(Update) Michigan Republicans Sell Cities - Dismiss Elected Officials

[Senoska]

I can't take this. Your arguments are terrible. I can't even believe you're supporting this. This is wholly unamerican and the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this. The fact that not only are you not upset by this, but you support it, is a disgusting idea for me. You've ignored every single point made in this thread and you just keep posting the same, un-thought-out garbage you're trying to pass off as rational thought. And p.s., if my tone in this post comes off as pissed off, that is intentional. What you're saying is so fundamentally wrong that I have to think you're trolling at this point.

What are you politically so I can find a new group of people to dislike. Are you a republican or one of those tea party nuts? This is so baffling to me. I've repeated myself, as have nearly every other person that has posted against you, 10 fold, while you ignore it and continue posting. Even some of the die hard republicans of this board have disagreed with you.

Here's my last point, you either address these points, or this conversation (now having gone on for 5 pages) between you and I ends here.

1: Your argument is fundamentally flawed because Snyder did not run on any of what he enacted. You can say "WELL YOU SHOULD HAVE INFERRED IT!" to which I respond: You're acting like a child.

2: Taxes were not the reason that businesses left this area. Moreover, Snyder has increased taxes on seniors in the area while trying to curb corporate tax and make "business easier" by means of selling city utilities. Aka, our utilities we built.

3: The majority does not support Snyder in these recent efforts. There have been protests around the state, and in fact, I drove by one earlier today. They just don't have an effect. You cannot say these are tea partiers or "just people being loud, but not the majority." As someone who actually lives in this state, and actually lives in Detroit, I can tell you much of the public opinion is against Snyder. He had lied to push these agendas. You're essentially saying what happened in Wisconsin was deserved because this fake "majority" supported it, when they didn't. In fact, so far in this thread, you're the only person that seems to like this. Even on this board, the majority is against you. Because the majority of people are reasonable to some degree and can see this bullshit as bad 20 miles away.

4: I know you're going to ignore everything said, yet again, and just post some arbitrary crap about how great it is to not have elected officials running your city, or something about how much debt this city has, or how the majority supports it, or how this is what Snyder ran on, or that taxes were the cause of this, or that Benton Harbor mismanaged funds and thats why this happened, but all of these things have one thing in common... THEY ARE FUCKING BULLSHIT. None of this has any real world meaning because it is simply WRONG. Not subjectively but objectively incorrect. Historically, you're wrong. So admit it and move the fuck on.

[kyod]

1) Really? You didn't think the Republican candidate for governor would slash funding and seek privatization for utilities? Dude is Republican. It's like being shocked a Democrat was elected governor and is all of the sudden pursuing strict gun control legislation, despite not specifically saying it during his campaign. That's not to say a Democrat wouldn't do the same things Snyder is doing (see: Daley in Chicago privatizing parking meters, Chicago Skyway, and trying to privatize Midway Airport).

2) I agree with you, there's no one reason why Michigan became the only state to lose population in the past decade and experience a pretty steep decline. There's a lot of factors involved. To blame taxes as the sole reason why businesses left Michigan is erroneous and just a Republican talking point.

3) You're making pretty broad assumptions about the entire state by basing what you experience in Detroit. Can you really speak for those in the UP or in other parts of the state based on opinion in Detroit? That's like saying people in downstate Illinois have the same opinion as Chicago.

4) I think the issue is Drex is arguing from a micro perspective, his focus purely on Benton Harbor and you're arguing macro, with broader implications.

Clearly you're passionate about this issue and are emotionally involved on some personal level. I'd recommend cooling the charged language because you're sounding like a crazy tea party dude.

[Alarial]

Clearly you're passionate about this issue and are emotionally involved on some personal level. I'd recommend cooling the charged language because you're sounding like a crazy tea party dude.

I'm not really as experienced with politics as everyone else here, but from reading this thread: We need a lot more people as upset as Senoska is, and a lot less people ambivalent.

[Senoska]

Clearly you're passionate about this issue and are emotionally involved on some personal level. I'd recommend cooling the charged language because you're sounding like a crazy tea party dude.

No, I'm just getting frustrated that I'm taking time out of my day to type responses and look things up for this guy and he just ignores it and types some "republican talking point" at me, which is what is going on. Its a one sided conversation that is going on. And this is typically how these conversations go. I disagree that he is talking about a micro-perspective because everything he has said has been historically incorrect. He doesn't have a perspective. He's just going to come here and praise these republicans regardless of what they do. And frankly, I think I'm allowed to get mad when I've been typing the same thing for five pages and it was completely ignored. I'm frustrated he isn't listening. All you have to do is google "Benton Harbor" without adding something to it like "BENTON HARBOR BUSINESS TAXES" which you and I both know is what he is searching, because he isn't interested in the facts, just interested in trying to be right about something he is wrong about.

[Olo401]

I'm not really as experienced with politics as everyone else here, but from reading this thread: We need a lot more people as upset as Senoska is, and a lot less people ambivalent.

I'll admit I haven't been as involved in this thread as I've wanted to be due to other duties & distractions.. but let me say that I am just as disturbed and upset by these events as Senoska is. What's going on in Michigan now is a more overtly dangerous version of what had been happening before Snyder came to office (which was a similar situation to what happened here in Rhode Island last year). A town that is insolvent, due to the incompetence of its elected officials or economic hardship or both, where the state has stepped in to help resolve the crisis. Of course, cutting off the town from state financial assistance has only exasperated the situation, but let's put this aside for the moment.

The problem here is not the takeover of the town's troubled finances - I think we can all agree that in such a situation outside help is necessary and welcome, and that the municipality should be compelled to follow fiscal plans laid out by an emergency financial manager. The problem is supplanting ALL the day-to-day decision making authority of duly elected municipal officials with appointees made by the Governor and/or State Treasurer, which goes against the democratic-republic framework that our nation was built upon. Yes, the people that were elected to municipal office aren't doing a good job with the books - but the remedy for that is for the people to vote them out of office either in a general or recall election, NOT for a state official to simply wave his hand and usurp their authority. Perhaps the local officials are corrupt and need to be prosecuted, and that's fine, but it needs to be done through the appropriate channels (grand jury indictment, trial by jury, and conviction).

[tyven]

yo, Ben Gordon is overpaid, Detroit should strip him of 6 million dollars and help them niggas in Benton out. CRISIS SOLVED. god damn

[Drex]

I've mentioned business taxes in 4 posts, 2 of which were direct responses to something you said about them, like bolding in your OP that raising them would magically solve all of Michigan's problems (totally unbiased article I swear!) It's not even close to my central point.

[Drex]

The problem here is not the takeover of the town's troubled finances - I think we can all agree that in such a situation outside help is necessary and welcome, and that the municipality should be compelled to follow fiscal plans laid out by an emergency financial manager.

And what happens when they don't?

The problem is supplanting ALL the day-to-day decision making authority of duly elected municipal officials with appointees made by the Governor and/or State Treasurer, which goes against the democratic-republic framework that our nation was built upon. Yes, the people that were elected to municipal office aren't doing a good job with the books - but the remedy for that is for the people to vote them out of office either in a general or recall election, NOT for a state official to simply wave his hand and usurp their authority. Perhaps the local officials are corrupt and need to be prosecuted, and that's fine, but it needs to be done through the appropriate channels (grand jury indictment, trial by jury, and conviction).

@bolded part - And what would you do next when only 20% of those people even bother to show up to the polls? And even ignoring political apathy, what do you do when the officials have been lying to the public about/hiding their situation for so long that the city won't survive until a recall election/general election can take place to throw them out? There hasn't been democracy in Benton Harbor in a long time.

Related: there's a recall movement against Rick Snyder and some of the members of the legislature that approved the EFM bill. http://www.firericksnyder.org/. Very interested in how it turns out, since it requires 1million signatures and a vote. Now's the time to get it done.

[Senoska]

You keep talking about these mismanaged funds when that's not the case. The city is poor and has no funds to mis-manage. The money the city is using, for the most part, is used in the city. As I mentioned, this is a 6 million dollar debt for a city of 10,000 people, which means it has a debt ratio of about $600/person in the city. This is not why the EFM was put in the city, and in fact, was put there because city officials would "debate for hours" about the usage of money.

Drex, what you are suggesting would be exactly the same thing as Obama waving his hand and dismissing all of congress because they cannot decide on what to do with the debt ceiling. Would you support that?

[Olo401]

And what happens when they don't?

Then the next step is civil action in the courts.

@bolded part - And what would you do next when only 20% of those people even bother to show up to the polls? And even ignoring political apathy, what do you do when the officials have been lying to the public about/hiding their situation for so long that the city won't survive until a recall election/general election can take place to throw them out? There hasn't been democracy in Benton Harbor in a long time.

If that's your benchmark then there hasn't been republic-style democracy anywhere in the United States since its earliest days. Even in the 2008 general election, which is our most recent high water mark, only about 60% of the eligible citizen voters in this country cast a ballot. In down-ballot races that number was lower - 50-55% depending on the voting district. In 2010, the overall number was down to about 45%.

As for the second part, you let the courts decide. If a judge deems that the EFM should temporarily run the local government with the support of normal hire non-elected town officials until an emergency election can take place, so be it. A judge will also be able to issue a temporary injunction preventing the town's creditors from picking at the carcass. After that, the only thing to really be worried about is the town's muni bond rating (but it's probably in the toilet anyways).

[Day]

Please continue trolling Seno.

[Day]

I totally support Obama flushing congress FYI.

[Drex]

You keep talking about these mismanaged funds when that's not the case. The city is poor and has no funds to mis-manage. The money the city is using, for the most part, is used in the city. As I mentioned, this is a 6 million dollar debt for a city of 10,000 people, which means it has a debt ratio of about $600/person in the city. This is not why the EFM was put in the city, and in fact, was put there because city officials would "debate for hours" about the usage of money.

Really? Even people attacking the EFM agree that Benton Harbor was mismanaging its funds. Even the city council agrees it was mismanaging its funds. There were funds, they were just all borrowed. A city can't run up a 6mil debt and take 10mil from a pension plan without spending money on something. One look at the city's situation should tell you that they have certainly not been spending that money very wisely, or managing much of anything effectively. I liked the part where the council didn't want to hear the audit and then thanked him for it afterwards, because they had never done one before themselves. Do you have a link to the actual report? All I can find is cliff notes stuff.

Drex, what you are suggesting would be exactly the same thing as Obama waving his hand and dismissing all of congress because they cannot decide on what to do with the debt ceiling. Would you support that?

That's not apples to apples. You're being intellectually dishonest, because there was no "dismissing" or "firing", that implies permanency. "Suspended" is far more accurate. There was also no "magic handwaving": the bill was passed legitimately by legislators that were voted into office, not snuck through secretively by Snyder like opinion articles seem to want the public believe.

Applying those criteria, what you're describing sounds a lot like a government shutdown, which just happened recently. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that sometimes elected officials feel like being huge dicks and need to be slapped around a little. The question is how hard they can be slapped when they act like huge dicks.

A democracy where the elected officials perfectly represent the wants and needs of their demographics sounds great on paper, but anyone grounded in reality knows that will almost never happen because of the nature of politics, so there needs to be shit in place that punishes politicians for being huge dicks. I am not in any way, shape, or form opposed to the people trying to get Snyder and the representatives that OK'd his bill thrown out of office.

Uh oh, I just attacked democracy.

If that's your benchmark then there hasn't been republic-style democracy anywhere in the United States since its earliest days. Even in the 2008 general election, which is our most recent high water mark, only about 60% of the eligible citizen voters in this country cast a ballot. In down-ballot races that number was lower - 50-55% depending on the voting district. In 2010, the overall number was down to about 45%.

Well there has been, and it's certainly more of a democracy than many other countries, it just hasn't been that strong of a democracy. I don't think that's an unreasonable (or even uncommon) viewpoint if only half the people are voting.

As for the second part, you let the courts decide. If a judge deems that the EFM should temporarily run the local government with the support of normal hire non-elected town officials until an emergency election can take place, so be it. A judge will also be able to issue a temporary injunction preventing the town's creditors from picking at the carcass. After that, the only thing to really be worried about is the town's muni bond rating (but it's probably in the toilet anyways).

Snyder followed the proper channels to put the bill into action (passing it with a vote in legislature by representatives who were elected into office). A governor and his legislature do not need to go to court over every single bill they pass. People ARE taking him to court over this one, and they have the right to. In the meantime, it's still valid law, until a judge says otherwise. According to precedent at least, the bill is legal. That's not what the real dispute is about, just a side-show.

[Olo401]

Snyder followed the proper channels to put the bill into action (passing it with a vote in legislature by representatives who were elected into office). A governor and his legislature do not need to go to court over every single bill they pass. People ARE taking him to court over this one, and they have the right to. In the meantime, it's still valid law, until a judge says otherwise. According to precedent at least, the bill is legal. That's not what the real dispute is about, just a side-show.

Actually this is what the dispute is about - is this new law constitutional in Michigan or not? There isn't any question about whether the law was passed in the proper manner because all parties agree that it was. In any case the courts will have this case soon enough, and depending on the judge who receives the case there may or may not be an injunction against the EFM's actions. BTW, I suppose there's a chance that the original EFM law could be challenged as well, if that hadn't already been decided previously.

[Drex]

On the other hand, it IS unconstitutional for Michigan (and any state but Vermont) to run an unbalanced budget (link). The only reason the previous Michigan governor got away with running a deficit is that she had the benefit of "free" government money (ie taxpayers from other states) helping to foot her bill (link). That money ends FY2012, which is why any governor was going to have to cut spending deep. Maybe if you crawl on your hands and knees to the Fed they will help you out again, at the cost of the US taxpayers and the ever-growing national debt.

Regarding Snyder and his alleged lies of omission, there's this article (link) where BOTH candidates acknowledge that they will need to make steep budget cuts and raise personal taxes. If your media didn't make a bigger deal about it, then sorry that your journalists suck dick, because the timeline on the federal government's financial aid was publicized back in 2009 when the state bailout took place and it ends in FY2012 (link). That's the rub with stimulus packages: they end. The best part is that, as far as I can tell, nobody especially liked that previous governor and she had a bunch of federal money to help her! Maybe Michigan needs anger management, I don't know.

Back to the EFM bill:

The state has a very real stake in what happens to Benton Harbor, since the stigma of having cities go bankrupt would not be good for a state trying to attract businesses to fix its horrific unemployment. I doubt it's a coincidence that the EFM's provisions are almost exactly the same as the provisions for a judge during a Chapter 9 filing (link). In effect, the enactment of the EFM bill is a super secret declaration that the city is insolvent before it's legally ruled insolvent, and prevents the associated stigma while still having the "benefit" of breaking up unsustainable pension plans and union CBAs from the boom. Which one do you like more?

@Seno - You asked me earlier what the triggers and stipulations are for when receivership begins/ends. They're in the bill itself (link). The factors that begin receivership are the same as the ones that end it: if you meet the criteria, you are a receiver. Once you no longer meet the criteria, you are no longer a receiver. If you go back into the receivership area, you are a receiver. Ctrl+f "Sec. 13".

[Drex]

Actually this is what the dispute is about - is this new law constitutional in Michigan or not? There isn't any question about whether the law was passed in the proper manner because all parties agree that it was. In any case the courts will have this case soon enough, and depending on the judge who receives the case there may or may not be an injunction against the EFM's actions. BTW, I suppose there's a chance that the original EFM law could be challenged as well, if that hadn't already been decided previously.

It's funny because so many articles refer to it as the "unconstitutional EFM act" that you would never know there is a dispute. The precedent is that it's constitutional, so it is constitutional until proven otherwise. This whole situation is as intellectually dishonest and appalling as calling a rape suspect a convicted sex offender before he even goes to trial. This is also the flaw with:

We need a lot more people as upset as Senoska is

this mindset, because this kind of intellectual dishonesty is perfect for taking advantage of angry people.

In any case, Kuya and Seno made it pretty clear that they are arguing from an ethics standpoint, so I meant to say that constitutionality is not the real dispute in this thread.

[Senoska]

Actually this is what the dispute is about - is this new law constitutional in Michigan or not? There isn't any question about whether the law was passed in the proper manner because all parties agree that it was. In any case the courts will have this case soon enough, and depending on the judge who receives the case there may or may not be an injunction against the EFM's actions. BTW, I suppose there's a chance that the original EFM law could be challenged as well, if that hadn't already been decided previously.

In the previous law, EFMs had the power to nullify contracts all except those of elected officials so the law stood as constitutional with the state intervening in order to balance a budget, as to where the new law gave them the power to nullify even elected officials contract which is what is happening here, which puts it into the realm of unconstitutional for obvious reasons.

this mindset, because this kind of intellectual dishonesty is perfect for taking advantage of angry people.

Who is being intellectually dishonest and who is being taken advantage of here? Perhaps look in the mirror. Good day sir.

[Drex]

In the previous law, EFMs had the power to nullify contracts all except those of elected officials so the law stood as constitutional with the state intervening in order to balance a budget, as to where the new law gave them the power to nullify even elected officials contract which is what is happening here, which puts it into the realm of unconstitutional for obvious reasons.

The bill has historic precedence. Calling it unconstitutional before it even goes to court is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. I don't really see this going anywhere useful if you don't understand that.

[archibaldcrane]

Seno, what part of the constitution does it violate?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Day]

*crickets*