Musings From The Center-Right Coalition, April 30, 2008

The Center-Right Coalition meetings are off the record, so the following is simply a series of observations and opinions about some of the issues raised today.

First, Michigan Right to Life. Soon-to-be-former House Speaker Andy Dillon (D, Redford) is a pro-life Democrat, but (surprise!) he's helping to delay an important vote to ban partial-birth abortion in the state of Michigan. Now, partial-birth abortion is a hideous procedure that even nihilistic Europeans find disgusting. Should be easy for one of the leading states in pro-life legislation to ban it, right? Wrong--and not just because the governor is pro-abortion. You see, it seems that (surprise!) the Democratic caucus doesn't really want to pass a partial-birth abortion ban. Look...I know there's nothing sexier to a conservative issue advocacy group than a Democrat who happens to stray from the party line on their issue. But the party's caucus is extremely important to them. That's why Michigan Right to Life needs to make sure that they're looking at the big picture and favoring pro-life Republicans.

Second, the Michigan Business Tax. We replaced the Single Business Tax, a horrifyingly complicated tax system for businesses that made doing business in Michigan a high-risk affair. This replacement was the Michigan Business Tax, which was supposed to be simpler and more favorably structured for investment. It turns out that they created a horrifyingly complex system that made doing business in Michigan nearly impossible unless the government picked you to win. Except this time the taxes were higher. The question here isn't how we can tweak it to make it better for businesses, or how we can make it stop hurting Michigan businesses; the idea isn't to try to make things better for businesses. The idea is to get a simple, fair, LOW tax system and then let the market chips fall where they may. In other words, let consumers decide who wins and who loses. Isn't the point to get consumers what they want?

The Boss Hogg of Redford Township

This truly wonderful video was brought to my attention yesterday at a fantastic event that I will post about later. For now, enjoy and learn:

Michigan Democrat's Mask Falls Off, Briefly

Nick DeLeeuw posts a characteristically caustic comment about a Democrat's derogation of dummies. (You like that?) Anyway, it seems that Mark Grebner, a Democratic strategist and member of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners, claimed that whereas Democrats were gaining ground in wealthy suburbs and remaining strong in urban centers, they were losing among rural folks and blue-collar workers--people he called "stupid." Here's a bit from Nick:

Just so we've got this straight... if you go to the book store to pick up the NYT and sip a latte then you're a smart person but if you go to work at the factory, put in an honest days work and support your family then you're an idiot? Oh, and the best part, the "urban cores" are solidly Democrat and not "stupid people." Apparently folks who make the least and depend on government the most are brilliant. Hey, they figured out how to milk the system and make a living doing nothing, right, Mark?

Surprise, surprise. More evidence that the REAL party of stereotyping isn't sitting on the right side of the aisle, if any such evidence were needed. You see, sipping lattes and reading the Grey Lady...that's how life is supposed to be for the decision-making class--that is, the people who are smart enough to run society. The proles, on the other hand, just have the job of believing the promises of future prosperity and being satisfied with the lottery and food stamps. I think the Dems are taking their stereotypes about country bumpkins and illiterate factory workers a bit too seriously.

I wonder why, incidentally, blue-collar workers are leaving the Democratic Party in Michigan? It's not as though their jobs have been endangered by irrationally structured and excessive corporate taxes. It's not like the corrupt, power-hungry unions who have been exploiting them for years own this state's Democratic Party. And it's certainly not as though the Democrats advocate for extreme environmental policies that will hasten the demise of the Detroit auto industry on which so many jobs and so many schools' revenue streams rely. So what's their deal?

Michigan: Ensuring Your Safety By Eliminating Your Freedom

Freep.com reports that one-time beauty pageant winner and Berkeley-trained liberal will require parents to use booster seats for any child between the ages of 4 and 7 who is under 4'9":

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign a bill requiring car booster seats for all passenger kids ages 4 through 7 who are under 4-foot-9 inches tall.

Current state law requires a car seat of some kind only or children under age 4.

And hilariously/frighteningly:

The state is planning a public awareness campaign for the new booster seat law, through the he Office of Highway Safety Planning.

Well, I can't think of any way our state funds could be better used. We're going to pass a law restricting your freedoms for your own good. And we'll spend your money to tell you about the fact that we can now fine you $65 if we suspect you're driving down the road with an insufficiently buckled child.

Michigan is like a one-state liberal paradise! I only wish it was Ohio instead of us.

The Governance You Deserve

After reading the Detroit News article about stalled bills in the divided legislature, I'm convinced that both parties' mindset is the same: the government needs to micromanage the economy in order to save us from our one-state recession--which, I think, we can properly term a depression. Here's a portion:

When the House in December voted to ban smoking in Michigan bars, restaurants and many other workplaces, the bill was assigned to a Senate committee where legislation typically goes to die.

Many Republicans said it was just more regulations on businesses during a time of economic hardship, and that the free market already is creating smoke-free workplaces. Senate Republicans could soon introduce legislation that would provide incentives for restaurants to go smoke-free, Marsden said.

The House last year passed a bill that would raise the landfill dumping fee from 21 cents a ton to $7.50 a ton. Democrats say it would discourage Canadians from shipping trash into Michigan. But Republicans oppose the bill because the same fee would be charged to Michigan businesses and residents. Senate Republicans have countered with bills that would increase inspections, limit the dumping of some materials and promote recycling.

So the Dems want increased fees for trash dumping and bans on smoking in private establishments. The GOP wants increased regulation on trash dumping and incentives (I can only assume those would be tax breaks or other financial incentives) for recycling and making restaurants smoke-free. MAN these are exciting differences; which kind of government intrusion you want? Republican, or Democratic?

Only one problem, boys: this downward slide has been caused by government interference. Our laws require employees to be unionized, so unions have absolute power over employees whether the workers agree or not. The unions have extorted massive wage and benefit packages that the Big Three went right along with. Now the government is making it worse with increased regulation, (in some cases) increased taxes, and picking favorites with targeted subsidies and tax breaks. (That last item is particularly nasty; governments have an awful record picking which industries to invest in. That's what we have, you know, private investment for.) Whether through Democrats or Republicans, that doesn't look to change anytime soon--but I know which party gives us the better chance.

It's simply vital that we pass a Right to Work law or constitutional amendment and that we reduce state spending. Michigan can be salvaged yet, but it won't be through inept government micromanagement.

First They Came For The Smokers

What!? Enacting absurdly high sin taxes leads to black market activity?! The Detroit Free Press:

Big-time profiteers and small-time cheaters are smuggling 7 million cartons of cigarettes into the state annually to evade Michigan's high cigarette taxes, costing the state about $140 million a year.

And some metro Detroit retailers are selling cigarette packs with sophisticated counterfeit stamps to evade a 10-year-old law aimed at thwarting smuggling.

Michigan's $2-per-pack tax, the fourth-highest in the nation, helps fuel an illicit demand for cigarettes bought in other states with much lower taxes.

Considering that we're such a well-run state, one would think that this would've been foreseen. Anyway, the Freep reasonably concludes that tobacco is evil:

So now we know another way tobacco is bad for Michigan. Not only does it cost the state health care system hundreds of millions of dollars in smoking-related illnesses, but the Treasury can show at least $140 million in lost revenue from cigarettes being smuggled into Michigan from states with lower tobacco taxes than the $2-a-pack levy here. That's a lot of money going up in smoke.

We'll skip arguing over whether the state should really be involved in health care. Amusingly, commenter "buka2" writes, "Just outlaw all smoking, and then the $140,000,000 won't be available to lose." Sometimes logic stings. But Michigan doesn't lose money from tobacco; in fact, that first Freep article mentions that the state makes about a billion dollars a year from tobacco. That $140 million just represents the obvious result of black market activity from overly high product taxes. But here's the mindset, courtesy of a few Freep commenters. First, "Allycatt":

"FreedomOfSpeech, I think we would gladly pay a 6% tax on our cigarettes. Right now, state tax alone is 40%. Hell, I was even for the 61 cent increase for the SCHIP program - as a smoker, why do I not have a say in how that money is spent? They will continue to tax our cigarettes, because we are the bad guys, they will continue to funnel the money to everywhere but where it should go (health & stop smoking programs). Non-smokers should be damn happy that we are there to pick up the slack. Igor: APPLAUSE! It took me two years to get management to get my office neighbor to tone down the cologne. Headaches, teary eyes, runny nose within seconds when I'm exposed. PERFUME SHOULD BE BANNED OR TAXED TO THE MAX."

We've been so dumb all these years. We should just pass a law outlawing anything that's annoying to anyone! (It'd never pass, of course; obviously, it wouldn't be in the interests of congresshumans.) Then we'd be free from anything that we don't like! Freedom! Here's some "BubbRubb" for ya:

Ty - One last thing about taxing smokers before I begin my weekend: smoking causes many diseases which we all end up paying for through loss of productivity, paying into government assisted health care, etc. I think that smokers should pick up the tab for this, as there is no common benefit for taxes we pay for this. The only fair way I think would be a sin tax.

Hmm....how could we get smokers to pick up the tab for this? What about free mark--no...wait, how about eliminating socialized heal--no....I just can't think of a good idea! Whatever the heck the problem is, it definitely must call for some sort of government action. After all, anytime someone isn't as productive as they otherwise could have been, it harms me and it should be illegal. Next to go: World of Warcraft! This is an example of a doctrinaire liberal slowly following his philosophy to its logical end: state control of nearly everything in your life, for your own good.

Kevorkian To Run For Congress

The Detroit Free Press reports:

Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian is planning a run for Congress.

Kevorkian was released from prison last year and remains on parole. But the 79-year-old told the Oakland Press for an article published Wednesday that he plans to run for office as a candidate with no party affiliation.

Kevorkian lives in Oakland County and the 9th District. That’s a seat now held by Republican Joe Knollenberg.

I'm surprised he's not running as a Democrat. After all, their policies seem to resemble his own: what to do with a state that's in significant economic pain? Put it out of its misery! I mean, as long as they ask for it--and with the Democratic gains of 2006, it looks like Michigan is asking for that very thing.

All in all, I think this is a good thing. Joe Knollenberg is one of the Republican representatives whom Democrats are targeting this fall, and heaven knows Kevorkian appeals more to utilitarian Democrats than to traditionalist Republicans. Let's give this one some publicity!

Chris at Apologies Demanded reprints Nick De Leeuw's take on the campaign finance adventures of Mark Schauer, a Democrat vying to defeat Tim Walberg this fall in Michigan's 7th Congressional District.

Schauer seems to be the sleaziest kind of politician, willing to use any tactic for the means of gaining votes or taking them away from his opponents. Neither using an opponent's ethnicity against him, nor blatantly violating campaign promises, nor ostentatious violation of campaign finance regulations seems to have occupied his conscience for long. The last item on the list has, however, occupied the office of Secretary of State Land; it may soon come before Attorney General Mike Cox.

Add this to the Granholm/Cherry tax fiasco and the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal, and Michigan Democrats are facing a veritable epidemic of crimes and gaffes. Will it give Republicans momentum going into November? Not a chance! Ever the optimist, I. Still, I suspect Tim Walberg will be re-elected. That is one congressmen that I want to be rooting for for many years to come.

One note about Nick's column though: I understand that Mark Schauer is as sleazy as they come, that he would flip a reliably conservative seat to a reliably liberal seat, and that he's part of a Michigan Democratic Party that has done its best to run Michigan into the ground and found great success. But words must be used carefully, and I can see very little that is constructive about calling Schauer a "racist," which he most likely is not. Yes, he did use an opponent's Jewish background to call his electability into question, and yes, it is heinous. But it's heinous because of the depths to which he would stoop to win election, not because of any truly racist beliefs. I'm not defending what he did, but it is always best to use accurate descriptions. Exaggerated invective is off-putting; criticism should be measured, proportionate to the crime.