.

ALLEN PARK -- Former Detroit Lions President and current College Football commentator Matt Millen has thrown his name into the already crowded race for Michigan's governor.

"I've been a champion as a player, and I have executive experience. I can get the job done," said Millen in his announcement from his home. "It's time for an outsider with executive experience." Millen was asked about his loyalties to the democratic party. "Jennifer Granholm has done an excellent job, and I will run a similar style of government. This mess was all Governor John Engler's fault. All of it."

One republican official who spoke on condition of anonymity commented that "Jennifer Granholm was called the Matt Millen of Governors for a reason." Leading democratic officials had no comment.

Matt Millen is an apt person to run. Both Granholm and Millen took 9-7 teams, and gave us eight years of losing, and a long recovery ahead. Both ran their organizations into the ground. With Governor Millen, we'd go from bad to worse.

Granholm pushes for a new tax increase

The Matt Millen of Governors is at it again with her push for tax increases. From the Detroit News.

ansing -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm defended her proposal to extend the sales tax to services on a cable TV news show this morning, saying Michigan "has to invest in education" to convert from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy.
The governor said on MSNBC that Michigan has "a big, hairy audacious goal of doubling our number of college graduates." In order to do that, she said the state has to stop cutting education spending, which it did this year by $165 per student.
Since public school aid is funded primarily with sales taxes, the state needs to update and stabilize its sales levy by expanding it to include most services, Granholm said. In the past century, about 60 percent of consumer purchases were made on goods and today about two-thirds is spent on services, she said.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100329/POLITICS02/3290392/1022/Granholm--Sales-tax-on-services-needed-to-bolster-education#ixzz0jaR7wdmG

This ain't new. Granholm pushed this in 2009

This is a big threat to occur however. It's not just Granholm pushing this. Pete Hoekstra has signed on board with this. Self proclaimed Business Leaders for Michigan is on board.

I don't see solutions, only gimmicks and demands that people bail out the government for their fiscal mismanagement. The problem is jobs. The sales tax revenues are down because people are spending less.

Graholm, Democrats, and fiscal liberal Republicans want to raise taxes again

Here we go again.From Peter Luke

LANSING -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm today endorsed taxing the sale of most personal services, reducing the sales tax rate from 6 percent to 5.5 percent, and using the proceeds to cut business taxes and bolster funding for K-12 schools. The tax overhaul provides the foundation of the fiscal 2011 budget plan that Granholm presented to lawmakers in the Capitol this morning. The blueprint closes an estimated $1.6 billion gap in revenues and expenditures.

...

Additional revenue from the tax would finance a phaseout of the $600 million, 2007 surcharge to the Michigan Business Tax and provide an immediate $500 million for the state school aid fund.
The base would continue to exclude business-purchased services, health care and education such as college tuition. It presumably would include services such as entertainment, car repair, dry cleaning and could include accounting, legal and insurance.
Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, has a bill to expand the base and reduce the sales tax rate to 5 percent. The key for Granholm and supporters of the idea will be to identify what services will be taxed and then protect the list from an expected lobbying onslaught from interests seeking carve-outs. A 2007 sales tax expansion collapsed, and was replaced by the MBT surcharge, because it was riddled with loopholes. Ski tickets were taxed; golfing fees were not.
"As this gets more serious, we're going to have more people coming in and saying it shouldn't include us," Meadows said. "It's better to have everybody in (the base) so no one feels jealous about who gets out."
Another flashpoint will be Republican resistance to a tax plan that generates net new revenue for government services and education. Any tax overhaul, said Sen. Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township, also has to come after passage of reforms, such as his proposal to make every public employee in the state contribute at least 20 percent toward of the cost of health insurance.
The Business Leader's plan is revenue neutral overall in that every dime of additional sales tax revenue pays for eliminating the MBT surcharge and cutting a key MBT rate on business revenue.
But the business community is split over the idea.
Michael Johnston, head of legislative affairs for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said every business in the state would benefit from BLM's plan. "We compete on the basis of cost with the lowest cost location in the world," he said. "Our tax policy, if it's going to be successful in creating jobs, has to understand that dynamic."
Richard Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said business tax reduction should be paid for through meaningful reductions in the size of state government, not "overly complicated, meaningless tax shifts. The problem isn't the method of taxation, it's that we're losing taxpayers."

Now why did I put that title up to include liberal republicans? It's because of this. Business Leaders of Michigan. I heard a lot of touting of them up at last years Mackinac Conference. I discussed there proposals when it came out back in 09. Some of it was good. Some of it was horrible.  The sales tax was horrible, and Granholm had a point asking where the support was from them when she pushed a lower 2 cent services tax. These people want it higher.

BOTH are wrong. Damn wrong. I'll be making some phone calls. We need to call our reps and let them know that new taxes are unacceptable, and that we control the Republican Party, not Business Leaders of Michigan. When Business Leaders of Michigan are right, we will support them. When they are wrong, we don't.

This is a tax increase. Period. 1/2 a cent off the sales tax and 5.5 cents increased on things that aren't taxed, so bigger businesses don't have to pay a surcharge. While I agree that the surcharge has to go, the solution isn't increasing taxes on everybody. The solution is less government, more freedom, real reform, less gimmicks, and tightening of the belts.

There's also this from The Detroit News

Gov. Jennifer Granholm today proposed cutting the sales tax, extending the levy to some services and using the extra revenue to ratchet down business taxes over two years and stave off a $400 million reduction in public school funding. She also called for using a tax credit to reinstate the $4,000 Promise scholarships for college students while requiring graduates to work in Michigan at least one year to be eligible. Further, she would slap a 3 percent tax on physicians' profits to help finance Medicaid health care for the poor and a surcharge on airport rental cars to fund the Pure Michigan tourism promotion.
Granholm also proposes maintaining public school and higher education spending and revenue sharing at current levels. She also would not cut trooper numbers.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100211/POLITICS02/2110449/1409/METRO08#ixzz0fGTFt4ON

The Doctor's tax proposal is back!  Rent a car tax to fund commercials. This budget is a shell game and gimmicks, just like every other one  I've seen for the last eight years.

This is like most Granholm budgets, unacceptable.

Lansing wants to raise Michigan's 33 cent (not 19) gas tax

If you look at the media and their love of taxes, and not know how it works, you could easily fall for their lie, damn lie, and statistics that the gas tax is 19 cents, and supposedly low. It's not 19cents. That's right. Michigan's gas tax is currently 33 cents.  It's not 19 cents. It's 33, and fluctuates as the price of gas moves. At $2.65 a gallon, which I last saw in Brighton, 33 cents goes to Lansing. That makes the gas tax 33 cents, regardless of any crap that comes from the media.

Lansing and the media always ignores, purposefully in their quest for high taxes and more government, that the gas tax is 33 cents. This is due to bipartisan big government individuals who both have an interested in taking more money from us. The republicans on this side, like Dick Ball and former state senator Ken Sikkema are a major problem and the cause of why we lost our majority in the house. Big government Republicanism is a failure, both on the federal and state level. Nowhere is it worse in Michigan, than on the gas tax.

From the Detroit News

Lansing -- Two state representatives have introduced bills in Lansing that call for an increase of the state tax and both gasoline and diesel fuel.The bills -- sponsored by Rep. Dick Ball, R-Bennington Township, and Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, call for raising the gas tax incrementally until motorists would eventually be paying 27 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel by Jan. 1, 2013. 
Currently, the gas tax is 19 cents per gallon and 15 cents per gallon for diesel.

The gas tax is not 19 cents per gallon. I will repeat that. The gas tax is not 19 cents a gallon. I will say that one more time so the cheap seats can hear it. THE GAS IS NOT 19 CENTS A GALLON! That's only part of the tax, and I will call it out every time I see it.
Final price $2.65.
Minus - 19 cents - $2.46
Other part of Michigan tax - 14 cents in sales tax.
Another 18.5 cents goes to the feds as well.
At $2.65 a gallon, 51.5 cents goes to big government.

The Lansing elite has been trying to push this crap down our throats for years. This is the worst kind of tax. It hits us every time at the pump. It hits us at the grocery story as we pay for more shipping costs. It raises everyone's expenses. Gas prices did tons of damage in 2007 and 2008 to this economy and was part of the straw that broke the camel's back. Here's just a small list:

• Transportation tax passes committee - December 2009
• Ken Sikkema pushes for gas tax - August 2009
• Mike Crane pushes for gas tax - June 2009
• Flint Journal - May 2009
• Peter Luke's one of several articles advocating for the gas tax - April 2009
• November 2008 - Lansing insiders
• Granholm and Gilbert - January 2008
• October 2007

Peter Luke is at it again with his scare tactics yesterday. Same thing that's been said for years.


This is all based on a false premise. The false premise is that only the gas tax can fund roads. Every single so called plan I have seen on that false premise. Every single advocacy for the tax is based on that. It's crap. I'm not going to rehash the arguments. I've done that about six times already and nothing has changed.

Everyone that votes for this tax or advocates for this tax needs to be tossed out of office faster than you can say Martha Coakley. I don't care which party. I don't care if the rep is a friend. Lansing needs to get the message one way or another, and maybe it will have to take some firings to do that.

Granholm signs budgets

The budget has been signed.
From Peter Luke

"The budget is signed. State government will not shut down," Granholm said in a conference call with reporters. "This is the state budget we have, but it is not the budget we need."
Granholm blasted the Republican-controlled Senate's "extremist" ideology that she said fails to consider revenue options to restore funding for the eliminated Michigan Promise college scholarship, the 11 percent cut state aid to local governments, and 8 percent cut to Medicaid providers and the $127-per-pupil reduction she ordered last week in K-12 education.
"It is a budget I don't agree with and don't support," Granholm said.
"It makes cuts that are too deep and are too painful for kids going to college, families keeping their families health and keeping their streets safe."

The budget is largely the product of a September agreement by House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Twp., and Senate Majority Leader Michael Bishop, R-Rochester Hills, to close a $2.8 billion spending gap for general state services and schools -- half through cuts and half through using federal stimulus dollars. Granholm's efforts to insert nearly $700 million in new revenue into the agreement was rejected.
Dillon said Friday in a statement that Bishop broke his word to seek a middle ground approach that would include revenue to restore 2010 cuts after they took effect. Bishop has said repeatedly that there were no votes in his caucus for higher revenue beyond that already passed. Those include capping tax credits for low-wage families and film production in Michigan. The Senate tied the revenue to cuts in the Michigan Business Tax.

This is a lesser of two evils budget. It's a continuation, gimmick budget with no reforms. This is a George Bush budget. It's better than John Kerry or the tax increases, but that's not saying much. Why? Because we have no reforms, no structural changes, and the same problems going to happen next year and the year after. Already a 300+ billion shortfall is projected for next year.

I do get a laugh out of Granholm, the Matt Millen of Governors, once again blaming the GOP, when the democrats control two full branches of the Michigan government, and nearly control the 3rd.

The best news is that she's gone after next year. We can't do worse.

Cox has highest lead in general election poll (45% Cox, 30% Cherry)

Now this is real early, but the results are so far promising. EPIC/MRA, a democrat leaning polling firm, has all GOP candidates leading Cherry in the General election except Rick Snyder. The taps were posted by Wood TV in Grand Rapids. Some interesting results.

Direction (US).
35% - Right Direction
58% - Wrong Direction

Direction (Michigan)
17% - Right Direction
75% - Wrong Direction

Democrat Primary:
33% - John Cherry
5% - Alma Wheeler Smith
3% - George Perles (Yes, that Perles)
3% - Don Williamson
2% - John Freeman
54% - Undecided

Republican Primary:
29% - Pete Hoekstra
28% - Mike Cox
14% - Mike Bouchard
3% - Rick Snyder
2% - Tom George
24% Undecided.

Positive/Negative Obama
48% - Positive
51% - Negative

Positive/Negative Granholm
33% - Positive
66% - Negative

Matchups:

45% Cox
30% Cherry
25% Undecided

40% Hoekstra
33% Cherry
27% Undecided

39% Bouchard
31% Cherry
30% Undecided

34% Cherry
32% Snyder
34% Undecided

Once again. This is a democrat leaning polling firm. This isn't Strategic Vision. This isn't even Mitchell. From this firm, Cox leads by 15, and the rest have leads of at least 7 outside of Rick Snyder. The results are good if you are not a democrat or Rick Snyder. The problem with Cherry is that he's Michigan's version of Al Gore in a bad economy. After eight years of an administration, there's usually fatigue. Reagan was the exception, and the VP Bush won in 1988. Gore had a good economy, and he still couldn't win because he turned into a gun grabber when he went national. Dick Cheney didn't run in 2008, but probably would have done no different than McCain.

Posthumus could have won with a little more help as the 12% expected loss turned into 4%. Still wasn't a win. Engler broke the 8 year jinx with a third term however. Milliken's first choice lost in the primary after 12 years. Blanchard himself lost when he wanted a 3rd term. After 8 years, usually it's trouble.

And unless things change in the next year, it's big trouble for Granholm/Cherry. Cherry isn't following Clinton who had a good rep thanks to the 1994 Republicans and their work on the economy. Cherry's following the Matt Millen of governors.

Granholm wants to raise taxes again

I'm shocked that Granholm, the Matt Millen of Governors, wants to raise taxes yet again after promising that it won't happen.

There are three plans out. House Republicans plan (cuts), Senate Republicans (which passed and balanced the budget without raising taxes), and Granholm Democrats. Granholm was the last to announce a plan and it is the typical democrat plan. More taxes. Even tax raising Andy Dillon who saved her in 07 so far publicly opposed the plan. I wonder if Dillon is planning a gubernatorial run or something.....

From the AP

"The governor should know that showboating a proposal that has no chance of passing is not a way to solve the state's fiscal crisis," Dillon said in a statement. "All parties need to put theatrics and demands aside and get back to the hard work of negotiating a budget solution."

A spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop of Rochester said the governor making her revenue plan public helps "move the ball forward" on negotiations, but added he doubts some of her proposals will get a warm welcome.

"A half-billion dollars in new revenues is certainly not the course chartered by Senate Republicans," Matt Marsden said.

Personally, I think that's just good cop Dillon and bad cop Granholm. Granholm probably wanted to push the big tax increases hard at first and then cave in on a smaller increase. This is a typical lawyer contract/settlement negotiation ploy. Go for the farm first, bluster, and back off. This is the right place for that technique, since neither side wants to walk away from a budget negotiation.

Granholm's budget does have some cuts, but not enough. The only two good things are that she supports eliminating the MBT surcharge over three years, and wants to allow bars to stay open past 2am for a fee (I won't be there after 2, but I support that option). That positive is negated in spades by this negative.

To balance next year's budget, she'd raise $546 million in tax revenue by slicing 12 percent from some business tax breaks — including a popular film credit — and hike the cigarette tax rate from $2 a pack to $2.25 while doubling taxes on other tobacco products.

She wants to place a 1-cent tax on each bottle of water sold in Michigan, lower a tax credit for the working poor, increase liquor license fees, and expand the 6 percent sales tax to service contracts, vending machine sales and live entertainment, including sporting events.

Note that the Detroit News said it was 1 PERCENT tax on bottled water.

I'll sign on board to some of the credit elimination that picks winners over losers (and make it just a tax cut), but I am damn well against these.

1cent tax on bottled water. There goes some jobs. I drink tap water, but I'm still against this crap on principle. What's next? Pop? Carbs? Booze? Greens? Meat?

Lower tax credit for working poor? How about cutting their taxes so they aren't as poor?

Services tax? Screw you. That affects me directly. Guess what? Costs past down to consumers. I'll just write it up as the Granholm Services tax required by law.

Entertainment and sporting events - There's Michigan's culture taxed. That Bob Seger, Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, or Motown concert is costing a lot more money now. So are the MSU and Lions games. Let's bankrupt this like manufacturing.

Vending machines. Those aren't cheap to begin with. Let's put them out of business. She also wants tax increases for 2010-2011 as well.

Another $0.25 tax increase to a pack of smokes. Double the smokeless tobacco/cigar tax. Where's the money coming from when smokers quit.

Liquor license fees - The restaurant industry is already struggling. That's not what they need.

Freeze in income tax deductions - Basically, an income tax increase. If we pay more, it's an increase.

This Granholm incompetence and multiple tax/fee increases over her time in office has destroyed this state. It will take some good sound leadership to overcome this Matt Millenesque disaster.

Like the sign at the tea party said. "Democrats destroyed Detroit." They are now in the process of destroying Michigan, and want to increase the same policies that are destroying this state and think it will lead to another result. That's insanity.

This Granholm budget must be stopped. NO new taxes.

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.

More debt in Michigan. Look out for more taxes.

Some bad news that is not shocker with the Matt Millen of governors running the show here.

From the Grand Rapids Press

The report illustrates that Michigan can't march blithely into the future thinking its budget problems have been solved. Even when the state's economy turns around, Michigan's government will continue to operate at increasing deficits -- what the report calls a "structural deficit" because it's built into the very structure of government and isn't caused by cyclical economic woes. Among the study's key findings:


If current spending and tax policies continue, Michigan will face a cumulative deficit of nearly $10 billion by 2017 -- $6 billion from the general fund and $3.6 billion from funding for K-12 education.


Michigan's roads would see a $417 million deficit by 2017. This is true despite a state transportation plan that includes $8.7 billion in new construction and highway repair needs.


Prisons and health care are major causes of the budget gap in the general fund. Both categories of spending will grow at five times the rate of money coming into state coffers, the report estimates.

The report recommends several solutions, all worthy of consideration. Shifting some of the state's tax burdens to the growing service sector would allow Michigan's revenues to follow its economy. Michigan ranks low among states in the number of services taxed. Any service tax would have to be fair, unlike the capricious levy briefly enacted, then quickly revoked, last year. Another alternative is to create a graduated income tax here, as we have on the federal level, where rates rise with income.

However, toying with the state's tax structure and rates should come only after lawmakers have reined in insupportable spending. One simple solution: State employees and teachers must share more of their health costs. Another big opportunity for reform is in prison spending. Michigan incarcerates 47 percent more prisoners on average than the seven surrounding Great Lakes states, largely because of longer sentences. Lawmakers need to take a long-overdue look at sentencing and parole procedures, as well as alternatives to imprisonment for non-violent offenders.

None of this is easy work, especially in a political year. But lawmakers who claim to care about the future of our state -- and that should be all of them -- won't neglect it.

Now this report is from a group with a strong establishment board of trustees, the Citizens Research Council. One of the names on there is Phil Power, whom I almost always disagree with. Power had his own editorial today in the Argus which he once owned.

From the Argus

The nonpartisan and highly respected Citizens Research Council of Michigan (CRC) is predicting — once again — long-term, big-time state budget trouble. Even though the legislature thrashed and fought most of last year, barely avoiding a state shutdown before finally enacting a new tax package and balancing the budget ... it turns out that was only a temporary plug for the collapsing dam.

In fact, little last year has done anything to relieve the "chronic structural budget deficit." That means the cost increases of state programs will continue to outrun revenues.

Rapidly rising health-care costs and our prison system (estimated at 7.3 percent per year) will swamp state finances. The CRC experts estimate budget gaps starting next year which would balloon to a $6 billion hole in the General Fund by 2017 if nothing is done.

All of which makes it disgraceful that last year's report of the governor's Emergency Financial Advisory Panel was so roundly ignored. The panel, headed by former governors Jim Blanchard and Bill Milliken and consisting of some of Michigan's most distinguished leaders, came up with a remarkably tough-minded, far-reaching set of structural reforms designed to cut costs and assure adequate revenues to sustain necessary state programs.

Some examples:


Cutting corrections expenses, which now at $2.2 billion a year is more than the state spends on our colleges and universities.


Reducing fringe benefits for state employees, which now exceed by a mile those paid to workers in the private sector.


Working out better ways for school districts and local government units to collaborate by sharing services and cutting costs.

The devastating new CRC projections should come as no surprise to those familiar with the emergency panel's brief report, which ought to have been mailed to every family in the state.

Now any report with Single Business Tax creator Bill Millken and Jim "I raised taxes 38%" Blanchard has my guard up immediately. They recommended more tax increases, especially the "services tax" in their infamous report. It's what I expect from a couple of political hacks.

Regardless of any committee talk, it is no secret that there is going to be a major deficit. I would not be surprised if there are more taxes this year, especially in the "lame duck" session as a "parting gift" like Rick Johnson gave us in 2004 from some termed out legislators. I'm quite concerned about a gas tax increase, as well as the return of the services tax. Those two are being pushed hard by the elite.

While the presidential race will get most of the hype, we need to watch Lansing like a hawk.

"Gender identity or Expression" What the hell?

This just in. Executive order.

From the AP:

LANSING, Mich. - Gov. Jennifer Granholm has issued an order that bars discrimination against state workers based on their "gender identity or expression," which protects the rights of those who behave, dress or identify as members of the opposite sex.

The order, which Granholm signed Wednesday, adds gender identity to a list of other prohibited grounds for discrimination that includes religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, marital status, politics, disability or genetic information.

Batting for the other team is one thing. It's not my thing, but I really don't care one way or another about it - but gender identity or expression? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Cross dressing? Guys wearing dresses and going to the woman's bathroom? Its? I don't even want to know.

I have a strong libertarian streak, but my tolerance has a limit. Now I'm not saying that it, whatever it is, should be outlawed, but "Gender identity or expression" is worthy of protection on the same level as religion, race, or national origin - or even sexual orientation?

The Fire Granholm movement catching fire?

From the Free Press

LANSING -- The campaign to recall members of the Legislature who supported last weekend's sales and income tax hikes may be expanded to target the one person most closely identified with the effort -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

Recall organization leaders said Wednesday that the people contacting them to volunteer in the antitax recall effort are most upset with the governor.

Leon Drolet of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance said that just this week, he has received messages from 1,000 people volunteering to collect signatures to recall Granholm. Drolet, whose group planned to first target up to five lawmakers who voted for the increases, said, "It's amazing how angry people are about the governor."

Some of the political class are saying it can't be done. It couldn't be done in California either against Gray Davis....oh what...it was done.

With some hard work, elbow grease, and top flight organization it can certainly be done. I'm doing some research and planning on this as I type. I know others are doing the same. Plans are in the works. Stay tuned.

One thing to remember, Lt Governor John Cherry has to go as well if Granholm goes. While I personaly like Cherry, he was the tiebreaking vote when the senate deadlocked. They enter as a team, and need to leave as a team.

Big Government picking winners and losers

As the old song goes - "I don't know why, I don't understand, how you sold me down the river...."

Actually I do know how, and why we were sold down the river. Government can, that's why. If you were a damn good lobbyist, you were safe from the sales tax increase. If not, you got sold down the river. From the Detroit News.

Dating services are covered, but a round of golf is not.

Going skiing will be subject to the state's 6 percent sales tax but not going to see the Detroit Lions.

Consultants' services will be taxed, lawyers' won't be.

Lawyers! Imagine that. The good news is that in a couple of years, I won't be taxed. That said, this isn't right. Period. We all know that the Trial Lawyers lobby is Granholm's best funders. I'm far from anti lawyer, and I'm rather pro-defense attorney after seeing the Mike Nifong fiasco, but this is an example of government picking winners and losers. I agree that legal services should not be taxed. Neither should any of the others hit in this bailout attempt of fiscal mismanagement.

Why skiing and not the Lions or Golf? Pure numbers. There are a lot of golfers and Lions' ticket holders.

Businesses subject to the new tax complained Monday it is arbitrary and unfair. The sales tax on services, which takes effect Dec. 1, was part of a package of bills passed by the Legislature early Monday to resolve a budget impasse and end a brief government shutdown.

"Whoever screamed the loudest was overlooked is what it sounds like to me," said Terry Newman, president of commercial landscaper Superior Scape in Shelby Township.

"Any one service that didn't have a strong lobby was going to get hit with the tax," said Paul Alberts, president of the Romulus-based courier service Reliable Delivery.

Rep. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, chairman of the House tax policy committee, acknowledged lobbying was intense over what services would be subject to the sales tax and what services would not. He did not deny that lobbying played a role in keeping entertainment and tickets to sporting events exempt from the tax.

"I think there was a lot of lobbying against those, and to some extent when this came up people were not too eager to go on that," Bieda said.

What a cluster(self-censored).

Why not go to a part time legislature? Or get some paycuts for the reps? Or cut Dan Mulhern's staff? Or cut that new sweetheart building deal with big donor Joel Ferguson? There's a good start. If I had the power, I could balance this budget in a day. It's real simple folks. Balance for this year first with cuts, then enact long term reforms for the future to prevent future costs.

Now I expect to see some mass resignations for poor mismanagement.

Recalls. What does it take?

I've gotten a ton of questions about recalls and what it entails.

The full answer is here at the Michigan Legislature site. Below is the reader's digest version.

Here's the basics. I'm not 100% sure on all of this, but fairly sure based on the people I've asked about it. I'm going to use Granholm as the example target.

First someone needs to pull a petition in the resident county of the person being recalled and get the language correct for a recall. The petition must comply with 544c 1 and 2. The language for the recall must be CLEAR, or it will be tossed out. In Granholm's case, the county is probably Northville in Wayne County, unless there has been a residency change. Then it would be Lansing in Ingham County (home of the governor's mansion). Between 10 and 20 days after the petitions are pulled, the board of county election commissioners will certify the language. There will be a hearing on the clarity for the reasons of recall. Appeals may be taken on either side. If there is sufficient clarity for the reason of recall, then the petitions will be circulated. I am not as familiar on this part of elections, as I am on other parts of election law. That my disclaimer.

Once the recall reasons are valid due to clairty, there is a 180 day window to circulate signatures, and all signatures need to be within a 90 day period. The number of signatures is clear.

The petitions shall be signed by registered and qualified electors equal to not less than 25% of the number of votes cast for candidates for the office of governor at the last preceding general election in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. Upon written demand, the county clerk, within 5 days, shall certify the minimum number of signatures required for the recall of an officer in the governmental unit in which recall is sought.

In Granholm's case, that means we need 950,314 signatures. It's not easy, but it can be done. The Gray Davis recall had over 2 million signatures, in a state much more democrat than this one, and at the low point of Republicans in California.

It can be done, but the organization and timing has to be perfect, and there needs to be enough money for it (paid signatures will be needed to win). I think we can get the numbers with the current "Throw all the bums out mentality". As for the recall election itself - if there are enough signatures, then there is the election. No other names will be on the ballot.

Shall (Name the person against whom the recall petition is filed) be recalled from the office of (title of the office)? Printed below the question in separate lines in easily legible type shall be the words “Yes[ ]” and “No[ ]”or in a form as may be prescribed by the secretary of state.

Political Action Committees are what support/oppose recall campaigns. Their regulations are covered at the Secretary of State's website under the Campaign and Elections section. However, recalls have no contribution limits by individuals. That means Granholm will have a lot of money from rich leftists and the Jon Stryker nutcases of the world. However, it means they will be wasting money playing defense instead of going on offense. It's not easy to spin a double tax increase. When a middle class family has to cough up $240 extra to the government, as well as another 6% on a bunch of services, it hits home. No amount of Stryker's money can spin the tax increase and the current economy.

If we can get all the Dick DeVos voters to sign this, we have more than enough signatures with plenty of room to spare. All it takes is a lot of hard work, a lot of organization, and the will to win. We have a choice. We can be stuck with the Matt Millen of governors for 3 more years, or we can a send a message to any future official what will happen if they run this state into the ground. If Granholm is recalled, that will be a message no politicians in this state, Democrat OR Republican will ever ever forget.

Let's send her back to Northville.

Granholm got her wish, and Michigan gets screwed

Double tax increases. I expected there was going to be one tax increase. I did not expect two. This economy is in the dumps, and that's the solution? Because government mismanages our money and messed up the state budget, going back from the Rick Johnson and Ken Sikkema led years to today's crew, we get this? Thanks guys. Because you all f'ed things up, we have to pay for it. Bipartisanship isn't always a good thing. Oftentimes it is when both parties get together to screw us over. It's when almost all the democrats are united, and a handful of republicans end up joining them.

While I was sleeping, the senate passed both tax increases, the sales tax increase, as well as the income tax increase. The sales tax increase passed 19-19 with Lt Gov. John Cherry being the tiebreaker. All Democrats supported the tax increase outside of Glenn Anderson who is in a swing district. All Republicans opposed it outside of Ron Jelinek, Valde Garcia, and Wayne Kuipers.

The Income Tax passed the senate. All Democrats voted for that except Anderson and Dennis Olshove. All Republicans voted against except Jelinek, Gerald Van Woerkom, Patricia Birkolz, and Tom George.

The House passed the Income Tax increase. All Democrats voted yes except Martin Griffin, Michael Simpson, and Lisa Wojno. All Republicans voted no except Ed Gaffney and Chris Ward.

The House also passed the sales tax increase. No Republican voted for that, and all democrats supported that except Kate Ebli and Marc Corriveau.

I still don't have the roll call for the MESSA reforms.

As far as Chris Ward and Valde Garcia go. Chris doesn't have a bad history on tax votes. There were two things he wanted. No shutdown, and some reforms. We got MESSA, but that was it. I did not expect a two tax requirement for the deal. To Chris's credit, he voted against the IMO worse of the two taxes (sales), although nether one was acceptable to me. Chris waited to the last minute and the board was closed, so I suspect he got burned, but wanted to keep a promise. At least he wasn't the deciding vote, and no democrats got a free pass (Simpson and Griffin DID vote for the sales tax - and let's not forget that). I haven't talked to Chris today, and I'd like his side of the story when this is said and done. Do I agree with the deal? No I do not. Do I consider him a RINO? No. Valde's a nice guy. I can count on him when it comes to the social matters, but this is one vote too many for me on fiscal issues. On this sales tax, I'm real disapointed. He was the deciding vote.

Overall, I'm flat out disgusted at state government. I'd love to support recalls against all of the state reps like Dillon, but they are gone within a year anyway. Let's be patient and send them home then. Dillon can and should wait until August next year. Simpson and Griffin played games, but they did raise taxes, as did Corriveau and Ebli. Those four can get sent home in November. So can McDowell, Espinoza, Byrum, Kathleen Law, Spade and other democrats in tough swing districts that voted for the double tax increase. All the other democrats should get primaried in August, as well as November opposition. April 15th next year is a great time to announce the opposition campaign kickoffs. Tax day.

Granholm needs to get recalled. She's the biggest problem. We can not afford to wait three years before she drives every single productive worker and industry out of our state. Rumor is that she wants to be a senator or Supreme Court Justice after she's governor. How about Private Citizen away from the government trough for the first time in I don't know how many years. If Gray Davis can get recalled in California of all places, we can recall Granholm.

In the senate, there are some tough districts that should be targets. Mark Schauer voted for both tax increases. He's now running for Congress. If he loses his congressional race he stays in the state senate. He should be the first target in the senate for recall. He can lose two elections. His current job, as well as the other job he wants. Send him back to Battle Creek

Michael Prusi is in a democrat leaning district in the UP, but Bush won it. He voted for both tax increases. He should be targeted.

Jim Barcia is in a swing state senate district. He's be extremely tough to beat, but being part of this mess doesn't help. Same goes for Deb Cherry, John's sister. They're nice people, but they still voted for double tax increases.

However if I had to pick and choose only two targets for recall, I'd focus on Granholm and Mark Schauer. Schauer is bucking for a promotion, and Granholm is the biggest problem of all. We got three years of those two jokers, unless sometime is done fast. Let's get the petitions ready and send them home.

Fire Millen! Fire Schauer! Fire Granholm!

116 million in waste. Thanks Granholm!

How arrogant. You're DEMANDING a tax increase, and want to feed us this BS?

As the threat of a government shutdown looms, Chief Investigator Steve Wilson is asking some tough questions of about a $116 million construction project for the state police.

Steve Wilson story pt 1

Steve Wilson story pt 2

This isn't some simple MSP project. It's a 25 year lease with Democrat leader Joel Ferguson (MSU trustee and wannabe football coach). Fergie gives tons of money to the dems and gets a sweetheart deal here in the budget.

And they want us to pay or this with a major league debt? All I can say to this is three words. Go to hell.

The state budget and our county's reps

The big issue right now is the budget and taxes. As we all know, Chris Ward and Valde Garcia have broke from the party on their votes. Chris on taxes, and Valde on the budget cuts. I've been getting a lot of heat from the right from both in county and non-county residents on this. I've gotten calls and emails asking me almost in a Vince Lombardi voice, "What the hell is going on out there?"

The Argus has an interesting story on this, focusing on the reps involved.

Livingston County lawmakers are emerging as high-profile participants in the scramble to come up with a budget solution before the new fiscal year starts on Monday.
State Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Marion Township, cast the only Republican vote against nearly $600 million in budget cuts on Sunday. And state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, who similarly broke with his party last week on an income-tax increase vote, has been named to an important joint conference committee tasked with tackling the revenue side of the budget stalemate.

The moves make them the only two Republicans who have publicly broken with their party to either limit the amounts of cuts that are proposed or to admit that increased taxes are necessary to cover at least part of the projected $1.7 billion shortfall.

There was the background.

Chris Ward was named to a conference committee on this. I did talk to Chris's office before his vote. I was told there was no deal at the time, and that he was working on the deal. I know there are some reforms he is after and is trying to get, particulary on school matters which has been one of his top issues. I think he's winning to compromise, but I don't think he's going to roll over and cave.

I do not consider Chris Ward a RINO (Republican in name only). Still don't. I've known him for several years, and as a rep, he's generally been solid on fiscal matters. If I had to simplify Chris's views, it is ideologicaly mainstream conservative, but pragmatic first. The number one issue he ran on is competence. The theme in all his campaign lit was "Chris Ward gets things done." This here is his biggest challenge, and he's taking the steps tacticaly he thinks needs to be done. He's looks for consensus more often than not. In my own opinion, I think he's going after some of the sacred cows of the democrats so we can get some real reform in this state. The MEA right now is scared to death of losing MESSA and it's extremely high overhead and others are scared to death about changes in government pensions. Unless these are taken care off, budgets will skyrocket for years to come.

Chris is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to politics. He's not afraid to take risks when it is necessary, but also is cautious at times when that is called for. We need to keep in mind that this is not a final vote. That is why I'm witholding judgment on Chris for now on this, and why you see this quote below.

Ward, who gave up his duties as minority floor leader when he voted for the tax increase, said he hopes to use the committee seat to advance the issue of equitable funding for school districts and benefit costs for teachers.

He said there is a proposal to bring all school districts to the same per-pupil funding level within 10 years, and another to give school boards more tools to competitively bid health-care benefit contracts.

"I've got some priorities for my state and my district I'm going to be looking for," he said.

Dan Wholihan of the Republican Michigander Web log said he thinks anti-tax sentiment is strong in Livingston County.

He withheld judgment on Ward's moves, because they were part of a tentative deal with Democrats: "I'm waiting to see the final bill before I comment."

But he would prefer an all-cuts solution to the budget.

"I don't think there is support for a tax increase in the county. I personally do not support a tax increase," he said.

As for Garcia's vote, Wholihan said he wasn't surprised.

"He does have a history of going his own way on budgetary matters," Wholihan said.

Personally, I like Valde. He's a real nice guy. On life issues and 2nd Amendment issues, I never have to worry about his vote. He always comes through there. On budget matters, I'm always holding my breath, especially ever since the "tax shift". With that combined with his recent comments, I am not surprised in the least, sad to say. He goes his own way on budgetary matters. Sometimes I agree, sometimes like now, I disagee.

Another story which was news to me until I heard from Dan Meisler was 30 ex-republicans signing a letter supporting a mix of reforms, cuts, and taxes. I found that several (not all) of those who signed that were part of the problem in the first place. Especially Ken Sikkema, who was senate majority leader before Mike Bishop. Joe Schwarz has been pushing taxes for years. When there is Schwarz, there is also Harry Gast. Dan DeGrow has always been a squish (which is why his race for AG against Cox never got off the ground). Sikkema gets to my next point and part of quote.

Generally, Wholihan put most of the blame on the budget mess on Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, but also said Republicans haven't been as fiscally responsible as they should have been.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," he said.

Granholm's the constant in all the problems, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Sikkema in the senate (02-06) and the 2002-2004 block of about 10-15 term limited house Republicans, including former speaker Rick Johnson. Those are who I had in mind when I said that there is plenty of blame to go around. Granholm and the democrat (then) minority wanted her "fee" increases in 04 and the tax shift in 06. She got them. The gimmicks and "fee" increases, sin taxes, and higher costs in general brought us to this current clusterbleep. Granholm got all she wanted on budgetary issues so far. It got us here. The former house and former senate leadership got what they wanted. It got us democrat control of the house (after starting with 63 seats) and a narrow majority in the senate. I blame them as much as Granholm. However, they are gone, while Granholm stayed.

One other thing. I'm hearing a lot of talk about recalls, mostly aimed at the republicans who vote for takes like Garcia. If we are going to recall people, let's start at the biggest problem of them all, that being the "Matt Millen of governors" herself, Jennifer Granholm. We have elections for state reps in about a year. Granholm we're stuck with for three years unless we recall her and send her home. She helped screw over the budget every year for five years.

I have one other major concern besides policy issues. That's the brand name image of Republicans here in Livingston County. With the spending problems in both Lansing and Washington, as well as the tax increases, what is going to happen to small government? We can't be democrat-lite in our size of big government. That's a good way for democrats to start winning around here.

Budget Update

A little delayed, but here's the latest on the budget. I wanted to get comments from Chris Ward and Joe Hune's office before posting this. As soon as I hear back with the official explanation and not speculation, I'll update this.

Some good news. The budget deal for 07 took place without raising taxes. The bad news? It was a bit of a gimmicky budget, and the “Matt Millen of Governors”, Granholm is going to push even harder for a tax increase for 08 as she’s a quintessential tax and spender.

From the Detroit News

LANSING -- State lawmakers and Gov. Jennifer Granholm tonight came to a budget deal for the current year, breaking a 3 = -month impasse, that avoids shutting down government, cutting per-pupil state aid or enacting a major tax increase.

Legislative leaders, the governor and key aides huddled behind closed doors all day and a deal cutting $317 million from the budget was announced to lawmakers about 6 p.m. About an hour later and without debate, the Democratic House approved the pact on a 69-37 vote; the Republican Senate quickly followed suit, 26-10.

The deal also involves tapping a substantial amount of money from a lawsuit settlement with tobacco companies.

The specifics of the budget cuts and the amount of money siphoned from the tobacco suit were not immediately known. But the agreement averted a $116 per pupil reduction in promised school aid that had been threatened since May 1. School district officials said that kind of loss at the end of the school year would be devastating.

The legislative sessions scheduled for Saturday -- weekend sessions are an extreme rarity -- were canceled. Lawmakers will return to work next week to complete action on dealing with this year's $800 million shortfall. Not all of the deficit was eliminated by tonight's action.

While this year's problem will be addressed without a major tax increase, the same cannot be said for the budget year beginning Oct. 1, when spending is expected to exceed revenues by at least $1.6 billion. Chances are that an income tax and sales tax increase will be needed to close that gaping hole; economists don't expect a turnaround in Michigan's economic fortunes until sometime in 2008.

Highlights:
No loss of school aid
No tax increase for this fiscal year
No cutbacks in Medicaid reimbursements
Money will be borrowed from tobacco settlement
Additional cuts likely next week

Our County was split on the budget. Valde Garcia voted for it, while both Chris Ward and Joe Hune opposed it. I looked at the votes and it wasn’t a normal split.

The senate was more party line than the house, but even there you had the most conservative (Sanborn) and one of the most leftist (Gilda Jacobs) state senators both voting for it. Most of the nay votes were from hardline liberals with the exception of Barcia and Prusi.

Roll Call No.151 Yeas--26
Jason Allen (R)
Valde Garcia (R)
Roger Kahn (R)
Randy Richardville (R)
Glenn Anderson (D)
Tom George (R)
Wayne Kuipers (R)
Alan Sanborn (R)
Patricia Birkholz (R)
Jud Gilbert (R)
Michelle McManus (R)
Tony Stamas (R)
Mike Bishop (R)
John Gleason (D)
Dennis Olshove (D)
Mickey Switalski (D)
Cameron Brown (R)
Bill Hardiman (R)
John Pappageorge (R)
Samuel Buzz Thomas (D)
Deb Cherry (D)
Gilda Jacobs (D)
Bruce Patterson (R)
Gerry Van Woerkom (R)
Alan Cropsey (R)
Ron Jelinek (R)

Nays--10 (All Dems)
Jim Barcia
Irma Clark-Coleman
Michael Prusi
Martha Scott
Raymond Basham
Hansen Clarke
Mark Schauer
Gretchen Whitmer
Liz Brater
Tupac Hunter

Excused--2
Nancy Cassis (R)
Mark Jansen (R)

Not Voting--0

Some comments in the record from Bill Hardiman and Roger Kahn:

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows:

Mr.President, I just want to say that I really appreciate all the work that has gone into negotiating this bill and this agreement. There are many wonderful aspects about it, and I will support it. I do have a problem with the higher ed component of the bill. I think it treats those universities that are bringing in more students very unfairly, and the Governor has stated that she wants to double the number of college graduates. The universities that are working to do that are penalized under this bill, but there are so many other wonderful aspects and I do believe we need to come to some conclusion. I will support the bill. I, once again, appreciate those who have negotiated this.


Senator Kahn's statement is as follows:

It has been a long and tough day, tough for our people, tough for us here. This bill has flaws in it. I think we all recognize that. In my community, it, too, is tough on higher education. I've talked to the people in my education community and they are sorely disappointed. I've also talked to the chair of higher ed who I'm grateful to say will work hard to preserve the ability of each of our universities to have a floor under which will fund all students.

On the other hand, this bill preserves and protects revenue sharing. It preserves and protects fees paid to medical care providers, and I can tell you that the medical care providers have suffered long for many years. I will vote for this bill so that the process moves forward to providing us a balanced budget in 2007 and allows us to discuss where we are going to be for Michigan in 2008.

On the house side, the vote was 69-37

Roll Call No. 173 Yeas--69

Frank Accavitti (D)
Mark Corriveau (D)
Bill Huizenga (R)
John Proos (R)
Dan Acciavatti (R)
Craig DeRoche (R)
Rick Jones (R)
Dave Robertson (R)
Dave Agema (R)
Andy Dillon (D)
Michael Lahti (D)
Tory Rocca (R)
Kathy Angerer (D)
Marie Donigan (D)
Phil LaJoy (R)
Bettie Scott (D)
Richard Ball (R)
Kate Ebli (D)
Davie Law (R)
Rick Shaffer (R)
Steve Bieda (D)
John Espinoza (D)
Gary McDowell (D)
Fulton Sheen (R)
Darwin Booher (R)
Barbara Farrah (D)
Arlen Meekhof (R)
Joel Sheltrown (D)
Jack Brandenburg (R)
Ed Gaffney (R)
Kim Meltzer (R)
Mike Simpson (D)
Terry Brown (D)
Lee Gonzales (D)
Fred Miller (D)
Dudley Spade (D)
Pam Byrnes (D)
Kevin Green (R)
Tim Moore (R)
John Stahl (R)
Barb Byrum (D)
Martin Griffin (D)
Mike Nofs (R)
Glenn Steil (R)
Tom Casperson (R)
Richard Hammel (D)
Paul Opsommer (R)
Steve Tobocman (D)
Bruce Caswell (R)
Ted Hammon (D)
David Palsrok (R)
Aldo Vagnozzi (D)
Bill Caul (R)
Goeff Hansen (R)
John Pastor (R)
Mary Valentine (D)
Brenda Clack (D)
Dave Hildenbrand (R)
Phil Pavlov (R)
Howard Walker (R)
Ed Clemente (D)
Jack Hoogendyk (R)
Tom Pearce (R)
Lisa Wojno (D)
Paul Condino (D)
Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D)
Gino Polidori (D)
Coleman Young (D)
Bob Constan (D)

Nays--37
Fran Amos (R)
Morris Hood (D)
Gabe Leland (D)
Neal Nitz (R)
Joan Bauer (D)
Ken Horn (R)
Lamar Lemmons (D)
Michael Sak (D)
Doug Bennett (D)
Joe Hune (R)
Steven Lindberg (D)
Tonya Schuitmaker (R)
Brian Calley (R)
Shanelle Jackson (D)
Jim Marleau (R)
Alma Smith (D)
Andy Coulouris (D)
Bert Johnson (D)
Jeff Mayes (D)
Virgil Smith (D)
George Cushingberry (D)
Robert Jones (D)
Mark Meadows (D)
John Stakoe (R)
Robert Dean (D)
Marty Knollenberg (D)
Andy Meisner (D)
Chris Ward (R)
Kevin Elsenheimer (R)
Kathleen Law (D)
Tim Melton (D)
Rebekah Warren (D)
Judy Emmons (R)
Richard LeBlanc (D)
John Moolenaar (R)
Lorence Wenke (R)
Matt Gillard (D)

Comments:

Rep. Kathleen Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on SB436 because of the lack of a tie bar to revenue. While SB 436 does not cut medicade funding and funding for medical providers it does cut into the bone and sinew of the states citizens. Continued administrative shifts and deferrals will not solve our current crisis."

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I would vote for this bill if it did not include the cut to the Bovine TB fund. I have spent a great deal of time working to move toward several northern Michigan counties acquiring TB free status, and the loss of this line item will make that almost impossible. The resulting disruption to the sale and movement of beef cattle has the potential to affect millions of dollars in transactions in this industry, and will set back the advances being made to fight this devastating disease. There were several other areas inn the budget where cuts could have been made without raiding this fund.

Beyond the Bovine TB issue, I am not pleased that the bill was distributed to the minority only minutes before a vote was taken on the bill."


Rep. Leland, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on SB 436 because of the cuts to services that are critical to the most vulnerable citizens in my district and the state of Michigan as a whole. In particular, cuts to the Healthy Michigan Fund, which funds the Morris Hood Diabetes Outreach program, and minority health initiatives. Additionally, cuts to Arts & Cultural grants will cause devastation to important cultural tourism and local arts programs that are essential to the development and revitalization of our communities. Furthermore, because this bill is not tie-barred to a bill that provides additional revenues, it still leaves our state in a budget deficit after these draconian cuts."


Rep. Hood, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on SB436 because of the reductions and elimination of programs that are critical to the most vulnerable of our citizens. The cut to Community Colleges, where people go when they are unable to attend a University, is crucial. The institutions of higher learning provide a service when people have limited choices, because of finances, transportation, or health issues. The reduction in Community Health (61million plus) hits many of the programs that are needed. These cuts will cost us more in the long run because of the lose of prevent ional measures. When we talk about being Environmentally responsible, but turn around and cut over 310,000 dollars in our Environmental Quality budget, which is used for contamination cleanup, are we as really worried about our environment. When programs are cut out of this budget such as the Morris Hood diabetes center, located on the campus of Wayne State University, which serves people with diabetes, which is one of our leading contributors of death, all across this state with treatment and prevention is a disgrace."

--------------

Overall, I'm glad there's no tax increase, but I don't like the gimmicks. This is a pass the buck stopgap measure delaying the hard decisions until later. I still would have voted for this as it was the least worst solution considering the time constraints with the schools cuts. However, a real long term solution needs to be made, and it needs to be made without a tax increase to bail out the fiscal mismanagement by government.

There's a lot more work to do.

Valde Garcia on the fence?

Apparently that's the word from Nick at RightMichigan.com It also coincides with what I have heard from several sources.

Things are moving fast in Lansing right now folks with all sorts of discussion and conversation.
I understand State Senator Valde Garcia is being courted heavily right now by the Governor and her staff. They're trying to get him to go along to get along and hoping he'll forget who he works for in his zeal to cut a deal.

Please email and call Senator Garcia right away:

Email: SenVGarcia@senate.michigan.gov
Office: 517-373-2420

Tell him to vote NO on new taxes and yes on Michigan's future. Tell him to support real substantive reform and that Lansing has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

Tell him to remember his conservative principles and not to sell out.

Granholm's tax increase - call your senators and reps now!

The rumor in Lansing is that Granholm is out dealmaking with republicans in safe seats in order to protect marginal democrats who support the Granholm tax, but do not want to vote yes on it since the citizens do not support the Granholm tax proposals.

This is why we need to watch our reps and senators like a hawk and have a long memory on this vote. This vote will be a dealbreaker for me when it comes to future elections and future offices. If my rep votes for this, I'll be voting for someone else in a primary or general election. We can not have a Granholm tax victory to bail out government for its absolute failure in living within its means. We can not destroy our economy even more than it already is.

Republicans are supposed to stand for less government, lower spending (Despite what Bush and Ted Stevens think), and most of all low taxes. When they fail to do so, we need to hold their feet to the fire. I expect higher taxes, big government, and high spending from democrats. If that is what I wanted in a rep, I would have voted democrat.

Senate majority leader Mike Bishop is doing a very good job at holding the line against the Granholm tax with his 2 vote majority. He needs our help. Our citizens need our help.

Michigan House Site

Michigan Senate Site

One of the senators who needs to hear from us is our own Valde Garcia. Valde's a good guy who has always been there on the social issues, but unfortunately, I sometimes have to hold my breath when a fiscal vote is up. He usually votes our way, but he did for the "tax shift" a few years back. He needs to hear from us in Livingston County. If this is going to be stopped, it will be stopped in the senate, and we need Valde Garcia to step up and do the right thing. That goes for all of our reps in this state.

We need to make sure that Granholm's deal with safe republicans to protect marginal democrats fail. We need to make sure those marginal democrats do the right thing. We need to make sure that our republicans act like republicans and do the right thing.

No new taxes. Recall Granholm.

April 18 - Anti-tax rally in Lansing

I can't make it there (damnit), but we need as many people at the capitol as possible to send a message to the big spenders and tax hikers out there. Between the Matt Millen of Governors and her services tax, Andy Dillon's energy tax, and Hopgood/DeRoche's(I still can't believe he proposed that) bipartisan gas tax turkey, we need to send a message to Lansing in a big way.

From former State Rep Leon Drolet and the Michigan Taxpayers.
------

Tax spenders spend a lot of time in Lansing meeting with politicians. Through lobbyists, government department heads, and union leaders, they wine and dine elected officials while making their cases for more of your tax money.

Now its your turn to be heard! Its time for you to join the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance on the lawn of the State Capitol Building in Lansing at 11:00am (get there by 10:30) on April 18 to deliver YOUR message to state lawmakers: "Michigan citizens are suffering, NO NEW TAXES!"

Lansing's fiscal crisis is because state politicians can't agree how to cut $2 billion out of a $43 billion state budget. But these same people are flush with new tax ideas:

Governor Granholm prefers a new tax on most every service you use.
House Speaker Dillion wants to hide a $700 million tax hike in your electric bill.
Now there is bi-partisan support for jacking up the gas tax nine cents, making Michigan's combined federal, state and local gas tax burden the third highest in the nation!
All these planned attacks on your family budget are happening because Lansing politicians are not afraid of you, the taxpayer!

They ARE afraid of the tax spenders, who contribute to their campaigns, closely watch every vote, and buy them dinner.

Its time to make Lansing politicians more fearful of tax hikes than spending cuts.

Get to Lansing on April 18th and bring your friends and family. Bring tea bags that we will deliver to Governor Granholm's office. Get to Lansing early (you will need to park and walk the short distance to the Capitol lawn). Bring a poster or sign and make some noise! Let them know that taxpayers are now paying attention and demand fiscal restraint.

If you believe that you make better spending decisions with YOUR money than Lansing does, GET TO THIS RALLY!

-------------

Governor and Taxspenders to Taxpayers: GAME ON!

Last week, a Lansing reporter informed me that a Governor's staffer had told him that the Gov was aware of the April 18 Taxpayer Teabag protest planned at the Capitol - and was preparing a "surprise" for protesters.

What "surprise"?

Turns out that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have moved up their lobby day in Lansing to coincide with our tax protest. They support Granholm's plan to mandate government preschool for all children. And they are not alone. An organization called "Artserve", which supports more tax dollars being spent on art, has also changed the day and time of their lobby day to April 18.

It appears those that demand more and more spending and higher taxes will try to outdo taxpayers that day. According to the AFT Michigan website, they are planning to bus public school teachers in from around the state.

It is now even more important than ever to spread the word to all taxpayers about the Taxpayer Protest Rally! Everyday taxpayers need to show up at the Capitol in Lansing on April 18, bring a teabag that we will deliver to the Governor, and tell Lansing politicians to balance their budget by cutting spending and enacting reforms; NOT BY RAISING TAXES ON CITIZENS! Get to the Capitol around 10:00am. Rally starts at 11:00am, but you will need time to park.

Taxspenders are planning to hijack this rally, and demand more and more of YOUR money. We cannot allow the voices of everyday taxpayers to be drowned out. Take the day off work, clear the calendar, gather your family and friends, and head to Lansing on April 18!

Leon Drolet

Michigan Taxpayers Alliance