(Update) Michigan Republicans Sell Cities - Dismiss Elected Officials

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not saying the law isn't fucked up, anti-democratic, etc. etc., but calling it "obviously unconstitutional" seems like a stretch. The constitution allows for lots of fucked up shit.

[Alarial]

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.

I'm not taking sides here, as I'm not informed enough to really debate either side intelligently. However, asserting that it is irresponsible for calling a law unconstitutional simply because the court hasn't ruled it as such (yet), is being a bit extreme. I could see a person steal from Walmart and clearly say that it was illegal, without having to wait for them to be convicted in court.

Just to give an idea of what my perspective is (and I'm interested in your argument the most, because I'm not learning much by just reading what I agree with and nodding my head, I learn the most by reading the arguments of those I disagree with):

Governer is elected on the platform of fiscal reform (due to the mass media blitz/tea party antics).

Governer and Republican majority pass a bill that gives a single person the right to dismiss the authority of local governments if they're incapable of meeting certain fiscal requirements.

Governor cuts off funding to that local government, then claims emergency, giving power to that EFM, and dismissing the elected officials (essentially, as they have no power).

EFM then privatizes everything the Republicans wanted to privatize, regardless of the interest of the local populous.

Seems like a pretty clear loop hole to circumvent local authority.

Am I mis-characterizing the issue?

[Senoska]

From my perspective that looks accurate

[Drex]

I'm not taking sides here, as I'm not informed enough to really debate either side intelligently. However, asserting that it is irresponsible for calling a law unconstitutional simply because the court hasn't ruled it as such (yet), is being a bit extreme. I could see a person steal from Walmart and clearly say that it was illegal, without having to wait for them to be convicted in court.

If the supreme court ruled multiple times that stealing from Walmart were legal, then no, you could not clearly say it was illegal. Apples to apples, please.

Governer is elected on the platform of fiscal reform (due to the mass media blitz/tea party antics).

I really doubt the loltea party was related to his election. Media sure, but mostly he just ran a better campaign strategy than his opponents. That's how any politician gets elected. Even people supporting his opponents admit Snyder's campaign was better.

Governer and Republican majority pass a bill that gives a single person the right to dismiss the authority of local governments if they're incapable of meeting certain fiscal requirements.

Okay, but I'd specify that the fiscal requirements are really not very strict. It really should be easy to "not default on your loans" or "not bounce your checks for overdraft fee payments".

Governor cuts off funding to that local government, then claims emergency, giving power to that EFM, and dismissing the elected officials (essentially, as they have no power).

Is all this talk about Snyder cutting their funding referring to his new budget plan that hasn't even been enacted? That's totally unrelated to declaring a state of financial emergency, which is based on CURRENT finances. The order is irrelevant because the two are not related, no matter how hard bloggers on the interwebz try to connect them. They would be in a state of financial emergency right now if the next budget was scheduled to give them a bazillion. If there's some other immediate budget cut that I'm not aware of, please direct me to an (unbiased) article or government resource outlining it.

Also, I'm a little annoyed at constantly people bringing up the fact that he's cutting funding to Benton Harbor like he singled them out. Every single city is getting less funding, because there's no more government stimulus to supply it. His funding cuts are based on how well the cities handle their finances, which makes sense to me at least (if you can't be assed to keep track of your money, why should you receive more than the people who do?).

I guess holding people accountable for their actions (or in this case, inaction) is immoral and unethical or something. Maybe that's why we don't hold government accountable as much as we ought to. You'd think it would be GOOD to do that.

EFM then privatizes everything the Republicans wanted to privatize, regardless of the interest of the local populous.

He's privatizing and selling everything that even the most liberal judge overseeing a Chapter 9 filing would privatize and sell too. Guess that makes liberal judges Republicans.

Seems like a pretty clear loop hole to circumvent local authority.

I acknowledged on page 1 that it is undemocratic, insofar as it undermines that town's privilege to self-govern. Here's why I don't think it's entirely undemocratic: if the choice were between
a) tax everyone in Michigan more or cut other programs
b) cut BH's funding until they aren't wasting so much money

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the people of Michigan to vote for option A. Maybe I'm way off! But Snyder and the Michigan legislature have an obligation to their electorate (the state as a whole) to do what's best for them. I don't think option A is better than option B for the state of Michigan.

People seem convinced that there is some magical money supply hidden away that Snyder could funnel to the town of BH if Snyder would stop being such a greedy, disgusting little conservative pig. Where is it?

I'm still waiting for a democratic solution that doesn't involve this city going bankrupt and ruining the ability of other cities nationwide to sell municipal bonds when they all get downgraded.

[Drex]

post was tl;dr so I'll chunk in two so it's more readable

Am I mis-characterizing the issue?

A little, as I outlined above. More importantly, you are still dodging the important question: What is the better solution? You had better have one if you are going to recall your governor and legislators and the bills they pass, because you are going to have to elect new ones and they will have the same barriers as Snyder to providing a solution:

-Can't run a state deficit
-Cities already struggling financially, can't take more money from them to give to cities like BH
-BH council speeding towards insolvency, completely uninterested in improving (or even acknowledging) its financial troubles as it buries itself in overdraft fees and interest payments that it expects the Michigan ATM to keep paying
-Underfunded pensions everywhere
-Union CBA's that were fine when they were struck but are too expensive now that money's tighter
-Unemployment
-Schoolboard deficits, medicare deficits, other municipal deficits...

What will you cut next so municipalities like BH can keep swiping their cards? Wouldn't want to step on their toes, since they were elected into office and all. Maybe you could jack up the tax rate, or find new things to tax everyone on. Surely you'll get elected on the "jack up state taxes even more so BH can spend more money" platform. The "beg the fed for another stimulus check" platform is more appealing, but that's just delaying the issue, isn't it?

[Senoska]

Drex, take into context everything said here and understand Snyder has raised taxes, he has started taxing elderly folks far more, as well as the small business tax in Michigan, but at the same time, he has nearly completely slashed the corporate tax rate in Michigan. Not just a little cut, but a huge cut to corporate tax rates. People here struggle already, why are we shifting the burden onto the poor? Do these people really even more money? I think this is a fundamental disagreement on the philosophy of the issue. The point is, we are fronting the bill for this trickle down economics but that is outrageous. It's not working. And now, more than ever, we're putting this onto the poor. You can continue to do this, but when this society goes the way of Rome, you'll understand the issue perhaps.

My point is this: There is an increasing divide between the status of the rich and the status of the poor. The poor and middle class are disappearing, our rights are being sold out, and now, even the things we are fundamentally found upon are being taken away. What I had said to that email in Noam Chomsky was the truth, people here are PISSED. They are not going to take this much longer. There is a 9% unemployment rate in the states, but a 30% rate in areas of this state. Mom-and-pop stores are being sold out to make room for major corporations to make their way into our lives to make even more money off of us.

Your argument, I assume, is that these people are the job creators, but historically, that isn't true. The people that employ people are the small businesses in the area. When the possibility to run a successful business goes out the window as it has here, so does the employment. There is a reason types of monopoly are illegal. There is so much money pushing this agenda of "lets make the millionaires more money," it is very hard to fight against.

[Drex]

Your argument, I assume, is that these people are the job creators, but historically, that isn't true. The people that employ people are the small businesses in the area. When the possibility to run a successful business goes out the window as it has here, so does the employment. There is a reason types of monopoly are illegal. There is so much money pushing this agenda of "lets make the millionaires more money," it is very hard to fight against.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Snyder's budget should be appealing to you then.

Under the Governor’s proposal, generally only those business entities that issue public or
private stock, known as “C” corporations for federal tax purposes, would be subject to the
proposed 6 percent tax. Other businesses, such as partnerships, sole-proprietorships, limited
liability companies and “S” corporations that are not classified as “C” corporations for federal
tax purposes would be exempt, resulting in significant tax relief for these companies enabling
them to invest and expand. It is estimated over 95,000 companies will no longer have to file a
state business tax return, ending a practice of double-taxation for those companies that already
pay tax on business profits under the individual income tax.

In other words, only big share-holder run businesses are getting the business tax, while small businesses are being exempted.

Along with a flat Corporate Income Tax, the Governor proposes that the individual income tax rate be reduced on October 1, 2011, from 4.35 to 4.25 percent, as currently planned.

So the actual individual income tax rate is decreasing, as well as taxes on corporations, and small businesses are getting exempted completely, while the tax hikes on pensioners and the removal of the MEITC offset those changes. As for taxing pensioners, only 11 states don't (well 10 with Michigan gone), so it doesn't seem that unusual to me. I can understand them being upset since they were led to believe it wouldn't be taxed, but it's a $1.7billion luxury that Michigan really can't afford.

I think trickle-down economics is over-pushed, but I also don't like the idea of taxing corporations because it cuts into earnings, which cuts into stock price, which cuts into 401ks and general investing. It also gets transferred into price (depending on the elasticity of the good/service) and wages, so the people end up paying at least some of it anyway. I read somewhere (take it with a grain of salt cause I don't have a source) that 30% of the average employee's retirement plan is stock of the company they work for, so be careful when throwing around big corporation taxes because they aren't just "owned" by faceless evil demon rich people. Remember that the dreaded "Wall Street" that the media loves to rip for ratings is really just most of America via their horned-demon financial advisor/stock broker/fund manager.

I don't see the point in blaming corporations for maximizing profits. If they don't meet their arbitrary (and generally over-optimistic) projections, everyone dumps on their stock and they go out of business. We should really be hating on the people who will sell a stock at the first sign of it coming up short on quarterly earnings. But that would be blaming just about everyone in America, and that leads to bad ratings.

Snyder's budget seems very reasonable (to me anyway) if the goal is increasing the tax base via lower unemployment. Then, ideally, the gov could revert some of these big spending cuts, if they don't get all greedy and start wasting it like governments love to do. And if they don't all get recalled. But it still leaves the problem of the EFM.

[Olo401]

Petty, childish bullshit. (video at link)

The pro-corporate activist group Americans for Prosperity is campaigning in Detroit against a transportation project called the New International Trade Crossing, which aims to make Michigan a center for north American international trade. But in opposing the plan, they’ve got to the very extremes of shock campaigning, dropping forms claiming to be eviction notices off at homes in the Delray area of Detroit. Contacted by area reporters, the Koch Bros-backed group defended their flyers, saying they “were meant to startle people.”

[Senoska]

Some interesting related news.

The release of radio traffic from the March 16 arrest incidents at the Capitol has lawmakers asking questions and raising concerns about the role politics may have played in the decision to withdraw Lansing Police officers during the March 16 Capitol protest.

“It’s an extremely abnormal situation,” State Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) said. Jones is a former Eaton County Sheriff and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It would lead me to speculate that someone above the police chief ordered her to recall the officers. The only one I can think of would be Virg Bernero.”

Michigan Messenger reported exclusively on Tuesday that radio traffic obtained from the Lansing Police Department through a Freedom of Information Act request appeared to contradict a formal statement from Lansing Police Chief Teresa Syzmanski. The Chief told media in March that her decision to order officers to leave the Capitol on March 16 was made after she determined that Michigan State Police had the situation under control.

However, the radio traffic showed officers had been dispatched to the Capitol to transport protesters arrested at the Capitol that day. While on site preparing the arrested individuals for transport, protesters surrounded the Lansing Police cars, and officers on scene called for backup. Shortly after the call for backup was made, officers were ordered to clear the scene, without the prisoners.

Michigan State Police Captain Gary Nix, who was in command of the operations at the Capitol on March 16, says he was told that Lansing officers were operating under a brand new policy about arresting protesters at the Capitol.

“The policy, in a nutshell, was that Lansing police will continue to respond to the Capitol to assist. however, they won’t arrest or lodge demonstrators that are involved in passive resistance,” Nix said in an interview with Michigan Messenger.
Nix says that LPD officials did not inform him, or other MSP officials about the new policy until the evening of March 16 when LPD was sent to the Capitol to transport three people arrested inside the building. Nix noted there was ample opportunity for LPD to discuss the new policy with MSP, and thus arrange for assistance from other area law enforcement agencies, before the LPD officers were sent in.

“We’d communicated with the shift commander that day to let them know about the protests and that we might have arrests,” Nix said. “There was no mention of the new policy.”

Lansing officials continue to refuse to respond to email questions and phone calls. Michigan Messenger has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the city seeking all documents related to the development of the new policy, as well as the new policy itself, which has never been made public.

In fact, no one who has responded to questions about this policy seems to have been aware of its existence prior to being asked about it.

City Attorney Brigham Smith was asked about the new policy after a City Council Public Safety meeting Thursday evening. “I’ve got nothing on it,” Smith said.
All three Public Safety Committee members — Tina Houghton, A’Lynne Robinson and Carol Wood — said after the meeting they knew nothing about the policy.
“I have not seen it. I was not aware of it, and I can’t comment on it until I have a chance to review it,” said Robinson, who is also president of the City Council.
“I’d definitely like to see that policy,” said Houghton, who represents the city’s second ward. “I think I definitely want to know more about it.”

Wood, who serves as an at-large member of the city council and chair of the Public Safety Committee, says the committee will review the situation next week.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) said the information that is surfacing supports his original belief that the decision to remove the officers from the Capitol was a political decision.

“They’re choosing to put politics over the law,” Bolger told Messenger. “They are saying the politics of the people demonstrating is more important than the law. Since they have made this about demonstrators at the capitol it is quite clearly about politics.”
Bolger said this situation might lead to state investigations, but he could not confirm such actions would be taken until state officials had an opportunity to review the legal issues in the situation.

State Sen. Steve Bieda (D-Warren) was less ready to jump to conclusions, but said the situation was concerning and deserved investigation.
“It raises some potential concerns about public safety and the integrity of the state Capitol building,” Bieda said. “The merits of the situation need to be looked into.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/49518/l...l-from-capitol

[Plow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Snyder's budget should be appealing to you then.



In other words, only big share-holder run businesses are getting the business tax, while small businesses are being exempted.



So the actual individual income tax rate is decreasing, as well as taxes on corporations, and small businesses are getting exempted completely, while the tax hikes on pensioners and the removal of the MEITC offset those changes. As for taxing pensioners, only 11 states don't (well 10 with Michigan gone), so it doesn't seem that unusual to me. I can understand them being upset since they were led to believe it wouldn't be taxed, but it's a $1.7billion luxury that Michigan really can't afford.

I think trickle-down economics is over-pushed, but I also don't like the idea of taxing corporations because it cuts into earnings, which cuts into stock price, which cuts into 401ks and general investing. It also gets transferred into price (depending on the elasticity of the good/service) and wages, so the people end up paying at least some of it anyway. I read somewhere (take it with a grain of salt cause I don't have a source) that 30% of the average employee's retirement plan is stock of the company they work for, so be careful when throwing around big corporation taxes because they aren't just "owned" by faceless evil demon rich people. Remember that the dreaded "Wall Street" that the media loves to rip for ratings is really just most of America via their horned-demon financial advisor/stock broker/fund manager.

I don't see the point in blaming corporations for maximizing profits. If they don't meet their arbitrary (and generally over-optimistic) projections, everyone dumps on their stock and they go out of business. We should really be hating on the people who will sell a stock at the first sign of it coming up short on quarterly earnings. But that would be blaming just about everyone in America, and that leads to bad ratings.

Snyder's budget seems very reasonable (to me anyway) if the goal is increasing the tax base via lower unemployment. Then, ideally, the gov could revert some of these big spending cuts, if they don't get all greedy and start wasting it like governments love to do. And if they don't all get recalled. But it still leaves the problem of the EFM.

A huge part of the problem is people being so against "spending" that they don't realize society can profit from government projects when nobody else is willing to spend money on an area because it's just 10k broke black people.