It's past time for Hamburg Township's government to start acting like men

One thing Livingston County is known for is Republican government. While I'm not a big fan of government in general, for the most part it is run well. We don't have the taxes of our neighboring counties. The quality of life here is better than our neighboring counties. The government is less intrusive than our neighboring counties. We also seem to tend to have less clusterbleeps than our neighboring counties. All of those neighboring counties are dominated by democrats outside of Somewhat Republican leaning Jackson County (which we barely border), Competitive Shiawassee County, or slightly democrat leaning Oakland County. Ingham, Washtenaw, and Genesee County are all democrat.

The main exception to the rule, outside of school boards which have more democrats on them, is Hamburg Township. Hamburg Township's government is an embarassment to my county, and my party. Right now as of today, I would not vote for the incumbents on that board, in any of the cliques. I would be voting for non-incumbent related primary challengers, 3rd party candidates, or as a last resort, write in Mark Dantonio. I don't know his politics, but he conducts himself with a lot more class and professionalism than the individuals collectively running Hamburg Township. Lucky for them, I'm in Green Oak Township next door, so I don't have to make that decision.

The Argus has the lastest in this clusterbleep. It was another bitchfest at the the township meeting.

The Hamburg Township Board of Trustees asked Clerk Matt Skiba to resign during Tuesday night's meeting in response to the clerk taking over control of township building alarm codes against board orders.

The board also approved a vote of no confidence in Skiba as clerk, after Trustee Bill Hahn told Skiba he had lost all faith in him.

"I, personally, don't believe or trust anything you do or say," Hahn said. "You're just not capable of working with this board."

Skiba did not resign and gave no comment on the issue other than a "no" vote on the request.

The resignation request came after Skiba.....

What's this, a no-confidence vote? That's not for the board to give. Matt Skiba, love him, hate him, or in-between, does not work for the board. Why should he resign because a half-dozen people don't like him. He does not answer to the board and is not an employee of the board. He answers, as does the board, to the taxpayers of Hamburg Township. THEY are the boss. This isn't Canada where the no-confidence vote leads to a new election. Now it is no secret that several on the board and influential powers there have been trying to kick out Skiba since he won the primary in August 08 defeating an incumbent, so this is taken with a grain of salt and with the respect it deserves.

Township Supervisor Pat Hohl said the board appointed Rand-azzo to take back security of its buildings because there were 15 active, unnamed codes that would allow entrance into the buildings under Skiba's control.

Tuesday, the board also voted to have Skiba turn over control of all duplicate keys to township buildings. Hohl made an address to the public to "apologize for the embarrassment."

Sorry Pat, you're contributing to the embarassment as much as Skiba, or the entire board is for that matter. I know some are worse than others there, but right now frankly - who cares. The average citizen in Hamburg knows about as much on the board as I do. Some, but not everything. We all DO know that it's collectively an embarassment to the township, the county, the state, and my political party. I'm tired of it making the news. I've seen comparisons of this to Monica Conyers and the Detroit City Council. That is not a compliment. I'm tired of seeing that. I'm tired of the county and my political party being embarrassed. I don't give a rat's arse who is to blame anymore.

Meanwhile, Skiba took more heat from the board for a letter he wrote concerning a recall petition against him and then posted on the township Web site.

On the other side of things, that ain't smart. Recall campaigns, both for and against, are considered political campaigns and are just like election campaigns for all intents and purposes. This shouldn't be discussed either way during township meetings.

This damn bickering has been going on in some form for over two years. It did not change with the primary election where the incumbents were tossed out. It should have. As a political party, we almost lost some spots in Hamburg to the democrats. Hamburg isn't all that Republican to begin with compared to the other townships in the county like Genoa. It's time for them to man up, stop bitching at each other and games playing, and do their jobs. I've had to work with people I didn't like. I've worked with people with different philosophies. We manned up and got the job done. I did what I had to do and left when things outside of my control made it no longer a place to which I wanted to be associated. If I was able to do that at 22 and 23 years old back in the day, these individuals in their 40's, 50's, and 60's should be able to do the same thing.

Now if these individuals are unable to man up and work with each other to get the job done, then there is an easy way to settle this like men, and make it a fundraiser at the same time. Get an octogon from the UFC, set it up at legendary Zukey Lake Tavern, and have township mixed marshall arts to determine the winner. Let's get it on! At least that would be entertaining. Winner stays on the board. Loser goes home and no longer runs for any township office. I'll volunteer to be the ref. Yes, I'm joking....maybe... It wouldn't be any more of a joke than the current situation happens to be at this time.

So Hamburg Township government, stop giving us all in Livingston County a bad name.

The GOP's biggest obstacle to a comeback, idiot senators

First of all, I want to get this out of the way. I'm not on board yet for the 2012 Sarah Palin for president campaign. I'm still undecided, and while I like Palin, she's not my first choice among potential candidates. That aside, Palin is a big draw for the grassroots, and that rubs some insiders in the beltway the wrong way. There was a whole bunch of yapping back and forth about a big NRCC fundraiser where she attended.

This lead to a sneering catfight from DC's The Hill that reminded me from a scene from the movie Ghostbusters. From the mayor's office scene - Is this true? Yes it's true. This man has no dick.

From the Hill

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election.

First of all, if you don't sign your name to your statement, it's a joke. This reminds me of the anyonomous coward state rep here last year over the tax increase who was all pissed off that he was being pressured by the GOP to reject the tax increase. That's why I thought of the scene from Ghostbusters. If you can't put your name behind it, then it is worthless. It's cowardly.

We'll find out in 2010 about Palin's ability to govern as decided by her constituents back home. My money on this statement was Graham, and he's a joke as far as I'm concerned.

One GOP senator questioned whether Palin has enough gravitas for voters to trust her in tough economic times.

“If the economy implodes, I don’t see her as having much of a chance,” said the lawmaker, who noted that Palin’s national political ambitions have caused her political troubles at home. “She has also taken on water up there in Alaska.”

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Sadly, the democrats had the best quote here.

Meanwhile, Democratic strategists delighted over the confusion caused by the spat.

“Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the NRCC-NRSC dinner planning meetings,” quipped a senior House Democratic political aide.

Right now we have an economy in the crapper. We have record deficits and spending. We have massive big government power grabs by Obama's goons, and you people are all bent out of shape with Palin? Do your jobs for once and try and put up some spirited opposition and alternative plans.

Once again, the US Senate, democrat and republican alike, shows the worst the government has to offer, and Obama can be tossed in that category as well. He was a senator.

Bouchard is in for Governor

Nick at Right Michigan posted this. The announcement was yesterday.

I like Bouchard, but I am concerned after what happened in his race against Stabenow who should have been defeated. Now Bouchard didn't get a lot of help which was a travesty, I am skeptical about backing someone that Stabenow got 57% against.

Personally, I'd like to see Bouchard run against Gary Peters instead.

Gas Tax push continues

The Argus story today gave Mike Craine (road commission) a bully pulpit to parrot the talking points of the Lansing elite in its support to increase the gas tax. This is just what I want to hear as the prices are going up to $3 a gallon once again.

Livingston County’s top road official said the county will eventually have to “dis-invest,” rather than reinvest, in local roads unless action is taken to increase the state gas tax and vehicle registration rates.

In the coming weeks, state legislators will debate incremental increases to the state’s 19-cent-a-gallon gas tax and registration fees, which are now the primary recommendations to generate $1.8 billion in road funding over the next five years.

First of all. DAMNIT - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. We do not have a 19-cent-a-gallon state gas tax. I repeat. We do not have a 19-cent-a-gallon state gas tax. I repeat this one more time for everyone in the cheap seats to hear. We do not have a 19-cent-a-gallon state gas tax. Capice? This, convieniently, and in my opinion, intentionally, does not mention the 6% sales tax.

So at $2.85 a gallon, what I paid today, we have the raw price, plus the federal 18.5 cents federal tax, then the 6% sales tax, then the 19 cent surcharge.

$2.85 - 0.19 = 2.66 - about .17 = 2.49 - about 19 cents in federal tax = a $2.30 raw price (including markups and all that).

$0.55 cents a gallon total tax at the pump. $0.36 cents in state tax. That makes us number one in the country in the highest gas tax, upending Wisconsin's $0.32 cents a gallon.

Then the Argus is back as it again....

State gas tax and fee increases are currently the only answers to boost funding for Michigan’s often crumbling roads, said Livingston County Road Commission Managing Director Mike Craine.

“They’re the only available answer, but it’s not been a good idea to talk about a tax increase since 1983,” Craine said.

An 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax is also charged at the pump.

Craine said the county continues to see the greatest declines statewide in revenue from overall fuel taxes, and income from registration fees has become stagnant despite the county’s tremendous growth during the past two decades.

Once again, this whole thing is based on the false premise that only the gas tax pays for the roads. That's it. Until SOMEBODY gives me a plan that is not based on that false premise, I'm not even going to listen to it.

Nyet.

Amateur Hour. Brian Deese as GM boss? Even I'm more qualified than this guy.

I have about as much faith in this guy than I did of Gary Bettman when he was first named NHL commissioner. Gary Bettman has been a disaster for the NHL. Bettman was a lawyer who was the VP for the NBA and had no hockey experience whatsoever.

Now who is Brian Deese? He's a 31 year old Yale law student whose work experience includes work at two political think tanks and hosting of a radio show.

From Foxnews:

Deese grew up in a Boston suburb, the son of a political science professor at Boston College. He moved to Vermont and attended Middlebury College, where he studied political science and also took time to host a campus radio show called "Bedknobs and Beatniks," described in one write-up as "a format of music, news, discussion and banter."

He graduated college in 2000 and then it was onto a pair of non-profit think tanks: the Center for Global Development and the Center for American Progress.

Eventually Deese went to Yale for a law degree, but a few credits short of graduating, he went "on leave" to work on Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, quickly becoming her top economic policy staffer.

Last summer, Deese moved to the Obama campaign as a deputy economic policy director and, just before this current gig, he served on Obama's transition team as an economic adviser.

Great. We're about the same age, and I'm more qualified than this guy. At least I have the degree and some business experience. However, there is no way I am qualified for this job. Put Iacocca in charge. We don't have time for this much of a learning curve.

This isn't a startup business. This isn't another think tank. This isn't even a law firm. If it was any of those three, I wouldn't bat an eye about Deese's qualifications. The first has a bit of trial and error, and the last two he is qualified or would be with a shorter learning curve. However, we're putting an almost lawyer who worked at a think tank in charge of General Motors, once the biggest company in the world.

Has Deese ever dealt with a payroll? Does he have any business expereince? Accounting experience? Does he know how the factories and dealerships work? Does he understand franchise contracts? Does he understand supplier contracts? Labor contracts? For the most part, I doubt it. He's going to be the one telling all these auto executives what to do? How's he going to answer all their questions? All Deese is going to know is the yesman company line, that being Obama.

For this type of a job, we need someone with a doctorate degree from the school of hard knocks, like Iacocca. However, I don't think he's the yesman that Barack Obama wants running the show.

Does Deese even drive an American car?

The Hummer to soon be a foreign truck?

Well, I won't be buying one of these anytime soon. If true, Hummer is no longer an American car company.

From the AP?

DETROIT – General Motors Corp. took a key step toward its downsizing on Tuesday, striking a tentative deal to sell its Hummer brand to a Chinese manufacturer, while also revealing that it has potential buyers for its Saturn and Saab brands.

GM has an agreement to sell its Hummer brand to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. of China, said a person briefed on the deal.

The Detroit automaker announced Tuesday morning that it had a memorandum of understanding to sell the brand of rugged SUVs, but it didn't identify the buyer. A formal announcement of the buyer was to be made Tuesday afternoon, said the person briefed on the deal. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the details have not been made public.

Sichuan Tengzhong deals in road construction, plastics, resins and other industrial products, but Hummer would be its first step into the automotive business.

Government's war on the auto industry

Right now, the biggest enemy to our auto industry is the government. First of all, I titled this "Government's war on the auto industry." I did not title this the Obama Chicago Mob war on the auto industry, or even the democrat war on the auto industry. They are some of the biggest villans, but they are one of many.

The first Bush was not a friend of the industry. Clinton was not either. He signed NAFTA and GATT. Ross Perot warned us of a giant sucking sound of jobs with the passage of those two trade agreements. He was right. Al Gore wanted to outlaw the internal combustable engine. Bush basically sat on his hands and then bailed out Wall Street along with his parters McCain and Obama on this. Both McCain and Obama lectured us about manufacturing and threw the auto industry under the bus. Obama was the only reason I voted for McCain. Only reason.

Right now the auto industry is double flanked by a significant number of pols in both parties. On the Democrat side, our industry's best ally is John Dingell. Dingell did his best, but the CULT of global warming, knocked him out for a radical in Henry Waxman. They also knocked out Joe Knollenberg, one of the two best friends of the industry on the Republican side. The other one is being targetted. Thad McCotter. McCotter is one of the few true friends of the auto industry left.

The Republicans have their own jerks. McCain was one. Bob Corker and Richard Shelby the party switcher is another. Corker got his wish with a GM bankruptcy. Guess what. Saturn's gone. Where's Saturn based? Spring Hill, TN. Great job standing up for your state, son. With "friends" like those two, we don't need any enemies. I hope both of these individuals get a nice primary challenge when they are next up for election.

The doubleflank is the global warming left like Pelosi, Waxman, Gore and Obama and anti-UAW right like Corker, Bush, and Shelby. One wants to punish the industry because they want cars banned except for the rich elite, and the other wants to unionbust at the cost of the entire company. I have mixed views on unions but I damn well don't want to see my industry destroyed.

The biggest threat is this cult of global warming. This global warming cult based on temperature data of 150 years (1860-today - and keep in mind we are coming out of a 500 year mini ige age from around 1300-1850), a microsecond of time by earth standards that is billions of years old. I'm not going to debate global warming here, except that any 150 year data set is worthless). It may exist. It may not. I'm not convinced that it is a problem even if it does exist, and I damn well am not buying any doomsday crap based on what we breathe out - CO2.

Regardless of the truth of fiction of global warming, I have a hard time with supporting government regulation over every aspect of our lives, and the rapid destruction and dismantling of our state's industry that built the middle class in our country.


What we have today and in the future was a long time coming. Many dominoes have fallen so far in the government war on the auto industry. Unless you've tuned out the news, today GM, once the largest company in the world, has filed for bankruptcy. Some of you here reading may not care. You will, when this affects your state, and your city, and it will. Believe me, it will.

Plants are closing, in Michigan and elsewhere. These people need to find work. They have families. Many are moving away to find work. Some are going on welfare. Many will take early retirement and look for other work. Dealers will close. Suppliers will close. The ripple effect will follow. Schools will have lower enrollment. Less money. Less tax money is collected because of lost jobs and at the local and state levels, relocation. The much ballyhooed services industry is losing money too. Auto workers and their families won't be spending as much money on tourism and luxuries.

In the Chrysler case, the government forced it to go under a large part of foreign ownership because Obama likes the Fiat. With its bankruptcy, so far, they are losing 25% of its dealerships. That's a lot of jobs. The UAW and the Government combined owned 65%.

In the case of General Motors, to begin with, 2100 dealers will be closed or placed on standby, as will 14 plants, seven in Michigan, including the Lake Orion plant which hits close to home in this family. GM's also off the NYSE and Dow.

This is supposed to "save" the industry? Thousands of dealers, dozens of plants, God knows how many suppliers, and all that this supports? What about the Mexico or foreign plants? GM's plant closings alone will cost 21,000 jobs.

All of that is subject to change by the courts as well. It could be worse.

Now as for the government dicates, here's a question. When has big government run anything top notch? Look at the US Senate. You will not find a bigger group of jokes on the face of the earth. From Levin and Stabenow doing nothing for Michigan, to Durbin, Obama, McCain, (formerly) Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd the pork king, Corker, Shelby, Specter, Feinstein, Boxer, Biden, and 1/2 of Obama's cabinent that came from that joke of a political body. Now the government and Obama want even higher CAFE standards, and are pushing the Big 3 away from what they do best. Trucks and SUV's.

Some of the inside stories I have heard are leaking what the Obama people have been yapping about. I am paraphrasing this to protect this individual who doesn't want his name out there. People with 30 years of auto experience in both foreign and domestic cars are being dictated to by government bureaucrats from Obama's admin, people with no manufacturing experience, no auto industry experience, no business experience, no finance experience, and no engineering experience. Big government at work.

One was telling the auto industry to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles to reduce the number of gas stations. They were quoting BTU's (energy measurement) of natural gas and battery life that they had looked up by some advocacy group.

This was nearly impossible based on the laws of physics due to the size of the car needed for that. Common sense. The number of batteries and natural gas tank would be gigantic. We'd have to drive busses. The individual mentioned the laws of phyics, and the Obama bureaucrat said that they needed to tell Congress to change that law or use an executive order. Good luck with that.

Lastly, I'm hearing a lot of preaching by Granholm and the others in both parties about diversifying the economy. Yeah, I support that. Who doesn't. However, diversifying the economy should not mean that we throw manufacturing under the bus. We need to protect our manufacturing. We need to keep these jobs home, not in China. We need to stop throwing our blue collar heritage, culture, and manufacturing under the bus. The next person who runs his mouth about these jobs not coming back needs to be forced to drink soup for a week.

When it comes to the auto industry, the government has failed this country. It has failed with big regulations, trade agreements, micromanagement, and its jihad with the cult of global warming. The best thing the government can do is reduce the regulations, enact fair trade agreements so our manufacturing isn't dead, stop the heavy taxes and red tape, and work for energy independence in a proper fashion, by an all of the above policy including drilling and refining, as well as nuclear technology.

Who cares about the possibility of global warming if your state is being turned into an economic depresssion. It's time to put Michigan first.

Smoking and Judges

Two things here.

First, Mike Hatty is the newest circut judge here in Livingston County. I don't really know him that well and only met him a couple of times. From what I do know, he's a nice guy and a much better pick by Granholm than the last pick. Best of luck to Hatty. There will probably be much less dissention on this pick than the last one.

The ban on private businesses to control their smoking decisions passed the state house with exceptions for Detroit Casinoes, a special interest in their own right. This big government and anti-freedom measure passed 73-31. The good news is that Cindy Denby and Bill Rogers sided with freedom in their votes. We'll see what the Senate does. I hope they kill this thing and concentrate on the important stuff like the budget.

Lastly, The Right is trying to rile up the grassroots against Sotomoyer. I'm not ready to fire off both barrels on this just yet. Call it pragmatism on my part. I'm waiting and seeing more before I comment. There's an old saying that is running through my head. Take what you can get. There's 59 democrat votes in the senate so whoever picked will likely get in. I remember the fights over the AG position with Clinton. His first pick was Zoe Baird. His 2nd pick was Kimba Wood. Now those two may have ended up as awful picks, but could have have been worse than the Butcher of Waco, Janet Reno? Don't forget than thanks to Reno, we were stuck with Jamie Gorelick and Eric Holder who both have done as much damage to this country as Reno did. Hindsight is 20/20, but I'd rather have taken my chances with Baird or especially Wood than Reno.

I'd rather take my chances with a Sotomayer than a nutter like William O Douglas. My gut feeling is that she's another David Souter or John Paul Stevens, not a Douglas, or a William Brennan (who I respect, although disagree on most things outside of Criminal Procedure). My concern is that she's another functionalist lightweight like Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Betty Weaver (I'd vote for Cavanaugh over Weaver even though he's more liberal.), or Warren Burger. Burger especially, who I consider the worst SCOTUS judge in the past 30 years. I'm not confusing Burger with Earl Warren either.

My advice to the right on Sotomayer. Don't fire off just yet, unless you are sure of the consequences. With 59 Democrat votes, this needs to go to an up or down vote. Save the fillibuster for someone like Cass Sunstein or a clone of William O Douglas. I'm not saying that Republican senators should vote for her, but they should wait and see until after the hearings, and they need to bring this to an up/down vote. The last thing I want to see is to trade off a Souter liberal for a Cass Sunstein or Erwin Chemerinsky radical, just as we were stuck with Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, and Eric Holder.

Obama picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS

I don't know a lot about her outside the fact that she's currently on the 2nd Circuit Appeals. At least she has a lot of judicial experience and has a record. With Obama, I can almost say for 100% certain we won't get a strict constructionist. I think this choice could have been worse based on what I've seen so far. Granholm. Sullivan. Sunstein.

From what I do know, this is probably intended as a save pick to save Obama a headache from court politics. The GOP can not afford to anger American voters of Latin American ancestry. Sotomayer has had judicial experience as well.

Right now, I'm holding my fire on whether this should be a fight the GOP picks. We should wait and see for now, and take a closer look at her record before getting the pitchforks out.

The latest

I haven't had any time to update this with the recent schedule, so I'll hit a couple of things.

1. Obama's SCOTUS pick - I'll reserve comment until the choice is made. I hope it's not Granholm, the Matt Millen of governors. She'll be Obama's Harriet Miers.

2. Obama's taking the game about deficits. If he cares about it, why is his budget . These "cuts" he proposes is a joke. There's a second 750 Billion bank bailout in this budget and a deficit well over a trillion dollars. Bush's worst budgets did not come close to this about, and Bush's fiscal rating as president was an F-, and I've complained about that long before he left office on this very site.

3. Jobs. I didn't know cutting 250,000+ jobs in the auto industry dealerships and other places was supposed to help the American auto worker. The new CAFE standards are going to hurt us even worse than before by including truck. The trucks are still the biggest sellers of US brands.

4. Something interesting in the Detroit mayor race. Dave Bing won the special election awhile back and is up for a full term in the fall. While I was watching old TIVO episondes of 24 and The Ultimate Fighter, I saw a mayor political ad for Ken Cockrel. I didn't have a real dog in that race but the ad was paid for by the 14th District Democratic Committee. That's the John Conyers district. Rick Blocker is the chair there. I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other as I don't live in Detroit, but I found it interesting that a congressional district committee openly got involved in the "nonpartisan" mayoral race. I don't have a problem with it whatsoever, and sometimes I wish the parties here did this more often.

5. Lastly smoking. Leave it to the Lansing elite to push bans on private businesses to control their own decisions when it comes to smoking. The only thing worst than bad ciggarette smoke are anti-freedom advocates who want to ban or tax everything "unhealthy". Right now it is smoking. Next it is beer, wine, and whiskey. Next it is salty foods. Then pop. Then everything else. The real question here is who knows best. Ray Basham in Lansing? Or the owners of the businesses here at home. If Ray Basham or Kevin the "communications guru" do not like smoke in a private restaurant they visit, there's the door. They can go somewhere else. There's plenty of nonsmoking choices out there.

The gas tax push is official

Here we go. The gas tax push was not a boy who cried wolf. The wolf is there, and it is a push of several bills. Peter Luke has the story. One correction to his story. The gas tax in Michigan is NOT 19 cents. I repeat. It is not 19 cents. It is about 31cents when you add sales tax.

From the Flint Journal

LANSING -- Lawmakers and road advocates began what will be a months-long push to raise $1.8 billion in higher gas tax and registration fees over the next half-decade that they say is required to keep Michigan roads in decent repair.


Under the 13-bill package partially introduced Thursday, the gas tax would effectively rise from 19 cents to a maximum of 34 cents per gallon over the next seven years. Registration fees for new cars would jump as much as 20 percent annually over the next five years. By 2014, the annual cost of registering a new $27,000 car purchased that year would be $265. The current fee is $136.

Higher-priced used car registrations would rise about 60 percent under the plan by 2014. The price of registering low-value used cars would remain about the same.

In a new local funding option, counties would be able to seek a voter-approved $25 annual fee on driver's licenses to pay for local road needs.

The package also includes legislation to encourage private transportation investment and authorizes the Michigan Department of Transportation to explore charging tolls in Michigan. It provides an additional $50 million annually for local public transportation.

The intent is to raise an additional $1.8 billion in new funding over time, but quickly generate enough cash to make sure Michigan doesn't forfeit some $2 billion in federal road funding through 2013, which the state currently lacks the money to match. Without that match, the $2 billion would fund road projects in other states.

Peter Varga, executive director of The Rapid transit system in Kent County, said that $2 billion has already been paid for, through federal fuel taxes paid by Michigan motorists. "Ironically, (that's) money that we already sent to Washington that would not be coming back. Think about that."

I posted on this issue several times in the past year, most recently on April 18 when Peter Luke was advocating for this. A lot of the numbers used from the budget were there.

These proposals for tax increases are even WORSE than the numbers I used, which was based on a nine cent increase on the gas tax. They want 15 cents increase per gallon. Of COURSE the sales tax isn't touched, and is ALWAYS ignored by the Lansing elite when they talk about the gas tax.

Keep in mind that this is all based on FALSE assumptions, that only gas taxes and resgistration taxes can pay for the roads.

One issue that isn't addressed is why Michigan roads suck compared to Indiana's? or Ohio's? I know the "freeze/thaws" are used as an excuse, but Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota all have freezes and thaws. All these states have storms and rains and snow.

Gas taxes for comparison, not counting the federal taxes.
Michigan - About 31 cents a gallon. ($2.40 gas)
Illinois - 32 cents a gallon
Indiana - 29 cents
Iowa - 22 cents
Minnesota - 26 cents
Ohio - 28 cents
Wisconsin - 33 cents

I haven't driven in Wisconsin, Iowa, or Minnesota, so I can't compare their roads. Ohio and Indiana roads are much better than Michigan's roads, despite slightly lower gas taxes. I don't know their registration fees, but it's a racket here.

The problem is that there is something shady in this state and I'd like to see the contractual agreements. Roads are built on the cheap around here. There's always repairs. There's always orange barrels out there. The roadbuilders are one of the more influential lobbyists out there. They want to build the roads on the cheap. If they do a good job, there's less work next year. Nothing needs to get fixed. So we use the cheap materials in Michigan, and turn this all into a makework project, the government can always run on fixing things, and their buddies get their government cheese. Instead of fixing that problem to begin with, it's the old "we need more taxes" which is the "only solution" even though we have one of the highest gas taxes in the country, currently over 30 cents a gallon.

Here's a newsflash to the Lansing elite. Most of the time, the so called "only" solution isn't the only one, and the "only" solution is even worse than doing nothing. Government screwed it up to begin with.

Build the roads right, and leave us alone. Any politician in this economy who supports a tax increase, especially on the worst one of them all, needs to get run out of town and out of politics forever.

Screw the NRSC, back individual candidates only

Real quickly.

The NRSC is at it again. They officially broke their longtime policy of getting involved in open primaries when they endorsed Charlie Crist, Florida's governor in the open Senate race which is held by Mel Martinez. Marco Rubio, the Florida Speaker of the house, is another candidate.

Crist is a centrist Republican on social issues and a liberal Republican on economic issues with his support of tax increases and Obama's pork bills. So far, he's real good on 2nd Amendment issues, and he is pro-life on the abortion issue. He's not my favorite, but I wouldn't consider him a RINO but a center-left Republican. There's a difference. A RINO is Lincoln Chafee, Bill Milliken, or Colin Powell. RINO's back democrats for President or Governor.

Rubio is a less government conservative from relatively blue Miami-Dade county.

I have a big problem with the NRSC's decision. The job of the NRSC is to defeat democrats, not get involved in the Republican primaries 15 months in advance. This trash is one of the reasons why the GOP is in a minority and the funds to the NRSC dry up. If I'm a donor whose goal is to take back the Senate, I don't want my money to be dried up in primary spending, and I damn well don't want it to be dried up in attack ads. These jokers are throwing good guys to the wolves in GENERAL elections, while backing their pets in the primaries. What the hell are they thinking?

What's the NRSC going to do in this primary? It is going to spend money on ads bashing Rubio like they did to Steve Laffey in Rhode Island (against real RINO Lincoln Chafee in 96....who lost re-election). The NRSC supported Arlen Specter until he switched parties. On the other hand, they couldn't find one person to run against Mark Pryor in Arkansas? On the NRCC side (House), they pushed in primaries for their pets and got beat in the primary AND general. Good job fools.

The NRSC also previously said they would stay out of the Florida primary.

FLASHBACK: Just last week, Cornyn told the Politico he would stay out of the race, saying, "I don't think it's the proper role of the NRSC or folks in Washington to try to tell Floridians who their nominee should be, so I think that will have to work its way out."

Nice switch, guys. Thanks a lot. The National Journal gives a warning.

Today's biggest news: The NRSC will back Crist, their goal being to dry up Rubio's money. Will it also rile up conservatives who want DC to stay out? Nothing helps an underdog like taking it to "the man." We're still waiting to see if the Club for Growth weighs in.

I'm all for sticking it to the DC establishment. I loved Rubio's response to the NRSC endorsement.

Rubio's spokesman Brian Seitchik had this to say about the NRSC's endorsement: "We knew that Governor Crist was going to have the establishment's support in Washington and Tallahassee. The NRSC endorsement is not a surprise. But this campaign is about more than Marco and Charlie Crist. This campaign is about the future of the Republican Party. Marco and Crist have fundamentally different approaches to solving problems, and this campaign will be about those differences."

This was followed by this youtube ad seen at Roll Call

“Some politicians support trillions in reckless spending, borrowed money from China and the Middle East, mountains of debt for our children, and a terrible threat to a fragile economy,” an announcer in the ad states over a visual of Crist and Obama together. “Today too many politicians embrace Washington’s same old broken ways but this time there is a leader who won’t. Let the debate begin.”

I think the DC establishment STILL has not learned their lesson, and will have to be defeated over and over until they get it. They know jack and squat, and jack left the building. They didn't get it with Laffey. They didn't get it with Specter. They don't get it here either. They lost something like 14 seats in 4 years and are doing the same crap they've done before.

If McConnell and Cornyn and the NRSC are backing Crist, then I'm leaning towards Rubio strictly by default. I don't know that much about him, outside of the Weekly standard piece and his website, but what I've heard sounds more good than bad. While I'd probably vote for Rubio over Crist based on fiscal issues, I wouldn't support the NRSC backing either candidate.

The NRSC endorsements bring up another can of worms. When do they endorse and when do they back off? There a major primary battle in Missouri between DC's establishment guy Roy Blunt and Missouri's statewide elected official Sarah Steelman. That's also an open seat. Steelman is attacking Blunt's ties to DC and K-street and fiscal responsibility. That's a valid attack after the job DC's done on fiscal issues the past eight years. Is the NRSC getting involved in one and not the other? That's a can of worms that should not have been open.

And it could have been prevented by the NRSC doing its job and winning general elections. This mismanagement and poor decisionmaking is why you will not see me give one dime to the NRSC. Only individual candidates deserve donations.

Chrysler, Specter's defection (good riddance), Pennsylvania grassroots v estabishment, Souter

A lot of major things have gone on the past week that I haven't posted about because of my time constraints.

First, Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Who knows what will happen. It's now in the hands of a judge. In Bankruptcy court, judges are a blind draw, and they drew Arthur Gonzalez (who was also the judge in Enron and Worldcom). At least they didn't draw a rookie. Judges have a lot of discretion in bankruptcy law, and there's a lot of speculation on what will happen, as well as a lot of people running their mouths. I have little to almost no knowledge of bankruptcy law, so I won't be making any predictions here. I'm not happy with some of the actions taken by the Obama foreign car loving task force, but that's no longer the big issue here with this filing.

Secondly, Arlen Specter took the path of less resistance for 2012 and switched parties.

A bunch of FOOLS are yapping about this being the social issues and the far right, yadda yadda yadda. Bullshit. The GOP establishment in DC supported him, and was going to do so against Toomey again. The RNC supported him. The NRSC supported him. Bush campaigned for him in the last election. So did the more conservative senator at the time Rick Santorum (at the cost of some of his base). The NRA endorsed him. Against Toomey. That would likely happen again. Most DC establishment will back the incumbent. Period. Most PACS will support an incumbent unless there's a bad history on those issues. That wasn't changing in 2010.

It is not new that Specter had some union support. It is not new that Specter was pro-abortion to a degree. It is not new that Specter was not a social conservative at all. That was not held against him here. He had a lot of Washington support, and would have had it from the Republican establishment, even from conservatives. He's actually been generally good on firearms issues for someone from Philly, so that's not been an issue with him. The NRA endorsed him - even against Toomey. This isn't new, and wasn't changing in 2010.

Specter did not switch parties because the Republican culture in Washington DC disliked him. They didn't and they supported him. Senator John Cornyn of Texas was one of his biggest backers, and he's the head of the NRSC. Specter switched parties because the primary voters in Pennsylvania had enough of his 30 years and Washington and are about to send him home. What was the straw that broke the back? It wasn't social issues. It was the big spending. We have had ENOUGH of the big spending. The grass roots has had enough. We had enough of the bridges to nowhere, the Bush spending, and the Obama spending that is 100 times worse than even the Bush spending. Specter is a big part of the problem. See ya. DO let the door hit you on your way out.

Now I'm not a big fan of purges. However, there needs to be a limit. Part of the major problem with the GOP the last eight years is that they acted like democrats on the fiscal issues outside of tax cuts. Tax cuts work great, but they need to be accompanied by spending cuts. The problem is credibility. Every single time the republicans try to run as democrat-lite, it KILLS us. There needs to be difference between the parties. Now I don't expect every Republican candidate to be a cookie cutter. The Mark Kirk distict in Illinois North Shore could not be won by an ideal Republican candidate in another somewhat democrat leaning district, Michigan's 1st (Stupak) They would get killed in each other's district. I understand that.

However, there needs to be a minimum standard for Republican candidates. Low taxes, lower spending and less government. Voters at the minimum, should be able to expect that from the Republicans. This is the worst aspect of Bush's presidency. We no longer are known for less government. That needs to change, and change fast.

Third, Pennsylvania's primary. Hotline said it best. STAY AWAY FROM MY (their) PRIMARY This is the one that's pissing me off. Right now, both the NRSC and DSCC is rumored to be playing games in this primary. First off Pat Toomey has won a democrat leaning house district three times. His seat voted for Gore and I believe Kerry at the same time it voted for Pat Toomey and Charlie Dent. Pat Toomey replaced a democrat, Paul McHale. He won that district by 10 points. Pat Toomey did not represent the Lancaster or York suburbs. He represented the Leigh Valley in Eastern PA. Allentown and Bethelem. He won that seat in 98, 2000, and 2002 - despite Gore and Ed Rendell. Pat Toomey is not a joke candidate, and he has won independent and democrat votes.

The NRSC is rumored to push one of their own candiates. I hope that backfires on them if they do so. This is a choice for Pennsylvanians. We have primaries in this country for a reason. We do not have coronations. After seeing the results of Washington based politics in the GOP over the last eight years, it's been a disaster. Time to step aside and let the experts take over. The voters in the primary election. You people in the NRSC were a DISASTER in 06 and 08 with your games. My advice to republicans reading this. Until they prove otherwise, don't donate a dime to NRSC/NRCC and only give to candidates.

Many democrats there are not happy that the Democrat leadership is supporting Specter in their primary. They don't trust him either. Specter is out for Specter. Period. He switched because the Republican voters in Pennsylvania had enough of him and were going to vote for Pat Toomey. They had enough of the spending. So he's going to take his chance in the democrat primary. We'll see how they like a candidate who was a major supporter of the war, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, and Clarence Thomas. Why should the democrats vote for Specter, when they can get a real democrat in the primary?

If both establishments run their people, I hope they both lose the primary, just to send a message. These fools still haven't gotten yet. It's the Peter principle in action.

Fourth - The retirement of Souter. Many on the right believe the sky is falling and some are posting ridiculous speculation that the pick will be Bill Ayers or someone like that. That's ridiculous. Won't happen.

This isn't the worse case scenario. On an ideological basis, he's probably the 2nd or 3rd most left wing (behind Breyer who is the Scalia of the left and MAYBE Stevens). Souter is also 69 years old, the youngest of the liberal wing. Souter could have possibly served another 10-20 years if he wanted with today's life spans. The one real bad thing of his retirement IMO is the 4th Amendment implications with the cases like Arizona v Gant possible going the other way. Souter was the swing vote on that issue.

On the Liberal side
Stevens is 89
Ginsburg is 76 (and fighting Pancreatic Cancer, good luck to her there)
Breyer is 70
And Souter is retiring at 69

On the Generally Conservative side
Scalia is 73
Thomas is 60
Roberts is 54
Alito is 59

And the swing vote, Kennedy, is 72

The worse case scenario Obama can do is put someone crazy on there in philosophy like Cass Sunstein, Erwin Chemerinsky, or Harold Koh and who is about 45 years old or so. The second worst case scenario is appointing Granholm who is about as qualified to be a SCOTUS justice as I currently am based on experience. More than likely Obama will be picking someone from the far left (difference than crazy far left like Sunstein) and between 50-55. I hope it's not one of Reno's crew (Eric Holder, Seth Waxman or Jamie Gorelick) or the Chermerinsky crowd. We'll see what happens.

Volokh has some good discussion about this

Obama craps on our "Right to an attorney"

To anyone with libertarian leanings that voted for Obama - I told you so. I don't have much time to go into details, but this is bad. We have a right to counsel in our Constitution for a reason. Often, people charged with crimes who are convicted are so because of their own words to the police. Many of us mistakenly believe that the police our on our side. They are state actors, as are the prosecutors. Many cops are good. I know several. Some aren't good. I know a few of them as well. They are human. Having an attorney is a safeguard against self-incrimination. If I am charged with a felony or a high misdemeanor, or if it looks like I will be charged, the first thing I will do is to contact a lawyer. I will not be a fool for a client, and I can represent myself better than most people could.

The case that Obama wants to overturn is Michigan v Jackson and you can read it here.

From the AP

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."

Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

SCOTUSblog has more, as does Volokh

Well, Obama and company seem to be consistant. They hate all of our freedoms.

Second Amendment Incorporated? In the 9th Circuit of all places?

This is breaking news right now. Pro 2nd amendment Law Professor Eugene Volokh broke the news on his blog.

The decision is here, Nordyke v King

I haven't read it yet don't have time to until later today. Unanimous 3 judge panel ruled on this. Obviously, Stephen Reinhardt isn't on this panel.

We'll see if this goes to an en banc hearing (all the judges) on the 9th or if this goes to SCOTUS. So far, it looks good.

(For the non-legal beagals out there, a simplistic definition of incorporation means that the bill of rights apply to the states as well as the federal government through the 14th Amendment. Some of the bill of rights are incorporated, some are not.)

Gas tax to increase in Michigan soon? (Side title - we're broke despite revenue increases)

This isn't the first time this issue has come up. The Lansing elite has been trying to shove this down our throats for years. The Gas Tax. Both parties haven't been great on this.

2007 - Hopgood and DeRoche push for gas tax

The usually sensible Michigan Chamber of Commerce pushed it in 07

The Granholm tax force in 08

Late 08, again

Now one the more influential columnists in Lansing is trying to stir this up again.
Peter Luke, columnist of Booth Newspapers (Ann Arbor News) is pushing for a gas tax for the roads. It once again relies on the false assumptions. The assumption among the elite in Lansing is that "only the gas tax can pay for roads." That's the number one assumption of ALL these pushes for the gas tax. I don't buy that. Assumption is the mother of all eff ups.

Judging from the opposition to socialist tax schemes by those who traveled over Michigan's collectivist road system to the Lansing "tea party," it just got harder to pass business-backed funding increases for transportation.

Lawmakers this week are expected to begin work on a hike in fuel taxes, last raised in 1997, and vehicle registration fees, sending them to Gov. Jennifer Granholm by summer.

Is this that same 50% registration increase that the task force wanted? As far as gas prices go, are they going to go up to $4.50 a gallon this summer, again? Is sales tax going to be collected on this? Take the money from another department. We can start with Dan Mulhern's staff, that new state police building, and corrections be keeping people in jail for smoking a doobie. In addition, do you trust state government enough to make sure that goes to roads? Or will they starve the roads for a bigger tax increase while repeating this same assumption over and over and over and over and over again.

Without those increases, Michigan's road-repair budget will soon be broke. And yet, billions are needed to keep one of the nation's most decrepit road systems in reasonably good shape.

Assume. It makes an ass of u and me.. This premis is ONLY true if the assumption is true. It does not have to be. Roads should be priority funding. Right now 6% of every gallon of gas goes not to roads. That 6% is the state sales tax, which goes on top of the original gas tax. We are taxed twice over on gasoline.

Too bad the crowd at the Capitol on Wednesday loudly booed any mention of a gas-tax increase. And that the Michigan Republican Party hastened to endorse them.

"It's time to send a strong unified message that Michigan residents and job providers cannot afford another tax hike," GOP chairman Ron Weiser said.

Republicans intend to run next year against income and business tax increases approved in 2007, even though no Democrat was defeated in 2008 for voting for them. GOP co-chairwoman Sharon Wise said the 2007 hike -- which prevented steep cuts in higher education, health care and aid to local governments -- was "taken" from Michigan families.

The revenues keep increasing to the state, and what have we gotten from them. Jack and you know what. These are Granholm's numbers. Budget Book

(Fiscal year)
1999 - 32,653,492,611 (Amount Spent - and Michigan has balanced budget, so revenues are close to that number)
Transportation - 2,631,185,388

2000 - 34,525,326,492
Transportation - 2,660,470,554

2001 - 37,277,724,042
Transportation - 2,775,245,805

2002 - 39,077,762,617
Transportation - 2,857,404,627

(Granholm takes office)

2003 - 39,297,181,602
Transportation - 2,858,865,148

2004 - 39,388,261,316
Transportation - 2,957,280,073

2005 - 40,375,490,414
Transportation - 2,920,553,025

2006 - 41,326,338,653
Transportation - 2,940,680,294

2007 - 41,945,183,846
Transportation - 2,779,953,122

2008 - 43,578,704,400 (Tax increase)
Transportation - 3,360,195,600

2009 - 44,834,397,200 (Executive recommendation)
Transportation - 3,424,465,500 (executive recommendation)

This keeps going up DESPITE tens of thousands of people leaving the state.

The tax protesters conveniently neglected to mention that Michigan's 4.35 percent income-tax rate is lower than it was under most of Republican Gov. John Engler's 12 years in office. Nor is it a GOP talking point.

Under the 2007 increase, a household with $50,000 in taxable income paid about $225 more in 2008 than under the 3.9 percent rate. But that is $25 less than they would have paid in 1999.

I don't give a damn if it is less than Engler's term. Again, false comparison. Many states don't have an income tax or a property tax. We have both, and a sales tax, and the MBT, etc. Secondly, the gross revenues keep increasing year in and year out. $5 Billion dollars more - 1/2 of the amount budgeted as "general fund", is sent to Lansing, than it was at the end of the Engler years. Thanks to Headlee, Michigan can not operate without a balanced budget. The fact is that the Granholm admin gets much more money than Engler ever did.

If Republicans consider that thievery, then a proposed $1.4 billion increase in gas taxes and registration fees -- $150 per vehicle when it's phased in -- would take no less from a two-car household.

About $60 (with my six year old truck) more to the government in registration fees. Approxminately 9 cents more (based on previous proposals) per gallon every time I go to the pump. If the raw price of gas is $1.81/$3.81 here in Michigan, and this passes, the real cost will be.
Wholesale price - $1.81 (3.81)
US gas tax - 18.4 cents - $2.00, $4.00
Sales Tax (applies to US tax and price - $2.12, $4.24
Michigan gas tax - $2.31, $4.43
Michigan gas tax increase - $2.40, $4.52

Before the gas tax, it would cost me about $46.20 (or $88.60) per fill up (about 20 gallons). After - $48.00.(or $90). Now I included the $4+ gas prices here because I expect to see them again this summer. These energy prices were the final knockout punch IMO in this economy. People saw these every day and had to budget for them. This was an extra $40 every fillup that people did not plan for or expect. That money had to come from somewhere. That lead to inflation. Gasoline prices - obvious. Food costs went up. Shipping. Business costs went up - shipping. Household bills increased. It just amazes me that government and these pundits want an increase on the worst possible tax around, AND that they assume (the mother of all @#%# ups), that is the only possible solution. It reminds me that the 1.4 trillion dollar bank bailouts (there are two of them) are the ONLY possible solution according to Bush, Obama, McCain, and the rest of the Washington elite.

And so the GOP has put its lawmakers in a box.

Business, labor and elected officials in both parties agree basic stewardship requires finding the cash to fix Michigan's infrastructure. And economic stimulus money provides only a temporary boost, through the 2010 construction season.

But the Michigan Republican Party has cemented an anti-tax stance that appeals to its most conservative, tea-bag-waving elements. That makes it tough for radical outfits like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to persuade GOP lawmakers to join Granholm and Democrats in raising transportation taxes.

Spare me, Pete. I like the Chamber, but they have a different agenda this time. You see, one of their constituents is the Road Builders who want more money for contracts. I don't fault the Chamber for that stance. They have to represent their members.

And unless Republicans do that, Democrats vilified for the 2007 income tax hike are not going to stick their necks out again. GOP lawmakers already edgy about the issue apparently have to choose between their party and the economic good of their state. It's a choice they should not have to make.

They don't have to make that choice. That's what you people in Lansing don't understand. This whole push for a gas tax increase is based on this false assumption that only gas tax money can go to roads, and that it is the only solution, etc.

I'll tell you what. I'll support a compromise because I do think roads funding is important. Here's the compromise. No registration fee increases, end the sales tax for gasoline, and then increase the gas tax by 10 cents (and I won't even complain if it is 12 cents in this case). ALL of that money goes to roads and only to roads - period. That results in no increased costs for us with $2 a gallon gas, or a slight increase possibly if it is 12 cents at $2. That's my compromise plan.

As for the plan of 9 cents a gallon increase, and the 50% registration increase, and the keeping the 6% sales tax on gasoline - get the recall petitions ready for those who vote for that. You can quote me on that.

Secretary of State proposes Constitutional Convention procedures

A major press release came out from the Secretary of State's office regarding the upcoming con-con on the ballot. I'll need to see the exact language before giving final opinions, but this is a good start for discussion purposes and brings this front and center. We do not know if this will be needed or not, but we do know that the con-con WILL be on the ballot in 2010. It may pass or fail, but we need to prepare like it will pass, regardless of our feelings on this one way or the other.

Legislation being drafted to put process in place

Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is proposing legislation to establish procedures for a possible Constitutional Convention, a move that prepares Michigan if next year voters call for one.

Voters decide every 16 years whether a convention will be convened to revise Michigan's Constitution. The question will be on the Nov. 2, 2010 general election ballot. While minor provisions regarding a convention remain in law, procedures for electing delegates and convening a convention were repealed in 1967. Land's proposal ensures that a process is in place should the ballot question be approved.

"A recent pattern of attempts to amend sections of the constitution indicates a strong possibility of calling for a convention," Land said. "Establishing a process ahead of time lays the groundwork for an effective, well-run convention if one is needed."

Under the constitution's provisions, the convention would begin work in 2011. It would consist of 148 delegates -- one from each state Senate and state House district. State legislators currently in office are precluded from serving as delegates.

There's the background. That means there will be possibly three delegates from Livingston County. One for the Bill Rogers district, one from the Cindy Denby District, and Valde Garcia's district which also covers Shiawassee and part of Ingham County.

The proposals are as follows.

Requires convention delegates to be U.S. citizens and qualified electors of the delegate district.

A no brainer.

Sets the primary election date for delegate candidates on the regular February election date, and the general election on the regular May date.

This is needed to comply with existing law. Elections are possible four days a year, and the convention is scheduled for July as given in the State Constitution. The only possible dates for this election are February and May. While this is a relatively uncontroversial proposal, it's a must. Unfortunately, the existing law is also not as specific as I'd like it regarding the primary procedures, and I'd like to see this be a primary election instead of a convention or county party choice system.

Establishes delegate nominating petition or filing fee procedures similar to those for state senators and representatives. Candidate write-in and withdrawal procedures also are included.

This is something that isn't covered at all and is how it should be.

Requires the convention to convene at noon on the second Tuesday in July 2011. The convention continues until its final adjournment.
Makes the term of office for delegates coincide with the convention, regardless of boundary changes resulting from any potential redistricting.

Also important, although I'd be careful in how this is drafted. When will redistricting be?

Requires the Secretary of State to call the convention to order and preside over it until a convention president is elected.

Not a big deal on controversy, just a simple procedure.

Specifies that when vacancies occur due to resignation or other reasons, the governor must appoint a resident of the same district and political party as the delegate who is vacating the position.

I don't like gubenatorial appointments, but that is probably the best that can be done given the current laws in place. This is an improvement (governor appoints all vacancies, period).

Requires a two-thirds vote by the entire delegation to remove a delegate from office. It also establishes recount and recall provisions similar to those for state senators and representatives.

I need to check current law on this before I comment. I like 2/3, but I'd restrict it further to misconduct or no-shows.(outside of recall provisions). 2/3 should be a safeguard against that.

Compensates the president and delegates with mileage reimbursement for one round trip per week when the convention is in session.

Mixed views.

Puts delegates and committees under Michigan's Campaign Finance Act. Contribution limits are similar to those for state lawmakers within appropriate timelines. It also puts delegates under the Lobby Act as lobbyable public officials.
Land will work with lawmakers to have the legislation introduced once drafting is completed.

This is the major provision. Right now, it is not known whether delegate candidates fall under the campaign finance act. That's an open question depending on a few technicalities.

Now I want to close out this mentioning one thing. These are proposals, not law, and may not be the provisions passed. The legislature needs to be watched like a hawk on which provisions are being considered. This is the biggest issue on the ballot since 1994 - which was the last time a con-con was on the ballot (Every 16 years). If this passes, there will be a new constitution in Michigan. The State Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land here (second only to the US Constitution). Literally everything is on the line, regarding every issue. This is the Holy Grail of power.
I posted the other day a small sample of what is in stake with a con-con.

The con-con needs to be defeated, but we need to prepare for its passing so we are not caught offguard in February.

Paul Welday running for Congress against Gary Peters

I don't know who else is running against Peters, but good luck to whoever his opponent is. Welday is stepping up to the plate, so good luck to him.

And this gets me to a side issue. One of my biggest complaints from both Lansing and DC is how quick they are to abandon a race. It's worse in DC, but I've seen it in Lansing as well. These 53% or so democrat seats (like the state house seat Welday ran for - Barnett, formerly Aldo Vagnozzi) should be contested strongly - regardless whether or nor a "favorite" candidate wins a primary.

Welday received close to no help whatsoever in his state house seat. That, as far as I know, wasn't due to major controversy. That was due to lack of major name recognition and declaring defeat before things get started. The NRCC(DC) was much worse. They abandoned incumbents and those who they wrote off as losses, usually because of money. They wrote off Michelle Bachman in Minnesota. She won. They wrote off Tim Walberg. Walberg would have won with a little more help.

Whoever the nominee is for the 1st (Stupak's opponent), 7th (Walberg/Schauer), and 9th(Knollenberg/Peters), and 11th District (McCotter incumbent) needs help. If the GOP is going to get the state house back, keep the State Senate, and gain control of Congress, it starts with the caucus committees, state party election teams, etc, getting his own houses back in order first. Paul Welday or whoever the 9th district nominee is should not be thrown to the wolves. All these seats should be contested. The people being challenged are not Superman, they are politicians with voting records. They are beatable.

The tea parties - A good start, but needs to be sustained.

Back in my football days, we had a saying about the season. It is a marathon, not a sprint. The "season" started in January with offseason weightlifting and conditioning. The hard work in January was to pay off in the fall.

This tea party is a good start. That's what it is, a start. What did it do? It woke some people up hopefully about the spending going on in this country. That is important, but it needs to be followed up. It needs to be followed up with calls to our congressmen, senators, state reps, state senators, and even local officials.

The potential organization needs to be more than potential. It needs to be real, active, and ongoing as preparation for the special elections and local elections of 09 and for the major 2010 elections across the country. That is the true measure of success. I remember an astroturf rally for gun control in 2000 that ended up going nowhere. The pro-freedom groups didn't have the rallies, but had the organization where it counts - votes.

Step 1 was the tea parties. That was a successful step. Step 2 is following up with organization dealing with the reps and elections. That has yet to be determined. We don't win in April. We win in August and November.

The Cluster-you-know-what in Hamburg Township

If one of you all back in August right after the primary was having a bet on the over/under for recalls being filed before May, I would have taken that bet on double or nothing. I saw this a long time ago.

Former Hamburg Township Trustee Mike Bitondo has filed a recall petition for township Clerk Matt Skiba.

Bitondo filed his petition Thursday afternoon, and a clarity hearing on the petition language was scheduled for 8:15 a.m. April 24 at the historic Livingston County Courthouse in downtown Howell

One politician from one clique recalling another. We haven't even gotten one year into Skiba's term yet.

This BS is really embarassing my party and my county. I'm fully supportive of the recall system, but it should be used for poor policy decisions (tax increases) and illegal misconduct in office, not for pissing contests and turf wars due to a clique losing the primary election. The good news on this is that it required 2500 valid signatures and will be no easy task.

We as a party just should have had a good scare looking at the last two election results in our county. Yeah, we won it by a decent margin by most standards, but not by ours. 56% is not solid for us. Our largest municipality by population is Hamburg. One thing that keeps our party strong in the county is relatively few screwups compared to some areas dominated by democrats, like Wayne County. We don't have 62 mills on our property taxes, like Detroit. Taxes are lower here, and the bond rate is strong due to the general fiscal responsibility here. I think it can be better, but it still could be much worse. In general, it isn't that hard for the most part defending this county......outside of the cluster###k going on in Hamburg. That's another story.

I can't defend Hamburg, which unless things change soon, is being handed over to the Democrats quickly. Our worst showing in 08 was a three way race in Hamburg where Skiba won with 41.63%. It was a win, because it was a three-way race. Debby Buckland received 38.89% and Hardesty's write-in as an independent got 19.56% Who knows what it would be in a two-way race. In the Hamburg based County Commissioner race, Dennis Dolan won 53-46% over Dave Buckland, Debby's husband, and Dolan generally did not have controversy on the county board. McCain was held to 51% there. I don't know who dragged the ticket down there, but at the very least, the local government controversies in Hamburg are not helping matters. It's not even an ideological fight between "RINOS" and "Conservatives" either.

It's high time for the Republican office holders in Hamburg Township to wake the #@%@ up and smell the maple nut crunch as Denis Leary would say, or we are going to create a nice solid "blue zone" in this county.

Outside of this recall, you all (the GOP office holders in Hamburg) have about three years to man up and turn this township around, or a lot of people are going to be sent home. Matt Skiba, Phil Semprevino, Pat Hohl, Pat Evon, Bill Hahn, Chuck Menzies, and Mike Dolan. They have to step it up and spend their time on township business and not clique business. Skiba's the clerk. Get over it. Semprevino is a trustee. Get over it. The elections are over. Man up and get the job done folks, or someone else will.