Michigan legislator rankings
As part of our continuing efforts to get past campaign rhetoric, and to identify which legislators can rightly claim to be fiscal conservatives, the RLC-MI has just uploaded some charts helpful in evaluating Michigan’s state legislators. But the charts go beyond mere economic votes; they also identify how the legislators have voted on issues affecting personal liberties.
While the results aren’t pretty–especially on the personal liberty side–they do help show a clear distinction between the parties. They also help show why libertarians and like-minded people are more likely to find success through the GOP than the Democratic Party.
(The votes on which the charts were based are available here. It should further clarify this distinction.)
Trains?
Candice Miller has been getting lots of attention for a statement she apparently made regarding our massive new spending law. From the first of those articles:
“And yet we are expected to get approximately $7 billion from this bill, and apparently the Senate Majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding. As everyone knows Michigan is dependent on the auto industry, which is on its knees right now.”
While it’s unclear exactly why Michigan’s alleged receipt of $7 billion from the monstrosity, as well as its dependency on the auto industry, have an effect on the merits of a rail system out west, her complaint raises an interesting issue. Who decides what’s to be “stimulated”?
Howes makes great points on Gov., suggestions for GOP
Daniel Howes slams the governor:
that’s where the defense of Michigan’s tried-and-spent business community ended — with the guv’s claim that the state stands behind its stalwarts. How? By repealing the surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax? No, didn’t hear that.
The state senate has done that already–we’re just waiting on the Democrat-controlled house to play catch-up, and for the governor to sign it into law.
But Howes also has good suggestions for Republicans:
where was the talk of taxes? The Republicans naturally seized on that omission, particularly given the guv’s exhultations about the success of the state’s film industry incentives and its plan to support electric battery development for the auto industry. Two words: Incentives work. Two other words: Taxes matter.
There’s so much to talk about here. But for now, consider our earlier comments here and here on what Howes would call “incentives.”
Rep. Lund: support exists to end MBT ’surcharge’
That would be the 22% tax hike legislators imposed on Michigan businesses last term as a countermeasure to repealing their hastily-crafted service tax. That Pete Lund (R-Shelby Twp.) wants to repeal it is no surprise, given his record as a Macomb Commissioner. But in this local profile he did say something surprising about it:
He said he is looking to repeal the 22-percent surcharge on the tax to help out small businesses. He believes he has the support to do so, including those who put it in place.
Support exists to kill the ’surcharge’? We’ll see. Lund’s statement contradicts Nick at RightMichigan, who notes that the Democrats in the state house haven’t yet moved the bill repealing the surcharge that the state senate passed with bi-partisan support.
Granholm’s 2009 priority: making us poorer
Gov. Granholm delivered her annual legislative agenda for the year tonight in her State of the State speech. Her priorities were a giant mixed bag, but we want to comment on an especially lousy area (since she seemed to focus a lot on it): her energy policies.
Transparency and irony
On the most recent episode of the inside-Lansing public television show Off the Record, Tom McMillan discussed spending transparency. McMillan explained that his bill would shed light on a practice (government spending) thereby causing “cockroaches” (wasteful expenses) to scatter (pressure for reform).
A reporter from Michigan public radio asked whether he would support extending this transparency effort to lobbyists’ expenses (like dinners for lawmakers). McMillan fumbled a bit on his reason for not supporting this, mentioning something about free speech, and basically saying he wanted to start with government expenses. Sticking to state expenses is probably good policy; would you necessarily want your neighbors or coworkers to know every position you financially supported? (Matt Welch at Reason on a similar occurrence in California.)
But the interesting thing was that when the reporter, Rick Pluta, asked about requiring private parties to disclose to all of us their checkbooks, he seemed to be suggesting that this disclosure would be a good thing. Yet Rick’s work biography says he has “a particular interest in issues related to privacy.” Perhaps he means he sees no need for privacy, or thinks it’s harmful?