Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Joe Schwarz: “To Run or Not to Run?”

May 11, 2012

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — You might say Joe Schwarz’s decision not to run provides a perfect example of what’s wrong with the way we elect Congressmen today. It would be hard to imagine someone better qualified. He served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam conflict and then went back as a member of the CIA, where he treated villagers and delivered babies in a remote region of Laos.

That’s because he is also a physician who, throughout his long political career, has maintained a practice as an ear, nose and throat specialist in his hometown of Battle Creek. Over the years he served on the City Council as well as Battle Creek’s mayor. He served four terms in the Michigan State Senate, where he became known as the legislature’s top expert on higher education funding.

Then, in 2004, he was finally elected to Congress from Michigan‘s seventh district, which stretches along much of the state‘s southeastern border, from Jackson to Monroe. Within his first two years he had been rated one of Congress’s Outstanding Freshman. When confronted with a primary challenge, he was endorsed for re-election by both then-President George W. Bush and his onetime rival, John McCain.

But in a shocker, Dr. Schwarz lost the GOP primary to a fundamentalist conservative, Tim Walberg, after the Manhattan-based Club for Growth poured money into the district to defeat him. Why? Though a fiscal conservative and a military hawk, Schwarz refused to categorically rule out all tax increases. Worse, the Roman Catholic widower believed that abortion should be, “safe, legal and rare.” So, he was tossed out in a low-turnout primary. Walberg went on to win narrowly that fall.

Two years later, Walberg was himself tossed out during the Obama landslide. But he managed to get back to Congress in the GOP landslide of 2010. Schwarz has never made any secret of his disdain for the man who beat him. This year, Democrats came to him with a stunning suggestion: Switch parties and run for his old seat as a Democrat. Schwarz was intrigued. He was, he confided, “itching to get back in the game.” For some time, he had felt not that he had left the Republican Party, but that it had left him. He was very close to announcing. He wanted to take on Walberg again. Local Democrats were excited. But at the last moment, Schwarz said no.

Why? Frankly, he told me afterwards, it was a case of forcing common sense to stifle his ego. For one thing, he no longer lives in the district; the legislature removed Calhoun County, where Schwarz lives, and added Monroe County instead. That’s not a legal barrier. In fact, this year three Michigan incumbent congressmen — Hansen Clarke, John Conyers and Gary Peters — are running in districts in which they don’t live, thanks to redistricting.

Schwarz does spend considerable time in the district. He toyed with the idea of establishing a legal residence there. But, he concluded, “My primary job [practicing medicine] is not in the district. I‘d be fooling no one by renting something … and using that as an address. Virtually everyone knows I live in Battle Creek.”

However, that wasn’t the main reason he decided against running. Schwarz thinks he could have won this year, though it would have been a close, tough, and expensive battle. But, he notes candidly, “In 2014, a non-presidential year, it will be a dogfight,” with lower turnout and, as he notes, “Republicans historically win those races.” Additionally, the good doctor candidly admits, “I am not a good fundraiser. Right or wrong, I find it demeaning to cold-call someone and ask for a campaign contribution.” If he wants to be in Congress, he knows that means raising millions every two years.

There were other factors, too. The physician-politician will turn 75 this fall. That‘s not too old to serve effectively; there are many Congressmen chairing key committees who are older. But it is too old to acquire any effective seniority.
“A second term member of Congress has approximately zero public policy impact,” he wrote to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when he decided not to run. “It’s great fun, but other than constituent service, a second termer is pretty much along for the ride,” he added.

Perhaps saddest of all, “I don’t candidly know if there is a place for someone like myself in today’s Congressional milieu. I’m a pragmatist, not an ideologue. ‘Party’ means far less to me than achieving satisfactory results,” he said. That wasn’t an easy decision, though it made sense.
Contrast that with Newt Gingrich, who continued his presidential campaign — at a cost of $40,000 a day to the taxpayers for Secret Service protection — long after he clearly had no chance.

It may be legitimate to ask what sort of person the founding fathers had in mind when they invented Congress. Would they have preferred an accomplished man, successful in multiple areas, who wanted to represent his neighbors for a few terms? Or would they want a political apparatchik who sees the House of Representatives as merely his next logical career move?

It isn’t hard to imagine that they might have thought Joe Schwarz’ s decision not to run showed that he is exactly the sort of man who should be in Congress. Or, that they would fear that the twin effects of ideology and money are threatening democracy for us all.

Veteran journalist and national Emmy Award winner Jack Lessenberry teaches at Wayne State University, serves as Michigan Radio’s senior political analyst and writes regularly for several publications. He also serves as The Toledo Blade’s writing coach and ombudsman and is host of the weekly television show Deadline Now on WGTE-TV in Toledo.

Columns

Stephen A. Jones

Green Acres in the Motor City

May 4, 2012

Some days it is really hard to pay attention to the news, especially when you live in Detroit. And by hard, I don’t mean inconvenient or difficult to obtain access; I mean painful.

The latest plans for dealing with the city’s budget crisis call for the elimination of 2,566 jobs – nearly a quarter of the city’s workforce – and a 10 percent pay cut for the workers who remain on the payroll. That includes police and fire fighters, who will be stretched thinner, worked harder and be paid less for the privilege.

Every area of public service will be reduced. Bus service, libraries, water and sewerage, street lighting and public works all will take significant hits, and the lives of the citizens who rely on those services will be diminished and made more difficult.

It is tempting to rail about the rotten politics of it all – from the venality of crooks like Kwame Kilpatrick who betrayed the citizens who entrusted them with the reins of government, to the arrogance and cynicism (and sometimes worse) of political leaders outside the city who have refused to recognize and acknowledge the state’s contribution to this mess.

(You can appoint all the emergency financial managers you want but until you deal with a half century of state policies that have subsidized suburban growth at the expense of core cities you are not going to restore our cities to real economic health. Even Pontiac’s former emergency manager has said the law is destined to fail, that it does not ensure that cities taken over by EFMs will be out of trouble after the managers have slashed budgets and left.)

But rather than relitigate the history of frayed city-state relations whose continuing fallout makes attending to the daily news such a painful experience, I’d like to talk about a small bright spot from a recent news report.

In mid-April, Michigan State University’s Greening Michigan Institute sparked a flurry of news reports by announcing a proposal to create an urban-agriculture research center in the city, a project that could eventually cover 100 acres and involve an investment of $100 million. Researchers at the center would explore the possibilities of “vertical agriculture,” growing crops in multi-story buildings, as well as new approaches to food cultivation that could conserve water and even produce energy.

The idea is intriguing, and not just for the conventional reasons. Of course, $100 million in investment would pump some money into the local economy, create a few jobs and maybe help attract other businesses and investors. All of that is good, but it’s not the most beneficial part of the idea.

The real benefit of the proposal is that, if we take it as seriously as we should, it forces us all – inside and outside the city – to think differently, not just about Detroit but about what a city is and can be.

A couple of years ago, I spoke with Jerry Herron, dean of the Honors College at Wayne State University. He said that when most people consider southeastern Michigan they look at the suburbs and see success and then look at Detroit and see failure.

What they don’t see, he said, is that Detroit was the engine that produced the wealth that made the growth and success of the suburbs possible. In that longer view, the decay we see in the inner city is actually the residue of success. To put it that way doesn’t remove the decay, but it does give us a different perspective on the process.

Some people simply discard a car when it gets old and worn. Other people are able to see the beauty and value of a classic automobile and take the time and effort to restore and refurbish the vehicle, to rebuild the engine. It is that sort of vision and imagination that has made the Woodward Dream Cruise one of the most popular events in southeastern Michigan for the last 18 years.

So how do we restore Detroit? How do we rebuild that engine?

Maybe urban agriculture is the way – or at least part of the way.

Over the last century, the city of Detroit has provided much of the human and economic capital that was needed to develop the vast suburbs of southeastern Michigan. A century ago, the farms of Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and western Wayne counties fed the urban center, but many of those farms have disappeared, replaced by houses, factories and strip malls.

Maybe now it is Detroit’s turn to feed those suburbs. There is a lot of open land in the city and there is rapidly increasing interest in local production of food for ecological reasons.

A number of interested groups have been eagerly promoting the idea of city farming for several years but Detroit officials have been slow to embrace the idea. I don’t fully understand why, but I suspect a significant part of the reluctance is simply the conceptual issue: It is difficult to imagine farms as anything but the antithesis of cities.

Farmland is what we’ve always cleared to build cities. To reverse the process can feel like we’re giving up on cities altogether.

That’s why we have to change the way we think. Detroiters – particularly the city’s elected leaders – need to embrace innovative and imaginative opportunities for growth and restoration, even when those opportunities run counter to our assumptions of what a city is.

And officials in Lansing need to look for ways to encourage and support those kinds of innovation. Urban agriculture may not solve all of the city’s woes, but if it helps make Detroit productive again and provides food that benefits people outside the city as well, who knows, we might all start thinking and behaving more compassionately toward one another and begin developing a more healthy relationship across the whole region.

Anyway, it’s food for thought.

Stephen A. Jones is a Detroit resident and assistant professor of History at Central Michigan University. He is co-editor with Eric Freedman of African Americans in Congress: A Documentary History (Congressional Quarterly Press).

Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Budget Battle Redux: Business or Education?

May 4, 2012

LANSING — Few may have noticed, but there was a skirmish in the Michigan Senate this week that was likely the opening volley in what promises to be a long war over the state’s future.

And just maybe, the next campaign for governor.

The battle lines are drawn, and the issue clear: Do we spend money to make sure high school students get the higher education they will need for the jobs of the future — or do we give a business property tax cut to men whose ideas were formed in the past?

Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) who has suddenly found her voice as the main Democratic leader of the opposition, thinks it essential that we have a workforce trained for the jobs of the future. Yesterday, she told members of the state senate finance committee, “Now, more than ever, we need an action plan. Studies have shown that by 2025, Michigan will need an additional 1 million (college graduates.)”

As a result, her minority Democrats are pushing what they call their “Michigan 2020 Plan” to offer every state high school graduate free college tuition. They would do that, they say, by closing various tax loopholes, a move that would provide an extra $1.8 billion a year.

Surprisingly, majority Republicans don’t quarrel with that figure — and themselves aren’t opposed to closing the loopholes. But though they slashed the state’s business tax rate by two-thirds last year, they are insisting on yet another business tax cut, this time on the so-called personal property tax for businesses.

“I don’t think we can afford both,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Jack Brandenburg told the Gongwer News Service, making it clear that for him, tax cuts were more important than education.

Testifying on the other side, however, was Lou Glazer, president of the non-partisan think tank, Michigan Future. “Today, education has surpassed other resources as the engine of economic growth,” he said. “The folks that have income in this economy, increasingly, are college-educated folks.”

Nobody seriously disputes that Michigan badly needs a better educated workforce. A smaller percentage of its young adults have college degrees than is the case in surrounding states.

That’s a legacy of the state’s old brawn-based, assembly-line era economy, where for many years kids could come out of high school and land a boring, but high-paying, auto assembly line job.

Those days are gone now, forever. The knowledge that Michigan needs a better educated workforce isn’t new. Eight years ago, then-Lt. Gov. John Cherry presided over a special commission looking into Michigan’s higher education needs.

That group produced a comprehensive report that concluded that if Michigan were to remain economically competitive, it would have to double the number of students earning bachelor’s degrees within a decade. But then Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Legislature proceeded to repeatedly cut higher education budgets.

That sent tuition spiraling, and made it harder for some students to stay in school. Next, with revenue dropping during the Great Recession, the politicians broke their promise to the state’s young people and canceled the Michigan Promise scholarships.

Needless to say, the number of students with degrees is unlikely to come anywhere close to the Cherry Commission targets. That’s what’s behind the Democrats’ push to fund higher education. Michigan, once one of the nation’s richer states, is now a sad 39th in per capita income — and 36th in proportion of adults without college degrees. If the state is ever to regain prosperity, it will have to do so by attracting high-tech, new-economy jobs.

You can’t do that, experts agree, without a highly educated workforce. But 60-year-old Jack Brandenburg doesn’t see that. Though he did earn a business degree from Ohio’s small Ashland University, he essentially built an industrial supply company from scratch, at first selling inventory out of the trunk of his car.

The senator said Wednesday he thought giving business the break was more important. “Myself, I think that what we have to do here in Michigan is create an economy and get this economy working. And (then) our kids will stay here.”

But what the former industrial supply salesman may not realize is how much the economy is radically changing. And though he has complained about how much it cost to send his four kids to Michigan colleges, Brandenburg doesn’t seem to realize that many other kids are having grave difficulty affording college at all.

Democrats have no chance of winning this battle this year. They have less than a third of the seats in the Michigan Senate; not enough to even stop any bill from taking immediate effect

Yet the Senate Minority Leader made it clear that she is focused on the future, while Republicans seem wedded to making those in the present richer by following the policies of the past.

What played out in the Senate Finance Committee this week just might have been the opening round of the next campaign for governor, a race in which Gretchen Whitmer is the early favorite to be the Democratic nominee. But in any event, the argument over education funding vs. business tax cuts was likely just the opening skirmish in what promises to be a very long and very important war.

Veteran journalist and national Emmy Award winner Jack Lessenberry teaches at Wayne State University, serves as Michigan Radio’s senior political analyst and writes regularly for several publications. He also serves as The Toledo Blade’s writing coach and ombudsman and is host of the weekly television show Deadline Now on WGTE-TV in Toledo.

Columns

Rich Robinson

Reform and Shenanigans

May 4, 2012

The Senate-passed version of Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s Safe and Fair Elections (SAFE) Initiative was taken up by the House Committee on Redistricting and Elections recently. Sen. David Robertson (R-Grand Blanc) spoke about his desire to bring transparency and accountability to Michigan’s electoral processes as he provided an overview of the bill package.

Sen. Robertson noted that there may not be evidence today of all the problems the SAFE initiative seeks to address but, “Where human beings are involved, shenanigans can occur.”

He touted the SAFE package as a preemptive measure to prevent shenanigans. But a close look at the bills suggests something different – a decidedly mixed bag.

Senate Bill 750 takes a tough stance against committees that have a cash balance of $20,000 and fail to file required campaign finance reports for a period of two years. It provides for felony penalties of up to three years imprisonment for the candidate or committee treasurer, a fine up to $5,000 and, after a prescribed process, forfeiture and seizure of the committee’s funds.

It is unclear how widely spread this problem is, but those are stiff disincentives for anyone thinking about holding a lot of money in a political committee and not reporting on it.

Score one for accountability.

SB 750 also would eliminate the October campaign finance report for the state’s 1,200 PACs during even-numbered election years. That means PACs would not report from three months before the general election until three months after. The unanimous vote of the Michigan Senate appears to be saying that what Michigan citizens need is much less timely disclosure of political spending. Or, as has been suggested, maybe that provision was a “copy and paste” error and the senators didn’t know what their votes meant.

Either way, score one for shenanigans.

Senate Bill 824 would require quarterly campaign finance reports for ballot question committees in addition to pre-election and post-election reports. It would establish a fixed schedule for resolving campaign finance complaints and require web-publishing of documents related to complaints and conciliation agreements. It would impose fines of up to $1,000 for knowingly filing incomplete or inaccurate campaign finance reports.

Score a couple for accountability.

SB 824 would take away local prosecutors’ authority to enforce criminal penalties of the Campaign Finance Act. All such matters would be enforced only by the attorney general and only upon referral of the secretary of state.

Whether you see that as enhanced accountability, or shenanigans, probably depends on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. And your opinion may change in the future, depending on the identity of our next attorney general and secretary of state.

Perhaps the prickliest element of SB 824 is its new treatment of late contributions – those donations that come to a political committee after the pre-election reports have been filed, up until Election Day. Currently, committees must report every new contribution of $200, or more, within 48 hours.

Under the new paradigm, late donations to candidate committees aren’t subject to 48-hour reporting unless they aggregate to $500 from a donor. Donations to PACs, parties or ballot committees don’t have to be reported in 48 hours unless they aggregate to $2,500 from a donor.

That is much less accountability, not more.

In addition, SB 824 says that any committee that was fined after January 1, 2010 for failure to file a late contribution report on time will be given a refund of the fine it paid. That is utterly self-serving: by the politicians, for the politicians. That measure allows for living above the law by retroactively removing the penalties prescribed by law.

Score a whole basket full for shenanigans.

Gongwer News Service reports the tab for late filing fee amnesty would be $117,000. That would include a $1,325 rebate for Secretary Johnson and, her staff is quick to point out, refunds for Jocelyn Benson, Virg Bernero and David Leyton, among many others.

Nice: Shenanigans for the benefit of Republicans and Democrats.

Finally, SB 824 says that committees that are not directly involved in supporting or opposing candidates or ballot questions shouldn’t have to report late contributions at all. This reasonable-sounding provision is what I call The Money Launderers’ Friend.

One can easily imagine a scenario where the Committee for God & Country, which is engaged in defeating candidates, would report receiving a late contribution of $2 million from the Puppet-Masters Club. The Puppet-Masters Club would not be required to report whose late contributions it aggregated to give $2 million to C4G&C, because it is not directly engaged in defeating candidates. It just passes money to those who are.

With that provision in place, citizens would have to wait until months after an election to learn whose money had been talking. That means much less accountability, not more.

The House will deliberate more on the Senate’s version of the SAFE Initiative. Perhaps the Senate will take up the House’s version. Maybe somewhere along the way transparency and accountability will be served and some legislative shenanigans will be discarded.

Rich Robinson is the executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. The opinions expressed here are his own, not necessarily those of his employer.

Columns

Tom Watkins

Vitriol Is Not the Truth

May 4, 2012

We are less than a year away from electing the leader of the free world, the POTUS, aka, President of the United States.

Given the economic turmoil and shifting geopolitical sands in the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America, Asia and the European Union, the stakes could not be higher.

We know our choices will boil down to four more years of President Obama or the ultimate Republican nominee – Mitt Romney.

Who we select will impact every American and all humanity. On what facts will we base our decision?

Our public discourse has devolved into loud and repeated lies and partisan political talking points.

Just because you tell a big enough lie, long and loud enough, then blog it, tweet it, and shout it on cable news and partisan talk radio shows, does not make it true. Yet, for far too many, it does make it believable.

A story attributed to Abraham Lincoln dramatizes this point. He asked, “If you call a horse’s tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?” He responded, “The answer is four, because calling a horse’s tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

Similarly, just barking political talking points on CNBC, Fox or CNN does not make something true.

Alongside the demise of newspapers and the democratization of the airways through YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs or satellite radio and cable news , we now have thousands of channels for news and views.

Similarly, as Bruce Springsteen captured the emptiness of the airways in his hit tune lyrics: “We switched ’round and ’round ’til half-past dawn. There was fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on.” (“57 Channels” (“And Nothin’ On”)

Today, there is plenty on, but is it accurate, truthful or as Sargent Friday once said, “Just the facts?”

Our anger and partisanship have blinded us to the truth. It seems both political sides have adopted the saying: “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

Groucho Marx posed the right question when he asked: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

From the political left and right we have been force fed daily doses of political spin that should be the equivalent of getting a spoonful of castor oil. Yet, partisans on both sides of the aisle gulp down political propaganda as if it is cherry syrup.

This is not healthy for our country or democracy.

Deng Xiaoping, the preeminent leader of China following Mao’s disastrous reign called for his countryman “To seek truth from facts.” While we can debate how well China has followed this advice, as voters, we would be wise to heed Deng advice.

With billions expected to be spent on the presidential election, their respective parties and Interest groups will distort the truth to gain the upper hand to win the election. How will the average citizen discern what the truth IS?

Sargent Friday — Just the Facts
Here are four sources a concerned reader might be wise to clip and store in their smart phone or post on the fridge door– to trust– but verify:

• The Center For Michigan
• The Center for Public Integrity: The Truth Squad
• St. Petersburg Times
• Annenberg Public Policy Center

Our country desperately needs a leader to shape a truthful, shared vision and common agenda to get us moving again.

Americans need to become educated and vote or to paraphrase George Santayana, “we are doomed to repeat our historical mistakes”.

Paralysis is not the solution. Nor is partisan spin.

Perhaps the truth CAN truly set us free.

Tom Watkins, former state superintendent of public instruction, was the 2011 recipient of the Detroit Regional Chamber’s Leadership Detroit Lifetime Achievement Award and the 2010 Upton Sinclair Award Winner from Ednews.org. He can be reached at: tdwatkins88@gmail.com

Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Real Court Reform Overdue

April 27, 2012

DETROIT — If there is any institution that should automatically command public respect, it is our court system, especially a state Supreme Court, any state’s highest legal authority outside the Federal system. But sadly, that hasn’t been true in Michigan for years. Michigan Supreme Court Justices have often acted more like vengeful political partisans than judicious stewards of the State Constitution.

In recent years, when one political party gained control of the Court, their justices have set about almost gleefully reversing decisions made by the earlier majority. Nor has the show stopped there. Until she retired from the court two years ago, bitter maverick GOP Justice Elizabeth Weaver engaged in a war of public name-calling with her fellow Republican Justices that even included comments about her personal appearance.

Supreme Court elections have degenerated into highly expensive affairs that have included the spending of millions of anonymous donations on often misleading, nasty television ads. Four years ago, the University of Chicago Law School rated all fifty state Supreme Courts. In terms of quality, Michigan ranked dead last. The courts were ranked according to criteria including judicial independence from political and other outside influences, as well as how often their rulings were cited by other courts.

All of this has deeply pained Marilyn Kelly, a soft-spoken, dignified justice who this year is finishing her sixteenth and final year on the court. Two years ago, then-Chief Justice Kelly decided her legacy would involve trying to do something about this. She recruited James Ryan, a Federal Appeals Judge in the Sixth Circuit, to serve with her as Co-Chair of a Michigan Judicial Selection Task Force.

Sandra Day O‘Connor, the first woman ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, agreed to be the panel‘s (mostly) Honorary Chair. They then convened a panel that included some of the state’s most distinguished citizens—including some non-lawyers—and disparate views ranging from conservative to liberal. The Task Force released their findings Thursday, after a year of deliberations, and their recommendations were startling.

The panel, which Kelly told me, had worked hard to achieve consensus and unanimously called for a series of sweeping reforms especially in the way justices are selected.

“Michigan’s process for choosing Supreme Court Justices has recently attracted national attention for its excessive cost, its lack of transparency, and its damaging negativity,” the report begins. After studying how other states do things and many hours of vigorous debate, the Task Force developed a series of “common-sense, practical solutions that can rapidly make judicial selection in this state more democratic and effective.”

Not surprisingly, the Task Force condemned the present system in which Supreme Court nominees are traditionally selected at highly partisan state political conventions. Instead, they called for a switch to “open, non-partisan primaries,” to select Supreme Court judges, just as other Michigan judges are selected.

The Task Force noted candidly that, “the current system leaves the nomination process in the control of party insiders…an open primary system could reduce the influence of partisan politics on the selection of Supreme Court candidates.” In fact, many of the members would prefer to amend the Michigan Constitution to allow governors to appoint Supreme Court justices once a series of potential candidates were screened by some form of an Advisory Commission.

Actually, almost half of all Michigan Supreme Court Justices have historically been appointed to the bench by governors following the death or resignation of an incumbent (they must then campaign during the next election.) Establishing a commission to screen nominees would, the panel felt, help dispel the belief “that raw political calculation, rather than qualifications,” are behind these appointments.

However, the top reform priority of the task force wasn’t judicial selection, but money. Thanks largely to Michigan’s inadequate disclosure laws, most of the money spent on recent state Supreme Court races has been spent by shadowy groups who are not subject to campaign finance reform requirements. As the Task Force notes, “The 2010 campaign season for the Michigan Supreme Court was the most expensive and most secretive in the nation. Over the last decade, more than half of all spending on Supreme Court cases in Michigan went unreported, and therefore the sources went undisclosed.”

Don’t think this is a problem? The Task Force discovered that eighty-six percent of cases before Michigan’s Highest Court involved contributors to the campaigns of at least some of the Justices. The task force urged action—legislative or otherwise—to fix this. Besides these sweeping recommendations, the panel advocated a number of other steps, including a requirement that the Secretary of State create a voter education guide, and that the current age limits on justices be dropped. Currently, no Michigan judge at any level can run for re-election after they turn seventy years of age.

Interviewed about the panel’s findings, Justice Kelly said she knew very well that a lot of similar earnest, “good-government” reports had been produced only to then vanish onto library shelves. She intends to do her best to see that this doesn’t happen again. Kelly may have some time to crusade for reform: She is seventy-four and by law must leave the court when her term expires this January.

“Restoring faith in our highest court is critically important,” she told me. “Michigan deserves better.” Few legal scholars dispute that. The challenge will be getting the public to pay attention, getting the governor on board, and the state legislature—many of whom are themselves heavily dependent on special interests—to act.

Veteran journalist and national Emmy Award winner Jack Lessenberry teaches at Wayne State University, serves as Michigan Radio’s senior political analyst and writes regularly for several publications. He also serves as The Toledo Blade’s writing coach and ombudsman and is host of the weekly television show Deadline Now on WGTE-TV in Toledo.

Columns

Tom Watkins

Say Yes To Autism, but No to Mental Health Parity?

April 20, 2012

Whoever said, “Life is fair”? Because clearly, it is not.

Public budgets and laws are about power, choices, and priorities. From the beginning of time, there have been winners and losers when power people divide up limited resources. Everyday at the local, state and national levels, lawmakers say yes to some issues and no to others.

Sometimes their decisions serve the public good and sometimes they serve those with power. Sometimes both.

Autism is a rising concern on a national level. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a report released last month provide some alarming statistics which state that 1 in 88 American children have an autism spectrum disorder, a diagnosis that has nearly doubled since 2007.

Clearly, families caring for children with autism were winners in legislation passed by the Michigan Legislature and signed into law by Lieutenant Governor, Brian Calley while Governor Snyder out of the country visiting Michigan National Guard troops serving in Afghanistan. The new law requires insurance companies to pay for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis and treatment up to age 18.

Others argue that an opportunity was missed to offer fairness, hope, and help to many families and children suffering with other disabilities that have been long ignored and not covered by the single focus bill.

What laws get passed and those that don’t say a great deal about the priorities our lawmakers put on the problems before them.

Power has its privilege.

The recently signed legislation mandating insurance coverage for autism is obviously good news for those families and children struggling with this disability.

Paul Welday, Director of Michigan Autism Insurance Reform Group (MAIRG) said, “We greatly appreciate Governor Snyder’s bold leadership on this issue of life-altering significance to children across Michigan.” He continues, “This legislation will give these children hope.”

Yet, for 15 years, mental health advocates have attempted to get lawmakers to provide these benefits for all persons with neuropsychiatric disorders. They have pushed for legislation that would compel insurance companies to provide comprehensive mental health coverage, referred to as mental health parity.

Michigan is one of only seven states in this country that have not passed a mental health parity law – a sad commentary for a state that historically been a leader in the provision of care for some of society’s most vulnerable citizens.

Health care insurers pay for mental health treatments and medications based on an individual’s coverage as defined by their policy. Often, any depth of psychotherapy or rehab for drug or alcohol abuse is not covered.

A mental health parity law would establish that, if an employer elects to cover mental health, this coverage can not be singled out for discriminatory restrictions compared to other medical coverage under the policy.

Happy and Sad
Hooray for children with autism and the families that love and care for them – the state has seen fit to mandate insurance coverage for them. This is a welcome relief and an investment in our collective futures. Gov. Snyder points out, “Without treatment, the average lifetime cost to Michigan for a person suffering with autism is $3.7 million.”

We should all want to help children and families in need.

While mental health advocates are happy for children and families that will have this new insurance coverage they are perplexed why the governor and legislature, loathe to pick “winners and losers” when it comes to supporting economic activity, have clearly singled out one disability for special “winning” status.

The conservative editorial cartoonist for the Detroit News and editor of TheMichiganview.com, Henry Payne lampooned the Republicans for pushing the autism bill in a column “Calleycare mandate hypocrisy.”

Michigan Partners for Parity, (MPP) a statewide coalition comprised of more than 60 member organizations has called the new law “discriminatory.” They have asked that a parity law be passed that requires insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of all brain disorders.

Mark Reinstein, spokesperson for MPP and executive director of the Mental Health Association of Michigan said, “We would never allow insurance companies to cover breast cancer, but not prostate cancer. So why would we pick one neurological disorder and ignore the rest?”

Many illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders go undiagnosed and untreated in our children and adults each year due to the lack of insurance coverage. The loss of human potential and strain on the individuals and their families are immense.

A Push for Mental Health Parity
The MPP supports Senate Bill 50, introduced by State Senator Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), that assures equality of coverage for all neuropsychiatric disorders when employers choose to include behavioral/mental health coverage in their policies.

Malisa Pearson, the executive director of the Association for Children’s Mental Health, called on Governor Snyder and members of the Michigan Legislature “to join the 43 states that have passed mental health parity laws and enter the 21st century and providing fair, equitable and parity mental health insurance coverage for all before the year is out.”

Of the 43 states with parity laws, not one has subsequently repealed it.

Amendments were offered by State Representatives Dian Slavens (D-Canton) and Maureen Stapleton (D-Detroit) to expand the mental health coverage in the autism bill. The amendments were defeated by the Republican controlled State House.

Lieutenant Gov. Brian Calley, who has a daughter diagnosed with autism, told the Detroit News he will not benefit from the bill because his state insurance plan is a “self funded plan and benefits are set by the Michigan Civil Service Commission.”

Calley, a driving force behind the autism legislation, rejected the idea of adding mental heath parity to the existing autism legislation noting it would have likely meant the defeat of the bill.

Yet, others in a position to know, believe the time is now for action to address the needs of many individuals and families suffering due to a lack of a mental health parity law in Michigan.

“Not providing mental health parity is a drain on our children, families and economy. It often prevents necessary access to services and supports. It prolongs treatment when eventually received. And it increases costs when outpatient treatment is denied and the child is ultimately hospitalized at the public expense,” says, Bev Hammerstrom, former Republican chair of the Senate Mental Health Committee. Hammerstrom continues her advocacy and commitment to people with disabilities as chair of the ARC-Michigan (arcmi.org) board of directors.

A Different Perspective
Bret Jackson, President of the Economic Alliance of Michigan, a statewide business-labor coalition, says his organization does not oppose the provision of coverage for any particular type of disability or illness. They do oppose mandating coverage. Mr Jackson went on to say their studies show “higher mandates equal higher health care premiums and his members want greater freedom and flexibility to negotiate coverage.”

David Jessup, Director of Government Relations for the Small Business Association of Michigan, which represents a diverse membership of over 13,500 small businesses statewide, says SBAM is opposed to government mandates generally and health insurance mandates specifically. This has long been a core principle in SBAM policy and a key issue to his membership. SBAM supports free market solutions as the best method to address healthcare cost containment, expanded access to private insurance coverage and increased access to expanded treatment options.” (Testimony on the autism bill: https://sbam.org/Advocacy/TestimonyonSenateBills414and415)

Business groups also argue mandates drive up costs and that for every one-percent increase in insurance premiums, an estimated 300,000 fewer people get employer healthcare coverage.

In his 2012 State of the State address, Gov. Snyder called for Michigan to join 27 other states that require insurers to cover evidence-based therapies for autism. The signing of the bill by his lieutenant governor is one more check-off on his Reinvent Michigan to-do list.

The Need Remains
Elmer Cerano, the executive director of the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, whose mission is to advocate and protect the rights of people with disabilities, commends the lieutenant governor for his advocacy and legislative acumen in shepherding the autism legislation into law.

Cerano now calls on Gov. Snyder and Lt. Gov. Calley to lead the charge for mental health parity.

It only seems right and fair: why not extend a helping hand to parents and kids, lifting them up when they have been left behind?

Keeping with the governor’s focus on “relentless positive action”, we should all want to help children and families in need.

We do know that early intervention, prevention and treatment of mental health issues can make a huge difference to individuals, and families, thereby reducing long-term social costs to everyone.

Our “nerd” governor would say, “we need to bring everyone to the table” … “work to solve problems” with a “dog years” sense of urgency.

The Michigan Partners for Parity agree and look forward to working with the Snyder administration and legislature to pass the Mental Health Parity law that has been languishing in legislative committee for a decade-and-a-half, essentially denying care for children and families in need.

Tom Watkins served as Michigan’s state mental health deputy and director from 1983-90, state superintendent of schools 2001-05 and was president and CEO of the economic council of Palm Beach County, FL., 1996-2001. He is a U.S./China business and educational consultant and remains engaged in mental health and other public policy issues in Michigan and globally. He can be reached at: tdwatkins88@gmail.com

Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Lansing and Licensing

April 20, 2012

LANSING, Mich. — If there are two things Marie Donigan knows, they are Lansing and landscape architecture. The Royal Oak native had a long career as a landscape architect before getting into politics. She served six years in the Michigan House, the longest term limits now allows. And, she accomplished something for her first profession just before she left at the end of 2010.

“In my last session, we finally passed bills to license landscape architects,” said the 57-year-old Democrat, who is now a consultant for a community planning firm in Northville.

Licensing solved a big problem, she said. “Every state except Michigan requires licensing for landscape architects.

“Federal and state agencies require licensing for professional who want to bid on government projects. Our former status put Michigan firms as a disadvantage.”

Passing the licensing bill gave her a sense of accomplishment. But now, everything she did seems likely to be undone.

Gov. Rick Snyder set up an “regulatory reinvention” advisory committee to look into the possibility of the state deregulating various occupations. It released a stunning report this week recommending abolishing nine occupational boards and ending regulations on 18 occupations — including landscape architects, speech pathologists, dietitians, nutritionists and even those providing respiratory care.

Deregulating some of the affected occupations may well pose little potential harm to consumers — auctioneers, for instance.

But others set off red flags. A spokesman for the Michigan Speech-Language-Hearing Association said they were stunned by the news. Until legislation was passed in 2009, Michigan was one of only two states that didn’t require speech pathologists to be licensed professionals. It took time to agree on a procedure, but the licensing process was supposed to be complete by next year.

Now, things are again uncertain. Mr. Snyder, who was off visiting the troops in Afghanistan, didn’t immediately react to the report, which was announced by the somewhat oddly named Office of Regulatory Reinvention. But its recommendations were very much in keeping with the spirit of his administration.

The governor has been outspoken in favor of streamlining government and limiting regulation, especially when it affects job creation. That was very much on the mind of Steven Hilfinger, who heads the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

He told the Gongwer News Service “this study found that each occupation that a state regulated … would experience a decrease in the rate of job growth by 20 percent on average.”

Critics shot back, however, that if that meant keeping the unqualified and incompetent out, it was well worth it. But state officials said public safety concerns were taken into consideration.

Rob Nederhood, deputy director of the Office of Regulatory Reinvention, said “in a number of cases, the criteria we looked at was whether there was a clear public safety benefit to the regulations.” They concluded that “in many of these cases, the committee felt the government doesn’t need to be involved.”

“There are private certifications that serve the same function.“

One 48-year-old speech pathologist who didn’t want to be identified agreed, at least so far as her profession was concerned.

The woman, who has practiced for more than 20 years, said her profession was already monitored and regulated by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association.

But she still said she was in favor of licensing as an extra safeguard, even though it would cost her money. And the woman, who often works in a hospital setting, was sharply critical of the governor’s decision to regulate certain other occupations, including acupuncturists and those involved in respiratory care.

Mr. Nederhood responded with what sounded like classic libertarian thinking. “If there’s a bad actor out there, their reputation would suffer and you have the Bureau of Consumer Protection or legal action for that,” he said. That may be true.

But nobody is likely to want to spend an hour on Google before hiring a respiratory therapist or getting a security alarm system.

Dawn Kutney, a consultant for the state speech pathology organization, said if licensing is abandoned, it would be harder for any professional moving in or out of state “because the standards are different. It also affects how we are paid for our services.”

That was echoed by Marie Donigan, the former legislator. “Landscape architects design all sorts of structures, including public safety and welfare stuff. It makes me plenty mad that some bureaucrat libertarian is going to undo what we did without even asking us why we did it.”

The next step is likely up to the governor. Other occupations slated for deregulation include community planners, consumer finance services, foresters, polygraph examiners and insurance solicitors; a complete list is available online at www.michigan.gov/orr.

Just asking: Virtually every Republican in Michigan’s legislature is opposed to the health care plan President Obama managed to push through Congress two years ago. When asked, many say their main objection was its “unconstitutional” provision requiring people to purchase private health insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But last week many of the same Republicans who say the insurance mandate is unconstitutional voted for a bill that allows motorcyclists to ride without a helmet … if they buy at least $20,000 of insurance.

Is there a contradiction here?

Veteran journalist and national Emmy Award winner Jack Lessenberry teaches at Wayne State University, serves as Michigan Radio’s senior political analyst and writes regularly for several publications. He also serves as The Toledo Blade’s writing coach and ombudsman and is host of the weekly television show Deadline Now on WGTE-TV in Toledo.

Columns

Bill Johnson

Detroit’s Changing Landscape

April 20, 2012

Take a good look at Detroit. You’ll see a landscape in advanced stages of deterioration and an inept government pushed to the brink out of necessity.

There’s a good chance the Motor City you see today is not the city of tomorrow, or one you want to remember. Its inevitable slide into a municipal wasteland has also put in on an irretrievable path to bankruptcy.

Fifty years ago, no one could imagine the disintegration of Detroit. The 1960-70s had ushered in a slew of benevolent government programs designed to ease urban tensions and blight.

The city ravenously accepted money for anti-poverty programs in a fragmented and piece-meal fashion, often without clear expectations of what these funds should achieve. In fact, most of the largesse came with the false premise that the only thing ailing Detroit was a lack of cash. And for brief intervals, the city experienced various levels of prosperity, growth and optimism.

The 1980s bright spots included the Cobo Hall expansion, Stroh Brewery Park, the incinerator project, Madden office building, City Airport expansion and the Fox Theater and Chrysler Jefferson plan renovation. Most involved huge tax breaks or federal dollars.

Into the 1990s, the city experienced a mini-economic boom that included billions in new investments: new Tigers and Lions stadiums and development around Orchestra Hall. General Motors purchased the Renaissance Center, Chrysler Corp. expansion.

State-designated renaissance zones and federal empowerment zones were incorporated as business magnets. More tax breaks were thrown in for residents and companies that located and employed workers in the zone. Casinos were later added to the mix.

It all seemed possible then. But the boom went bust.

The array of benefits had served to discourage work, enterprise and invention. So by the late 1970s and the early ‘80s, an “underclass” emerged whose economic condition seemed utterly resistant to the booming economy that swept the rest of nation during the 1990s. Worse yet, the federal and state largesse began to dry up. The utopian promises of government-sponsored urban redevelopment proved extravagant and destructive.

Today’s Detroit is home to a functional illiterate population, a dysfunctional school system, an expanding poverty-prone populace, a labor force participation rate under 50 percent and a predominance of single mothers and absent fathers on the increase.

City officials can’t provide adequate street lighting, transportation or road repairs. Abandoned houses proliferate far in excess of new construction. Property values are in free-fall.

Government is hamstrung with mounting deficits. Residents are taxed to the max. Discouraged recipients of poor services vote with their feet to escape the inhospitable environment.

The nonstop exodus of businesses and the out-migration the white and black working class further erode the city’s ability to collect taxes, pay its bills or identify new revenue streams to support services. Nothing in the city works well and nothing fuels more fear and paranoia than legitimate concerns about crime and violence occurring on Detroit’s mean streets.

The most conspicuous of Detroit’s staggering disabilities is an assembly of elected officials completely disconnected from fresh ideas, sound financial management or public policy. So it won’t matter that the mayor and City Council approved a consent agreement with the state to oversee the city’s financial restructuring. For that matter, had Gov. Rick Snyder opted to appoint an emergency manager, it too would not significantly alter the course of the city.

All relevant social and economic and indicators are trending downward, an ominous omen that Detroit will get substantially worse under the best scenario, before it gets marginally better.

Nor is it comforting that those holding public office are in large part a reflection of the people who elected them. This isn’t likely to change until the city welcomes a new class of resident and voters. And that won’t happen anytime soon.

But even if we concede that a leadership crisis can be a byproduct of democracy, it’s still painful to accept that Detroiters get no more and no less than they deserve.

Bill Johnson is founder of Bill Johnson Group, a public affairs, public relations and media consulting firm. The former Wayne County administrator is an award-winning journalist who formerly worked for The Detroit News and Detroit area broadcast news organizations.

Columns



Eric Freedman

Heading for the Slammer

April 20, 2012

Here are three things we know:

First, most of us don’t like dishonest behavior – lying, stealing, cheating. We hope that people will instinctively conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and respect for others. Yet we also know that the fear of punishment can discourage wrongdoing and that actual imposition of punishment can double-deter wrongdoing and make the rest of us feel more secure

Second, it’s expensive to keep criminals in county jails and state prisons. The House Fiscal Agency says it costs taxpayers an average of about $34,000 a year for each state prisoner, while jail costs vary from county to county. That’s why the Granholm and Snyder administrations had a budgetary motive to work hard – and successfully – to bring down Michigan’s prison population and close unnecessary correctional facilities.

And third, being tough on crime can be good politics.

What happens when we put those three things together?

This being an election year – and despite the huge potential price tag for each additional jail or prison inmate – our representatives and senators haven’t been reluctant to propose new or tougher penalties for bad behavior.

One caveat before we look at some such legislation introduced or acted on so far in 2012 –although these bills primarily have GOP sponsors, Democrats walk the same path. For example, consider a Republican-led proposal for up to five years in prison for making a death threat against a state elected official. Democratic Sens. Tupac Hunter of Detroit and Hoon-Yung Hopgood of Taylor are co-sponsors.

We surely want folks to tell police the truth during criminal investigations. Rep. John Walsh says it ought to be illegal to conceal information and mislead police in such situations. The Livonia Republican says the measure “closes a loophole in Michigan law that allowed someone to protect a suspect in a crime by misleading police investigators.”

No argument there. But with a price tag for taxpayers: penalties of up to 93 days in jail and to four years in prison.

We surely don’t want people stealing cemetery markers. highway signs, catalytic converters or construction equipment to sell for scrap. Rep. Keith Muxlow, a Brown City Republican, labels his bill to specifically outlaw such nefarious practices as “common-sense legislation that provides solutions necessary to help the scrap metal industry function better” while protecting “honest dealers from scam artists who would sell them stolen scrap metal.”

No argument there. But with a price tag for taxpayers: penalties of up to 93 days in jail and up to 5 years in prison.

We surely don’t want candidates and their election committees to misuse campaign funds to pay for defending the politicians against criminal charges. As Troy Republican Rep. Marty Knollenberg says of his legislation: “Campaign finances should not be used as slush funds for personal matters. Measures like this make our elected officials, including all of us, more accountable to donors and will restore integrity to campaign finance law.”

No argument there. But with a price tag for taxpayers: penalties of up to 90 days in jail.

We surely don’t want people misusing Tasers, or stun guns. Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, wants those with concealed pistol licenses to be able to carry Tasers as “an alternative to carrying a gun.” In part, his package would require dealers to provide training, prohibit holders from carrying the devices while under the influence and outlaw their use except for self-defense.

No argument there. But with a price tag for taxpayers: penalties of up to 30 days in jail or up to 4 years in prison.

Michigan now holds the fewest state inmates since 1997, At the end of last year, the number was 42,940, in comparison with a peak of 51,554 in March 2007. There are several principal reasons, including a drop in reported crimes, the Corrections Department’s Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative and elimination of mandatory sentences for some crimes.

Here’s a reality check from the House Fiscal Agency on legislation that might boost the number of people behind bars. As the nonpartisan agency noted in its analysis of a package that would stiffen penalties for operating snowmobiles, off-road vehicles and watercraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs: “To the extent that the bills result in a greater number of felony or misdemeanor convictions, they could increase costs on state and local correctional systems.” Even state probation and parole supervision is costly, but a lot less so, about $2,200 per offender per year, it notes.

Legislators should be frank about that price tag.

On the other hand, it is an election year.

Eric Freedman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, is associate professor of Journalism and director of Capital News Service at Michigan State University. He and Dome columnist Stephen A. Jones are co-authors of the newly published Presidents and Black America: A Documentary History (Congressional Quarterly Press)