More last minute 2012 - Absentee ballot is in, Romney not quitting, school board, proposals, judges

Back on the 25th of September, I thought we were done and going to get our asses kicked across the board like 1996. Not quite the 2008 levels, but bad. I was hearing a few things, and it wasn't good. I posted a blistering comment that asked if Romney was in or out.

From what I have heard, there were some conflicting camps. I know Romney has some campaign staff with strong MI ties. Others were yesmen to the overrated Karl Rove (Crossroads) and wanted to follow the lead of the Superpacs and follow a McCain and coward out. The last thing ANY campaign should do is follow the lead of a republican presidential campaign which lost Indiana at the same time Mitch Daniels won by 17%. When you quit states and don't compete, you have to run the table to win - and the other side plans accordingly.

Personally in the age of Direct TV, Cable, internet, TIVO, new media, cell phones, and high absentee voting, I'd be running campaigns a lot different these days than the old days. Part of it is in some ways going back to the real old small town days, at least in regards to signs.

The site 270 to win lists what their opinion are battle states, red states, and blue states. They list as follows:

Obama - 237, Romney 191, Up for grabs 110

Florida - 29
Ohio - 18
North Carolina - 15
Virginia - 13
Wisconsin - 10
Colorado - 9
Iowa - 6
Nevada - 6
New Hampshire - 4

That leaves little room for error. North Carolina and Florida are musts. Always have been and will be. That makes it 237-235. Obama's going all in for Virginia and Ohio. If he gets both, then Romney needs all of the rest. Good luck with that. Gore nearly did it in 2000, but most candidates don't run the table. If Romney gets both Ohio and Virginia (and NC and Florida), then Obama would have to run the table. Not going to likely happen.

If Obama and Romney split Ohio and Virginia, then those small states will make the difference. Whoever has Ohio has the easier road.

Romney Ohio not Virginia - 253, 17 to go from Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Nevada/Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4). Wisconsin and Colorado are the biggest keys there. 

If Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or New Mexico becomes up for grabs in the last week (as John Kerry had to campaign in Michigan in the last week), it could make things easier. If Michigan flips, so does Ohio, Florida, and possibly even Pennsylvania. Too many similar demographics. If Romney upsets Obama in Michigan or Pennsylvania, the election will be over.


I don't like the timeline for the move made by the Romney camp with absentees out last week (both my parents and I have ours from Genoa and Green Oak) because 34% of the vote is usually cast before election day. It's cutting it real close. However, I'm glad it's not later than it was. I'm probably turning my in tomorrow. I think Romney's camp started made a big move last week, similar to what I saw two weeks before the election in 04. The differences between 04 and now are this. Bush and Kerry made a bunch of moves in 04 with the big one two weeks out. Romney didn't make many if any moves before the last week. Romney's move was a big one, but he needs another one because he's climbing out of a bigger hole than Bush did in 04. In addition, Bush's opponent was a traitor. Obama's incompetent, arrogant, and the Peter Principle in Chief, but he wasn't with "The New Soldier" and call soldiers war criminals and Genghis Kahn like John Kerry did.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth won that election for Bush in 04. They won it by their ads and the Kerry senate speech.

It looks like Romney isn't going to coward out like McCain's campaign did. Paul Ryan just visited Oakland University. MIGOP just bought a bunch of signs now and I'm seeing them up at houses, some of which I haven't seen signs before, like in 04. It's a start. We know have a chance, which wasn't the case on September 25th.

That debate was huge. Obama looked like the arrogant, incompetent, smirking nose up in the air, jackass that he is. The Peter Principle in Chief. Romney stopped trying to worry about saying something that could offend people and just started being himself. He ran as a competent businessman. The big issue this year is the economy and jobs. Real jobs, not the fools gold green jobs that rich white progressives on the coasts try and push on real America. Obama's failed there, but of course it's never his fault. He always blames someone else and fails to man up.

The momentum is there. Mitt needs to go out and win this now instead of playing not to lose and prevent (from winning) defense.

My final decisions on the 2012 proposals.

1. Reluctant yes. I don't like either option between the new law and the old law. The new law is less worse than the old law.
2/3/4 - HELL NO.
5 - HELL YES
6 - Reluctant No. I signed the petition (for turnout reasons), and I don't support tax money for a new bridge right now, but it's not something I think that needs to be put in the Constitution. I'm tempted to stick it to Rick Snyder, but don't want to use the Constitution to do that.

For school board:

Howell - Mike Moloney, Deb McCormick, Pat Howle

Brighton - Nick Fiani and Keith Van Hentenryk

Judges:
Supreme Court - Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Colleen O'Brien. Big no to Bridget Mary McCormack who has never been a judge at any level.

Probate - I'm keeping this one quiet because I deal with estate planning which is in probate court. It's better for my clients this way unless a candidate which is running would be absolutely terrible and needs to be defeated. Both Miriam Cavanaugh (not the same family/spelling as the Supreme Court Justice) and Lori Marran have their strengths and backgrounds. Cavanaugh is an assistant prosecutor who works mostly in juvenile cases. Juvenile cases are usually handled in probate court in Livingston County. Marran is a referee and works heavily in family law. That's also a probate related area. I think both can do a good job as judge. My choice here is a vote for, and not a vote against. Perform your due diligence, do your research, and make your decision.

The other judicial races here are uncontested. Carol Sue Reader on the District Level and Mike Hatty on the Circuit Level.

Green Oak's getting the blank voting treatment from me outside of the non-incumbent trustee, Tuthill. I'm skipping those races. They are unopposed so it doesn't matter, but I'm tired of all the millages on the ballot here.

Michigan's Ballot Proposals - 2012

One of the major things this election will be the ballot proposals. There's a large number of ballot proposals this election at the end of the ballot. That's important to remember. While I never pull the straight ticket lever and leave, many do. I'd like to see straight ticket voting banned, but that's another issue. It's important to go down the ballot and make a decision in each race and proposal (and that includes voting for blank if one wishes to do so - I've done that many times.)

If I was voting in September, I'd go as follows.

1. Leaning yes, may flip.
2. No chance in hell.
3. No chance in hell.
4. No chance in hell.
5. Hell Yes
6. Leaning no for constitutional amendment purposes, but may flip.

Proposal  1 - Referendum on Emergency Manager Law - Yes approves, No defeats it.

PROPOSAL 12-1

A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 -

THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

·      Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

·      Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

·      Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

·      Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.  

Should this law be approved?

I'm leaning towards a very reluctant yes. The only reason being that a no reverts back to the old EM law instead of what should happen to bad fiscally run municipalities. Bankruptcy Court. What I don't like about the EM policies is that it is in essence a bailout. The old law is more of a bailout than the current one. In both situations, the EM cleans up the mess of the democrats who screwed it up, and the voters put those same democrats back into office. Elections have consequences and voters who make bad decisions need to pay for it. If places like Pontiac, Hamtramck, and Highland Park keep voting for bums, then my view is TS. The state shouldn't bail them out. Maybe they should quit voting for those democrats over and over. I may yet vote no on this, and push for state cut offs instead. I haven't decided, yet.

Proposal 2 - Government unions.

PROPOSAL 12-2

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

·      Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

·      Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions.  Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

·      Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.  

·      Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this proposal be approved?

This is bad news. It also applies almost STRICTLY to government unions like the SEIU and MEA which are the biggest problems. It also affects some public safety unions who have in statute binding arbitration. That's a law that affects your police and firemen, as they can't strike. Words mean things. What's really bad is the second part - "Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions." That covers everything. Why does this not cover a large number of private unions? That's because most of them are already regulated under federal law and the NLRB. The UAW, Teamsters, etc are already under federal jurisdiction with a lot of their contracts.

Prop 3 - Energy restrictions

PROPOSAL 12-3

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

·      Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.  

·      Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

·      Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.  

·      Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell No. We haven't even got to the 10% yet which was a previous goal. Green jobs are the fools gold of the 21st century, much as the service jobs revolution was in the 90's. This won't create jobs, but will cost jobs and raise costs of everything. Literally. The only green jobs are moneypits propped up by government subsidies. Those leaders of those companies also write big checks to politicians like Obama who give us Solyndra.

Prop 4 - SEIU in home care.

PROPOSAL 12-4

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL

AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

·      Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC).  Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

·      Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

·      Preserve patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

·      Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

 

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell no, again. I have a real problem with union dues taken from essentially independent contractors to be given to the SEIU's political buddies. If someone is getting in home care from especially familiy members, the state money should go to supporting the patient, not some SEIU goons who haven't done a damn thing to help.

Prop 5 - 2/3 for tax increases.

PROPOSAL 12-5

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved?

Hell yes. This stops the Blanchard taxes, Granholm taxes, and even the Snyder pension taxes from happening again. This proposal dynamic also show the difference between many on the establishment and the base. A lot of people who are elected officials and tied to elected officials quietly oppose this, largely due to their support of the Snyder pension tax. Others don't like losing the power. Some have mixed views and wanted this for Granholm, but not the currently administration.

As far as I'm concerned, bad is bad. A is A, as the late Mark Scott would say. We did not and do not have a revenue problem. The most important thing right now isn't stopping the increase in spending, but actually reducing spending. Until spending is reduced to a manageable level, I don't want to hear any revenue arguments. The MBT needed to go, but a replacement wasn't needed.


Prop 6 - The Bridge.

PROPOSAL 12-6

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION

REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

·      Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.  

·      Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."  

Should this proposal be approved?

I really wish this wasn't a constitutional amendment. I signed the petition to get it on the ballot because of turnout reasons. I don't support a tax money supported bridge. I also don't like items such as this to be on the constitution. That's what makes this tough.

At the very end of the ballot are the local proposals. Green Oak has a road millage on the ballot. The City of Brighton has a bond infrastructure proposal. Howell Township is trying yet again with the sewers. Brighton Schools has a millage renewal. Fenton and Byron schools also have tax measures.

The 2nd pronged attack? Ballot initiative!

Crain's Detroit Business mentioned the 2nd way to take out this tax increase.

Business representatives are looking at a potential effort to repeal Michigan’s new 6 percent tax on services.

Meeting a day after lawmakers enacted the tax on 57 categories of services, business groups on Tuesday began exploring a petition drive to repeal the tax, said Charlie Owens, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business-Michigan.

He said details such as how soon the measure could be placed on the ballot have not been determined.

“Step one is, do we want to do this?” Owens said. “It is being talked about.”

He declined to identify other business groups, but said discussions include not only repealing the tax but also enacting a constitutional amendment stating that the sales tax could not be expanded to services without a vote of the people. (snip)

Despite my usual recluctance to amend Michigan's Constitution, I'm in favor of this as well as the recalls. They compliment each other well. While the recalls are needed to punish the tax and spend reps and "Matt Millen of Governors" Granholm who run this state into the ground, the ballot proposal is needed as well to overturn this bad policy.

Onward!!!!!!