Michigan RLC Convention with Gary Johnson Feb. 27th
The Michigan chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus will hold its annual convention at Andiamo Italian Restaurant in Novi on February 27 from 4:30 to 6:00pm.
The Convention will feature former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and State Representative Justin Amash.
The RLC will also hold its annual business meeting to elect officers for 2010-2011. Hors d’oeuvres will be served.
We are asking for a small $10 entry fee for non-RLC members. In order to vote or run for an officer position, you must be a dues-paying member of the RLC ($30 annually; $20 for students). Learn more or join at http://www.RLC.org/.
See you there!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RLC Info. & Membership: http://www.RLC.org/
RSVP for the event: http://garyjohnsonmichigan.eventbrite.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andiamo Italia:
http://www.andiamoitalia.com/novi/index.html
Map: http://www.andiamoitalia.com/novi/map.html
Governor Johnson Bio:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Johnson is a Republican and serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative. He has been an outspoken advocate for efficient government, lower taxes, winning the war on drug abuse, protection of civil liberties, revitalization of the economy and promoting entrepreneurship and privatization.
In 1994, Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico despite having little experience in politics. He defeated the incumbent Democratic Governor Bruce King in the general election as well as a former Republican Governor in the primary election.
In 1998, Johnson was re-elected as governor, defeating Democratic Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez by a 55% to 45% margin.
As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common-sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons.
Johnson also shifted state Medicaid to managed care (which led to better healthcare by creating a statewide healthcare network that previously did not exist and which saved money) and reduced state employees by over 1000, with no firings. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history.
While in office, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the combined vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at the time ) and thousands of line item vetoed bills.
Gary Johnson was term limited and could not run for a third consecutive term as Governor in 2002. He currently lives in New Mexico and has remained very active, competing in numerous athletic competitions. He is an avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist who abstains from alcohol. In 2003, he climbed Mount Everest.
Why The Michigan Republican Party Still Doesn’t Get It
Mike Nofs is the Republican nominee for the special election this Tuesday in State Senate District 19. By all accounts Mike Nofs is a nice guy. And according to an article written last May, “Nofs said he believes he should be the Republican candidate because he listens to everyone’s ideas and works across party lines.” That sounds reasonable. And while trying to compromise and work with others is something to be proud of, there are still a few fundamental issues out there where compromising means simply enabling the same bad parties who are holding behind progress.
For example, take Mr. Nofs’ endorsements by both the Michigan Educational Association (MEA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Too many times, Republican voters are swayed by a candidate’s endorsements from Right to Life and Citizens for Traditional Values, while ignoring the “economic” allies that the politician has. And when we talk about “traditional values,” shouldn’t we also consider a government that lives within its means, and allows individuals to make an honest living without being overburdened by unnecessary taxes, regulations, and forced unionism?
As MakeLansingListen.com mentions: “So while the Republican Party is looking for this to be their big comeback win, we are convinced that their support of Mike proves they weren’t listening on April 15th as 20,000 people attended Tea Parties around the State to say they were Taxed Enough Already. Let’s tell Mike and all the rest of the big spenders in Lansing that we are mad as heck and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Among the “Big Spender Top 10 Votes” made by Mike Nofs include both being “1 of 3 House GOP [members] to vote to keep the special benefit loophole for teacher retirement system,” and “1 of 4 House GOP to vote to protect public school employee union’s costly health benefit plan from competition.” These “protections” are better known to the MEA as the sacred cow called MESSA.
Nofs was also “1 of just 6 House GOP [members] to vote AGAINST competitive contracting for public school services like busing, food, and custodial.” For this “brave” vote, Nofs earned the endorsement of the SEIU, who states that Mike “Nofs opposes privatizing state services because he understands that there are ultimately no cost savings.” Tell this to Oakland County Sherriff, and current gubernatorial candidate, Mike Bouchard who has privatized county services in his department, resulting in savings of $15 million since he assumed office roughly ten years ago.
The Republicans may very well win this election in the short run. But this short-term victory will do nothing to restore the long-term lack of credibility that the Republican Party continues to suffer from. Republican victories at the ballot box will do little to improve the state’s current malaise when many of these same Republicans, such as Mr. Nofs, are susceptible to the political pressure inflicted by organized labor.
Which makes it an even greater irony that Democratic Detroit Mayor Dave Bing is arguably more conservative than most of the elected Republican officials in Michigan when it comes to demanding concessions from government employee unions. Mr. Bing has a big election coming up this Tuesday as well. Yet he refuses to succumb to the usual political pressure presented by organized labor. Bing recognizes that such pressure ultimately defeats the whole purpose for which he got involved in politics in the first place. He should be commended for his profile in courage, regardless of partisan affiliation or lack thereof.
Some have said that “if you wanted a ‘true conservative’ to be our nominee next week, you SHOULD HAVE FOUND ONE AND BUILT AN ORGANIZATION AND RAN AND WON THE PRIMARY.” Well, that’s easier said than done when the state Republican Party puts all of their muscle behind one favored guy. And this type of disingenuous statement is entitled to a simple response. And that’s “true conservatives” do have the choice on Tuesday to vote for Libertarian Greg Merle. “The former Republican said he became despondent with the GOP after the party made John McCain its 2008 presidential nominee…”
The RLC as a matter of policy will not endorse a Libertarian candidate running against a Republican. But frankly, considering the fact that Nofs is endorsed by both the MEA and SEIU, we can’t say that we blame conservatives in the 19th Senate District if they choose to vote for Merle. And we also appreciate the challenge to “build an organization” of our own to win primaries because that is precisely what the Republican Liberty Caucus sets out to do.
The Guv in her own words
From Time’s “10 Questions,” we get some idea of how our Governor thinks. Is there a theme running through these responses, perhaps?
We won’t pay for you to get a degree in French or political science…but we will pay for you to get a degree in something that is of need, like nursing….
The same people who bend steel to make cars can bend steel to make wind turbines. The same people who program machines to build car parts can program machines to build parts for solar panels….
You can’t give tax credits to everybody, because somebody’s gotta pay for them. We have targeted six sectors….
As a politician, of course she knows what skills workers today need. That’s her particular area of expertise, somehow.
Then there are the statements that leave you scratching your head (even after you see the questions that prompted them):
But I can tell you I will have had a lot of experience in leading during a time of sustained crisis….
Leading? Surely she jests.
Better leadership decisions than in Michigan
Recently the Dallas Morning News ran a very interesting article regarding the 160-year-old Michigan State Fair. Prior to being cancelled this Labor Day, the Michigan State Fair was the oldest, and many said, the most critically acclaimed state fair in all the land. But because of recent budget cuts, the fair was permanently put out of business. Compare this with what Texas has done, which now has “the country’s longest and largest fair…at least $5 million in profits each year based on about $70 million in revenues.”
As the author says, in these recessionary times, “other fairs are seeing their budgets dry up as governments spend precious dollars elsewhere.” “Unlike several other state fairs, the State Fair of Texas doesn’t receive government funds. But for the fair to continue making money on its own, officials have to keep things fresh to attract the crowds.” In other words, the profit motive has kept the Texas state fair alive, while the lack of such an incentive has caused the Michigan State Fair to go extinct.
“We’ve tried to keep the product relevant by constantly changing the product,” said Errol McKoy, fair president. “We preach innovation.” This innovation has included renovating the world famous Cotton Bowl in order to keep the traditional Red River football rivalry between the Universities of Texas and Oklahoma on the state fair grounds as it has been for the last eighty years.
The fair is using its profits to pay for this and other projects. “So, the pressure’s on to keep the money rolling in.” And the Texas State Fair has been able to keep the money rolling in because of a board of directors “who expect business results.”
Interestingly, the article quotes Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm saying that “while they are a wonderful tradition, the state fairs are not an essential purpose of government.” We agree Governor. So why not follow Texas’ lead and let the private sector preserve Michigan’s wonderful tradition?
Political class to taxpayers: you work for us
You work for us. Do the government employees serve the taxpayers, or are the taxpayers here to provide them with salaries and benefits?
If you’re a government worker, most of whom are part of the political class that we’ve written of before, the answer is obvious. It doesn’t matter how stretched taxpayers are, the cost of government (that’s what bureaucrats’ salaries and benefits are, after all) must not decrease.
The clever members of the political class couch their objections to cutting government spending in terms with which we all sympathize. See this wonderful article explaining Detroit’s current fiscal/government situation for an example of this:
“This guy is just full of it,” Leamon Wilson, chairman of the presidents [sic] of AFSCME’s locals, said about Bing. “He’s not trying to work with us. He doesn’t seem to have any respect for the workers and what they do.”
In other words, a mayor who doesn’t seek to curry favor with the bureaucrats as his top priority, and whose administration asks questions of department heads such as
What services do you provide now? What services should you provide? How much will it cost? Is there a way to do it cheaper? Can another entity do it cheaper?
is, in this government-employee-union leader’s view, anti-worker (whatever that’s supposed to mean). The RLC-MI surely isn’t the only group around that finds objections like the AFSCME leader’s ridiculous (no matter how much he mischaracterizes the debate as being about “respect for workers”). And the Bing administration’s questions, if they actually lead to right-sizing city government, show just differently Mayor Bing thinks from the political class.
Would that more GOP leaders follow Mayor Bing’s lead, and ask department heads to justify their departments’ existence as publicly funded entities.
Tax Breaks for Pets?
In our continuing focus on economic populism in Michigan politics, the following story borderlines on the ridiculous. US Representative Thad McCotter (R-Livonia) has recently proposed House Resolution 3501, the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years, or HAPPY Act, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow an individual to deduct up to $3,500 for “qualified pet care expenses.” How could anyone be against the “happy act?” That’s almost as bad as being against the “Patriot Act,” right?
Sarcasm aside, the great irony about all this, as bloggers on the left have pointed out, is that the GOP’s current proposed deductions for human health care only offer individual tax credits of $2,500, compared to the $3500 amount for pets. Of course, the left has used this point of irony as a battle cry for even more government health insurance, even though Medicare is one of the most expensive programs of an overall insolvent federal government.
And by acting “democrat-light,” by pandering to popular sentiment regarding the “needs of everyday American families”, McCotter has opened himself up to this type of criticism. It seems as though the Congressman is throwing out everything and the kitchen sink in order to win re-election before the critical US Census forces re-districting after 2010. But these efforts have come at the expense of his own advice to fellow caucus members regarding why the party lost its way.
Owning a pet is not a necessity, and these tax deductions are nothing more than a lifestyle subsidy for which someone else indirectly pays for in the end. In these touch economic times, we must re-evaluate what necessities truly are. Proponents of the bill have argued that is will 1) make “it more affordable for people to provide the care their pets need,” and 2) make “it less likely that pet owners who are suffering during the recession will abandon their pets.” This in turn is supposed to save local governments money over the long-term since ”many local communities and counties are overwhelmed by animal control costs, and those costs are exacerbated by people who do not spay and neuter their animals.”
But should people be encouraged to continue owning things that they cannot afford and pass some of these costs onto the rest of society in the form of tax deductions? Why not expect more personal responsibility on the part of each individual instead of creating government schemes that attempt to encourage or discourage personal behavior? Countless government programs that attempt to help those in need simply end up enabling the same negative aspects that the program sought to eradicate. Has LBJ’s war on poverty eliminated the problem after all of the billions that have been spent?
A founding first principle of this country is the rule of law, which requires that the laws of the land be written to apply to everyone equally and that these laws are simple enough for everyday citizens to understand. The Internal Revenue Code is the antithesis of this founding principle. Adding to its complexity with another yet another deduction does nothing to solve the underlying problem with how we collect taxes in this country in the first place.
Economic Populism and the Cash for Clunkers Boondoggle
Michigan politicians, both Republican and Democrat alike, suffer from an urge to please the masses, even when doing so results in long-term harm to government budgets and the overall economy. Even supposed conservative Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra, voted last fall to bailout the domestic auto industry out of fear of feeling the wrath from his fellow Michiganders for letting GM and Chrysler fall into bankruptcy. So a “bridge loan” was approved by Congress, but despite this bailout money, both companies still went into bankruptcy court for restructuring, which in hindsight appears to have been the best of many poor options all along.
The Cash for Clunkers program was simply another government scheme disguised as a way to help the American auto industry. So it seems as only poetic justice that most of the “clunkers” being turned in are American vehicles while most of the vehicles traded in for are Japanese. And to think, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has said “it’s a thrill to be a part of the best economic news story in America…As a result of the program, automotive inventory has been depleted and both General Motors and Ford are ramping up production, adding shifts and rehiring laid off workers.”
And the program is also textbook example of why Congressman Hoekstra has unfortunately abdicated his position as the conservative voice in the gubernatorial primary for governor. This very issue demonstrates the rampant economic populism that has infected Michigan politics for the last 40 years, and not surprisingly, has made Michigan a less attractive place to do business over that same period of time.
Countless people in our state have thought to themselves “if only we help the auto industry and protect good union jobs, then everything in Michigan will be alright.” Well this belief is based upon the assumption that even if the government wants to help those in need, it is effectively able to, as opposed to causing more problems than it sought to fix (see recent article by Ron Paul “The Free Market as Regulator”).
And while Hoekstra has been in Congress for over 16 years, it is still hard to believe that he (being once the only bright-spot in an otherwise lackluster delegation from Michigan) is surprised that the government’s processing of dealers’ requests for rebates has run into bureaucratic red-tape. “It’s not brain surgery, it’s processing a rebate,” he said. “We don’t need another law, we need some competence.” Wow! He expects competence from government? I guess he is more out of touch than initially thought. “It appears that we have to do at least some checking as to whether this whole administrative thing worked the way it was intended to and we just need some more money for it to work.” Spoken like a true “conservative” Republican.
As Tyler Gaastra of redcounty.com has said, this was an example of “politics over principle for West Michigan Republicans”:
[A]s a matter of principle, it is unfortunate that both local congressmen supported the bill. Alternatively, from a local politics perspective, the vote is entirely reasonable. Just imagine the ads that would have been made by the Michigan Democratic Party: ‘Peter Hoekstra says he supports Michigan car companies, but when it came to the successful Cash for Clunkers program Hoekstra said NO to Michigan businesses and Michigan jobs.’…In this case, local politics trumped principle
State Representative Justin Amash Accused of Not Compromising on Film Tax Credit
State Representative, and RLCMI advisor, Justin Amash has recently been accused by critics of “not compromising” on the Michigan Film Tax Credits. During a rally at the State Capitol earlier this week, Deb Havens, chair of the West Michigan Film Video Alliance, accused Amash of being just another politician who plays “off on their own agendas, rather than what is best for the state and the people of Michigan.” Ms. Havens seems convinced that Amash’s ideology has nothing to do with sincerely held beliefs, and she also seems convinced that she, and not Representative Amash, knows what is best for the people of Michigan. The irony is that Havens explains Amash’s argument quite clearly stating he is “committed to no incentives…the idea being that if we get rid of all incentive programs then we can get rid of the Michigan business tax, and we won’t have to tax our businesses to pay incentives, therefore, get rid of all incentives.”
People like movies. They make us laugh, cry, and scream. But is the film industry any more important than other sectors of economy such as manufacturing, which is comprised of companies who have been here much longer, and who are the ones paying to attract to newer, out-of-state industries. No one is holding a rally at the capitol on behalf of the garbage industry, even though importing waste from other states and Canada has been a growing business in Michigan in recent years. It must not be as sexy as the movie industry whose growth clearly furthers Ms. Havens personal agenda as Chair of the Michigan Film Video Alliance (read “special interest” group).
And this issue also touches upon another big problem in Michigan politics, that being economic populism. For example, Michigan State Senator Nancy Cassis has been one of the most conservative voices in legislature over the last decade. And while she has rightfully questioned whether the film incentives are actually working, her proposed solution “that 90 percent of the people working on a movie or national ad production must be from Michigan” is also faulty. A parochial restriction that dicates to business that they must hire locally is likely to discourage them from locating in Michigan in the first place. However, this is the price that the private sector should not at all be surprised of paying when they receive government handouts (see the earlier post “Be Careful What You For” concerning the American auto bailouts).
Nor is Cassis’ argument that we should simply “right-size” the film credits by reducing the refundable amount of production costs from 40 percent to 42 percent, down to 35 percent all that convincing since, according the Anderson Economic Group, “the nominal tax expenditure is, at best, a rough guess, and probably an overestimate of the actual ‘cost’ of the program.”
“Best-managed states in the nation”
That’s what Gov. Granholm’s press secretary calls Michigan. Maybe if by “one of the best-managed” she means something more like, at least we aren’t California, then I guess she’s justified.
Notwithstanding that politicians aren’t entirely responsible for any given state’s unemployment problems, check out where we fall on the latest state-by-state ranking from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The nerve.
Howes: State Dems, political class, and other problems plaguing Michigan
Howes
Daniel Howes’ latest is so full of accurate assessments that excerpts seem almost insufficient; so many points are worth spreading far and wide. A few salient ones, however, include criticisms of the Democratic Party chairman:
The latest comes from Mark Brewer, the state Democratic Party chief who never met a cheap publicity stunt he didn’t like….proving that the long downward spiral of misery (led by the implosion of the Detroit auto industry) has done little to improve the real-world economic literacy of what Brewer & Co. figure to be a plurality of the voting public.
and quotes from the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce president on Andy Dillon’s plan to pool public employees in one health care plan:
“Give the guy credit for having the guts to do something because he knew he’d get nailed by the MEA… These are the type of creative ideas we ought to get behind. Because of union reaction to it, it’s probably not going anywhere.”*
Howes also makes clear who he thinks the enemy of Dillon’s proposal is — i.e., the people who scream bloody murder to stop any sort of cost-saving measures — by pointing out that “bureaucrats, union leaders and members of his own House Democratic caucus [are calling] for his head.”
Those who never see the desirability of giving taxpayers a break are what Jack McHugh has called the political class. He doesn’t have flattering things to say about this group:
true representative government has been supplanted by an inbred, self-serving, self-perpetuating political class that does not represent the people….
The elected officials who grant [lavish public employee benefits] and their beneficiaries are all members of the same political/government class, which protects its own above all else.
this class serves as handmaiden to what has become the nation’s most powerful interest group: the government class, comprised of the permanent welfare/regulatory state bureaucracy and the legions of direct beneficiaries who sup at the same tax-laden table.
It’s a little terrifying that McHugh’s points are gaining more and more evidence to support them. But hopefully ideas like Dillon’s latest, the one that caused “a senior Michigan Education Association official this week to declare: ‘We are at war,’” prove more popular with the voters than they have with the legislature. (We say ideas like this one because, e.g., Leon Drolet’s “Rescue Michigan” offers a similar reform with incredibly more benefits to taxpayers than Dillon’s proposal. And because Dillon’s plan could still prove to be awful, once its details are released. But half-steps toward relief from the burdens of the political class certainly beat out not taking any steps.)
***
*Just because a good idea is “probably not going anywhere” doesn’t give us a good excuse not to fight for it. To a point.