Columns

Maxine Berman

Grover, You Need
to Fix Your Pledge

September 30, 2011

I thought I found something recently we can agree deserves our tax dollars: the water monitoring system serving about three million people in metropolitan Detroit is short on funds. It checks for contaminants, some possibly poisonous, in our drinking water. Surely, legislators can all support the importance of clean drinking water.

But soon after that, Hurricane Irene struck, and now I’m not so sure. As storms and burgeoning rivers pushed through residential and business areas on the east coast, taking some lives and ruining others, many members of Congress refused to provide full funding for disaster relief unless budget cuts were made elsewhere to cover the costs. (Finally, more than a month after Irene landed on American shores, Congress agreed on a temporary, insufficient spending measure as the black mold oozed its way toward Washington.)

Most of these people signed Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose any income tax increases for individuals and businesses and any reductions in credits or deductions, unless matched by reducing tax rates elsewhere. And Grover doesn’t pussyfoot around. There are no exceptions: “In the unfortunate event of a real-life crisis or natural disaster, the legislator should propose spending cuts in other areas to finance the emergency response.” (American Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge Questions and Answers)

Here’s the problem: the words “crisis,” “disaster” and “emergency” do conjure up a need for immediate action, and even in its most collegial moments of the past, Congress has never been known to act immediately.

Granted, we all may have different definitions of what emergencies are, which obviously scares the bejabbers out of Grover. After all, poisoned drinking water is not an immediate threat. Probably, you would die slowly.

And then there are things like more than 60 kids in some Detroit classrooms, police and fire layoffs across Michigan, contaminated beaches and the thousands of unemployed, not to mention school districts having to deduct union dues on paychecks. Some would even suggest that bad roads in Michigan constitute an emergency because it is a deterrent to attracting new businesses — the argument the business community used to finally corner Governor Engler into supporting a gas tax increase years ago.

All the debates over priorities could be resolved, while at the same time eliminating the federal deficit and cutting spending, if Grover would just add one more part to his pledge: whoever signs it also agrees to have no government money coming into his or her district — ever.

For example, many of Grover’s pledgers who have excoriated green jobs initiatives as an example of wasteful government spending are pushing hard for these same grants in their districts. If this were added to the pledge, they couldn’t ask. Road money? Forget it. And stop worrying about the health care bill — the money’s not going into your district anyway.

Or think back to spring 2007 when a severe cash flow crisis forced Governor Granholm to issue an order stopping all state payments except for those critical to health and safety. This prompted a barrage of legislative letters to the governor’s office, most from Grover groupies, insisting that grants to their districts (for things like new docks) did constitute critical expenditures. Why, I wondered aloud at the time, are we giving grants to districts whose legislators brag about cutting government?

Perhaps it isn’t fair to punish ordinary citizens if their elected representatives pledged to cut government in their own backyards, but don’t voters have a responsibility to find that out before casting a ballot? And wouldn’t candidates be proud to let people know about the new pledge? Taxpayer protection only protects your taxes, not your homes, lives or businesses, not your health, beaches, lakes, schools, not your police and fire protection, not your economic initiatives, not your roads and bridges. Starving the beast begins at home.

Of course, not everyone agrees on funding priorities. Many with no children in K-12 schools or universities have no problems cutting them. If you don’t use state parks, why should your tax dollars be spent there? If everyone in your family has private insurance, why spend money on Medicaid? If you’ve never been in a courtroom, why fund the judiciary?

But the essence of government, of community, is recognizing a diversity of needs and understanding that we all have to fund each other’s needs. In difficult economic times, we have to recognize that cuts may well affect our “pet projects” more than others.

Sure, I can hear the snickers now — just another tax and spend liberal. But really, I’m not. Taxes take a bite out of my income, too, and my checkbook is still recovering from my fall property tax payment. But I do believe that government is necessary and that my quality of life is affected by what government provides, even if I’m not a direct beneficiary. For example, an educated public benefits me, and I am not comfortable if people in poverty can’t access basic needs and people ravaged by flooding can’t get help.

Those who disagree are welcome to their opinion, but if they don’t want to pay, they shouldn’t be welcome to the service. In other words, I know Michigan’s highways may not be in the best condition, but they still get you from here to there. So to those who don’t want to pay for such things, stay off my effing roads.

Maxine Berman is the Griffin Endowed Chair in American Government at Central Michigan University, the first woman named to the post. She served seven terms in the Michigan House and most recently was director of special projects for Governor Jennifer Granholm. She is the author of the 1994 book The Only Boobs in the House Are Men.

Columns

Stephen A. Jones

Time to Revisit
9th Grade Civics

July 1, 2011

In my more despondent moments, I have been known to argue that the ultimate proof of failure in American education is the current debate over education reform.

How else is one to explain No Child Left Behind — a law built on the absurd notion that it is possible to produce in reality the mythical Lake Wobegon world in which all the children are above average?

Then there’s this year’s state budget.

For years, the great hue and cry of reformers has been that we have to do a better job at educating our children so they can be competitive in the job market. Suddenly, it is okay to slash education spending so we can give a big tax break to business, thereby — it is alleged — enticing more companies to bring jobs to Michigan.

Presumably, these potential employers will not be put off by the abandoned commitment to educating their potential workforce.

How could properly educated people come up with such policies?

Now comes Gov. Rick Snyder and a new idea for improving Michigan’s lowest-performing schools: put them all in one big district run by the state until they are performing well enough to return to the supervision of their original districts — or maybe even strike out on their own, independently, as charter schools.

The plan is to start with a batch of underperforming schools in Detroit. Roy Roberts, the newly appointed emergency financial manager of the Detroit Public Schools, also will head up the special statewide district — called the Education Achievement System. Eventually, other schools in other districts — the lowest-performing 5 percent in Michigan — will be put under state supervision in the EAS, which is to focus attention and resources on weak schools until they serve students more effectively.

It is far too early to say whether this approach will work. Too many details are still undefined, although it was a hopeful sign that the governor’s proposal did not start with blaming and punishing teachers. That’s the direction Wisconsin has gone and, so far, to his credit, Snyder has resisted that impulse.

It is also to Snyder’s credit that he put forth the effort to try something. And it makes a lot of sense to start by focusing on those schools that appear to be struggling the most. As always, the devil is in the details. But at a minimum, the governor’s plan warrants serious examination and discussion.

Still, the proposal raises some troubling questions about the future of American education.

First, and most obviously, there is the question of how to reconcile a large new state agency that has power to sweep aside the authority — and perhaps the wishes — of local voters with the oft-stated Republican Party commitment to smaller, less-intrusive government. This plan clearly makes for a bigger government that is a lot more intrusive.

That is a pretty glaring inconsistency, but perhaps the governor has been reading Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Fair enough.

But then there’s the apparent conflict between this new initiative to help schools and state cuts in education spending that seem likely to put more schools in the position where they need that help.

There is an even larger issue, however, lurking behind the debates that will certainly emerge over the nature and scope and details of the governor’s proposal. It occurred to me as I was reading about what will likely be one of the least controversial aspects of the proposal: Snyder’s plan to provide college scholarships for all graduates of the Detroit Public Schools.

Kalamazoo Public Schools has had quite a bit of success with the Kalamazoo Promise — which was the model for Snyder’s proposal. The Kalamazoo Promise has raised more than $17 million from businesses and outside donors to pay college tuition for KPS graduates. Why not do the same in Detroit?

Why not indeed? Seems like a no-brainer.

Just one question: where will the money come from?

Of course, that is one of the details yet to be worked out. A number of civic-minded businesses and nonprofit organizations like the Broad Foundation — which has already contributed to support school reform in Detroit — likely would donate generously to support such a good cause.

I heartily endorse philanthropy, but still, there is something here that bothers me. Perhaps rephrasing my question will get us to the point.

Where should the money come from?

What struck me about this proposal was the juxtaposition of facts. Here we are cutting state spending on education and reducing taxes on businesses, then turning around and asking a few businesses and private foundations to foot the bill for an educational program that we consider important but are unwilling to pay for with tax dollars.

Charity is a wonderful thing and I certainly don’t mean to discourage it. But when are we going to stop forcing schools to pass around the begging bowl for necessities? If we truly believe that our schools are in crisis — and some clearly are — we have a responsibility as citizens to do something about it.

When we pass the hat and shift the financial burden onto the generous shoulders of wealthy patrons and philanthropic organizations, we shirk our duty as citizens and encourage the unwise and selfish notion that only those with school-age children have a stake in the quality of Michigan’s schools.

And please spare me the sad song and dance about how we can’t afford it. We obviously can. We just gave a $1.8 billion tax cut to businesses. We could have chosen to use that same money to give every high school graduate in Michigan about $14,000 to pay for college tuition. That’s no full ride, I’ll grant you, but as the father of a recent college graduate, I can say that kind of money would have been an enormous help.

The money is there. We just decided to put it in the pockets of businesses in the absurd hope that it will encourage them to hire more workers rather than spending it on educating our children.

And despite all the noise from the Tea Party crowd that we are “Taxed Enough Already,” taxes in this country are lower then they have been at any time since the 1950s. We ought to think about that when we look around and complain about the quality of our schools — or the deplorable condition of our roads, or the seemingly endless list of communities that are finding themselves forced to lay off police officers and fire fighters.

For the last 30 years — ever since Ronald Reagan succeeded by teaching Americans that government is the enemy and that all taxes should be eliminated — we have been rewarding our political leaders for feeding us such destructive lies. We have taught them that they will be turned from office if they raise taxes — no matter how responsible and necessary those taxes might be. And we have taught them that they will get re-elected if they cut our taxes, no matter how destructive such a policy might be.

Our current federal budget/debt crisis is the direct result of cutting taxes while we were fighting two expensive wars — rather than raising taxes to finance the cost.

It is time we all revisited 9th grade Civics class and reminded ourselves that we are the government, and that it is the responsibility of the government (us) to serve the needs of the people (us). That’s what taxes are for.

These days, many would deride such a statement as socialism. No surprise. We’ve spent the last 30 years exalting the cult of individual freedom and defining taxes as a restriction of personal liberty.

But that’s only half of the political equation that we begrudgingly acknowledge with lip service to the adage that with freedom comes responsibility.

So go ahead. Revisit your Civics textbook. Reread (or read) the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those documents are the foundation of our freedom as American citizens.

Then let’s have a real conversation about responsibility. Let’s talk about how we pay for the education that the children of this state — our children — need.

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




Susan J. Demas

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

April 1, 2011

Last week, I finally saw that my relationship with one of my oldest friends was going nowhere.

Ours was one of those inspired, tortured, destined-to-fail romances. And I suppose our friendship followed the same course, with periods of inexplicable connection, followed by pain and distance. Neither of us is particularly patient nor timid, so that made for some explosive communiqué along the way.

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting different results. And I could see things between us dragging on forever like that. So it seemed best to quit — not while I was ahead — but at least before any further damage was done.

I guess that’s just me. I tend to shove every aspect of my life under a microscope.

Over the past several months, I’ve also been reevaluating my career — something that’s far easier to do. I am lucky enough to be a writer. It is who I am, not just what I do.

I have been writing my political opinion column for more than four years now (not to be confused with my weekly Dome offerings). It is all I have ever wanted to do in journalism. It is, hands down, the most fun I get to have as a writer. While it certainly is the reason why my inbox brims with hate mail, it also brings the occasional humbling response from someone who truly gets it.

But lately, I have wondered if I should really still be writing it.

Let’s face it. Most columnists stay too long at the fair. When was the last time George Will wrote something that knocked your breath away? Or Maureen Dowd broke from her lay-psychology formula littered with catty nicknames?

They kicked ass and took names when they started. But that headiness, that passion that many columnists bring to their maiden offerings, usually starts to sputter a few years (or months) in, like all good romances. And frankly, some editorial suitors, like Byron York or Ruth Marcus, were generally dreadful to begin with.

When you start scribbling about organizing the dishes in your cabinet or your crappy long-distance service, it’s time to hang it up.

But for prominent political columnists, there’s no real incentive to do so. Those blessed few writing massively syndicated columns or those with prime real estate in The New York Times or Washington Post make too much money for a few hours of work a week to quit. That usually can be parlayed into books, lectures and appearances on CNN and Meet the Press, and their usefulness would dry up as soon as their bylines did.

Luckily, in my case, I wouldn’t be shunning piles of money if I decided to walk away.

So maybe I should just go gracefully like Bob Herbert into that good night. Surely some of my esteemed fan base would cheer, as they urge me every few weeks to do that in far less poetic terms. I’m sure I’d have more friends and be invited to more cocktail parties if I stopped writing what most tuned-in people think, but are too afraid to say.

Of course, landing the column wasn’t easy in the first place. Countless editors lectured me that no one wants to read about politics anymore. (One enlightened soul wanted to know why they’d want to read about it from some young blonde who just moved to Michigan.) A couple of my bosses suggested I meditate on Paris Hilton instead.

Finally, I wrangled a regular column as a condition of coming to work at a small daily as an editor. It didn’t go terribly smoothly at first — columns are something you earn in the newspaper business, and as many of my new colleagues pointed out, I was pretty green. Writing about Lansing while working an hour away was a challenge. But it was 2007 — the year of tax hikes and the first government shutdown — so it was stellar material to cut my teeth on.

After I came to work at Michigan Information and Research Service several months later, I continued pounding away at my column every week. I was lucky enough to find several new homes for it in state and out.

Given the extent of Michigan’s crises, there’s never been a shortage of things to write about — so usually the biggest roadblock is finding the time in my schedule to kick it out.

A few months ago, I had bit of a wake-up call while appearing on an Oakland University panel on the 2010 election. A political science professor was moderating, and she decided to follow the Tim Skubick playbook by firing a gotcha question at me right off the bat about some column I’d pumped out two years before.

She quoted my lead about Republicans being finished in Michigan — which sounded vaguely familiar. (I suddenly was overcome with great sympathy for politicians smacked around on Sunday morning talk shows over decades-old footage of them contradicting their current positions.) The problem is that I’ve written hundreds of columns and thousands of pieces since then. A little context might have helped.

But I wrote it, so I own it. That’s only fair. I think I burbled out some sort of a halfway coherent response that my analysis was responding to the GOP’s attempt to torpedo the auto bailout, but I can’t really be sure.

That made me wonder if I’m just repeating myself in columns — after all, Michigan does run a more than $1 billion budget deficit every year, like clockwork. Is there really anything new to say about that? Sometimes I catch myself using a turn of phrase I know I’ve employed before and I Google it (and sure enough, I have). Being a seasoned columnist is a constant battle not to be boring.

Worst of all would be ending up as one of those sad editorialists who just end up tilting at windmills. To me, that seems like booking a weekly date in purgatory. So I have to keep challenging my assumptions and hope my readers do the same. At least I possess the innate, annoying quality of being a contrarian.

But in the end, I suppose I have a stronger connection with my column than my old friend. That’s not to say I wouldn’t let it go — I would in a heartbeat if it allowed me to have a better life with my daughter. But short of that, I’m not ready to stop writing it yet.

I do plan to quit while I’m ahead. Maybe I’ve sorely misjudged things, but I think I have a little time left.

Susan J. Demas is a 2006 Knight Foundation Fellow in nonprofits journalism and a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.

Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Business All In
for Snyder Budget

April 1, 2011

Everybody agrees on this much: the wrenching changes Gov. Rick Snyder wants to make to Michigan’s tax system and spending priorities are designed to attract new business.

Plainly, he believes that’s the only way to recharge and reinvent the state’s economy. The former computer executive and venture capitalist said so when he was running for governor, and he has stuck to his guns since.

But what do the companies and corporations that are already here really think of the governor’s budget? Business is, after all, scarcely monolithic. Ford Motor Co. wouldn’t appear to have a lot in common, say, with a family-owned restaurant in Traverse City.

So last week I talked to two leaders who represent a broad cross-section of the different worlds of Michigan business.

Doug Rothwell is president and CEO of Business Leaders for Michigan, formerly known as Detroit Renaissance before it went statewide in 2009. BLM includes 76 of the state’s largest employers, who together account for almost a quarter of Michigan’s economy.

Rob Fowler represents the other end of the spectrum. He is president and CEO of the Small Business Association of Michigan, familiarly known as SBAM. It has 10,000 members across the state, from mom-and-pop restaurants to high-tech firms. Its membership represents firms that are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in the state, especially, Fowler noted, those companies with 10 to 99 employees.

Large businesses and small ones have historically been taxed at different rates, and Rothwell and Fowler haven’t always seen eye to eye. But they are in total agreement on the governor’s budget: they support it, totally, completely, right down the line.

“I think the governor’s tax plan is the right thing to do, even though some of our members are going to pay more,” said Rothwell, who, not coincidentally, led the Snyder transition team. “What he is trying to do here is address what ails Michigan now, and it is important to have a comprehensive approach.”

Fowler, who has also held leadership positions for small business groups in Michigan and Ohio, put it this way. “You have to understand the moment in time we are in,” a moment marked by a stagnant economy and a huge budget deficit.

“Sure, there are things in the governor’s plan that, I am sure, standing by themselves, our members would not support.” But in words echoed by Rothwell, he said it was important to take the plan as a whole. Both men worried that if lawmakers started picking off pieces, such as the proposal to tax pensions, the whole carefully crafted budget will unravel.

For example, take the most unpopular part of the budget: the governor’s proposal to tax pension income. Last week, Republicans in the state Senate came up with a counter proposal. They suggested beginning the tax on people who haven’t begun receiving pensions yet, and “grandfathering in” tax-exempt status for the rest.

They would cover the resulting shortfall partly by increasing the proposed new corporate income tax from 6 to 6.75 percent.

Rob Fowler thought that was a poor idea — even though many of the businesses he represents wouldn’t pay the tax regardless. “I’m tempted to say they are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,” he said of the legislature. Interviewed separately, Rothwell was even more negative about the Senate suggestion.

“This would make us much less competitive,” argued Rothwell, who has experience in both the private and public sectors. He was previously a credit card executive and then head of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

He’s crunched the numbers, and says that if enacted as it stands, the governor’s proposal would make the state the 15th most business-friendly state in the nation. Add in the changes the senators want, and Michigan’s competitiveness quickly falls to 30th.

In case anyone wondered, the business leaders now rank Michigan at close to the bottom in the state’s ability to attract desperately needed new jobs. SBAM, for example, ranks the state 48th in small business growth and dead last in payroll growth.

That doesn’t mean both men are enthusiastic about the entire plan. Rothwell is uneasy and unhappy at the proposed cuts to education, perhaps especially higher education. Fowler, was, I thought, unconvincing when trying to defend the governor’s attempt to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor.

But both are backing the entire plan because of the thing they like best about it: “This offers a coherent, comprehensive plan for Michigan’s economy and the state budget over the long-term,” Rothwell said. For years, they’ve been dealing with politicians offering gimmicks, quick fixes and one-time patchwork solutions.

SBAM’s Fowler agreed, noting that it is the only real overall plan on the table. That was unwittingly underscored this week by Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing.)

She blasted the governor’s education cuts, and said she would attempt to amend the state constitution to prevent money from being transferred out of the school aid fund. But when asked how she would make up the resulting deficit, she declined to say.

You can’t fight something with nothing, which, in itself, is one reason why, in the end, the governor may be likely to win.

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

Neil Munro

Economic Success Doesn’t Just Happen

April 1, 2011

This online magazine’s name makes it obvious that the emphasis is on what is, or ought to be, happening in our Capitol in Lansing.

But the folks at Dome know there’s more to Michigan than that: Southeast Michigan, for example. That’s where I come in. My contributions are intended to be either about or especially relevant to that huge, three-county-plus, wall-to-wall “city.”

No informed and honest assessment would rank Oakland County anywhere but Number One over Wayne and Macomb in economic vitality — and all the rest of the counties in the state, for that matter. In fact, in many categories, Oakland is among the highest ranked among all the counties in the nation!

It’s one of only three dozen with an AAA bond rating, for example.

All this did not just happen.

Location, location, location helped. But it must be said that Oakland wouldn’t be the outstanding place to live and prosper that it is without the years of leadership of County Executive L. Brooks Patterson.

He was elected in 2008 to his fifth four-year term and, at 72, does not hint of retirement.

Patterson isn’t interested just in economic growth, i.e. jobs, jobs, jobs. He also is a promoter of the quality of life. For example, under his leadership, Oakland is the first county in the nation to aggressively assist in the survival and improvement of its old, original downtowns.

Physically, Oakland largely is urban from border to border, with some 60 cities, villages and townships.

Don’t conclude that under Patterson’s leadership the county has tried to hog all the regional economic action in an attempt to succeed by taking opportunities away from neighbors. Instead, the county has, for example, led the way in the creation of a five-county business development alliance that, besides Oakland, includes Macomb, Genesee, Livingston, and St. Clair.

And the Patterson-initiated business incubator Automation Alley — described here in an earlier issue — also does business far beyond the county lines.

Such economic aggressiveness has made Oakland third among counties nationally in the number of workers with high-tech jobs. Since 1996, just four years after he took office, it has been first in the state for annual business expansion and investment.

Patterson is not only a “big picture” operator. Early on, in 1993, he initiated a county-employee suggestion box that has saved taxpayers $5 million. And he has yet to run out of ideas for enhancing the county’s prospects. In his annual State of the County Address this year he called for establishing it as a “medical tourism” destination to rival those of the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics.

Oakland County already has within it plenty of fine hospitals and medical education opportunities. Patterson envisions Oakland as a “Medical Main Street.”

And he’s now making the authentic proposition that the city of Auburn Hills is becoming a global center for research on autos powered by electricity. It’s obvious they’re going to be a larger and larger part of the market.

Patterson started out as a lawyer but his real calling has turned out to be that of the leading promoter of Oakland County as a primary national source of profitable and job-generating ideas.

His salesmanship does not stop at the nation’s borders. There now are some 700 foreign firms from more than 30 countries doing business in the county. That certainly has helped Oakland hold its own economically and even manage to gain nearly 1 percent more residents in the face of the overall shrinking of the auto industry.

Unlike our new governor, Patterson is a believer in using tax breaks to bolster the business community.

Don’t conclude that Patterson’s concentration on the “big picture” has caused him to overlook the fundamentals of being in charge of the county government. As you probably already know, he began by hiring the outstanding “numbers man” Robert Daddow. As a result, Oakland County was ready when the economic downturn came.

Under his guidance the county looks three years ahead in budgeting, so it saw what was on the horizon and adjusted spending accordingly. That was while most local governments did little or nothing and scrambled frantically when their tax income started to plummet.

But his most well-known initiatives probably are the Rainbow Connection, which has answered the wishes of dying children since the 1980s, and the annual Brooksie Way Half Marathon fundraiser, named in honor of his son Brooks, who died in a snowmobile accident. Proceeds go to the county and local communities to promote more such physical activity.

I would be remiss not to tell you I’ve known Patterson for 40 years. It’s mainly been a result of our roles in Oakland County: doer and writer.

And I’ve seen greater responsibilities over the years enhance his strengths, not the opposite, which can too often be the case.

Neil Munro is a retired editor of The Oakland Press.

Columns

Tim Skubick

Budget Director’s Pay Comes Under Fire

April 1, 2011

The salary issue always stirs emotions. There are some who would pay politicians nothing for their services. There are others who begrudgingly conclude they are overpaid but deserve something. And there’s an even smaller group who argue that the really good ones are grossly underpaid (that would be the relatives of elected officials).

No matter how you slice it, the salary thing is a lose-lose proposition, which is where the new state budget director finds himself at this very moment.

John Nixon is probably worth every penny of the $250,000 salary he draws down as the top-paid bureaucrat in the Snyder administration. But many believe he missed an opportunity to gain some badly needed moral high ground as he undertakes the nasty assignment of cutting everybody except himself.

Asked point blank on Michigan Public TV the other day if he had taken a pay cut, Mr. Nixon repeated the question to himself and then answered he had not.

Do you think you should? was the correct follow-up. And, indeed, he did not. “There’s a big job here and I’m working hard to get it done,” he opined in an argument that must have left some state workers singularly unimpressed.

You see, Mr. Nixon has recommended that those employees cough up another $180 million in concessions on top of the $700 million they have given to date. It’s a classic case of “Do as I say and not as I do” — and the union folks get it.

“Everybody else in state government and local government is being asked to do it,” confided one union lobbyist regarding givebacks. And he figures the giving back should start at the top of the government food chain and trickle down from there. Sure, Gov. Snyder is taking only $1 of his salary. But Mr. Nixon is only a link or two down the chain.

Confronted with this, Mr. Nixon did not give an inch, let alone a penny. He explains that over the next two years, everyone can judge whether he got the job done.

Every state worker would be overjoyed to have the same privilege and hang onto what’s left of his or her paycheck in the interim.

You can see why some believe this is a double standard and unfair. Coming to Mr. Nixon’s defense is Rep. Paul Opsommer. The Republican lawmaker and his colleagues have returned 10 percent of their salaries, but he does not begrudge Mr. Nixon’s salary.

“I don’t think the budget director has to take a pay cut,” Opsommer says. Since Nixon is running two departments, Opsommer figures the state is actually saving money by not having to pay two directors.

That is correct, but the salary issue does not live and die based on logic. This is all emotional, and the facts will not get in the way during this debate.

You gotta wonder if Mr. Nixon really considered all the grief he would take and how a giveback of 10 percent would have eliminated the Democratic argument that Nixon is not participating in the much ballyhooed Snyder mantra of shared sacrifice.

Refusing to do that makes it more difficult to secure employee concessions. In fact, you can hear the opening line from the unions: We’ll give you something when Mr. Nixon gives up part of his pay, and minus that, no deal.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series Off the Record since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra…
(A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Cherry Finds Work
Turns out former Lt. Governor John Cherry is not leaving politics after deciding not to run for governor. Instead, he will become a multi-client lobbyist on a limited basis.

The Genesee County Democrat has hooked up with the lobbying firm in town operated by two former speakers of the Michigan House: Democrat Lew Dodak and Republican Rick Johnson.

This marks the first time in the post World War II period that an ex l.g. has joined the lobbying ranks.

Mr. Cherry did not make a quick decision on this. In fact, the first thing he did after watching Virg Bernero lose to Rick Snyder last fall was to head off to the Hawaiian Islands for an extended vacation.

The talks with Johnson and Dodak continued over a period of time and came to fruition a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Cherry, with 34 years of experience in this town, is seen as a rainmaker who can bring more clients to the roster of clients the two former speakers now have. He is respected on both sides of the aisle, and many folks in town still believe he would have been a pretty good governor. But that gig did not work out, and now he and his former legislative colleagues hope this one will.

He joins the lobby corps on April 11, one day before lawmakers return from their two-week spring break.

Look for a formal announcement of all this soon.

Shuttered Cop Shops
The new governor came into town promising to change the culture. He’s taken one step toward doing that by mothballing a host of State Police posts.

In the old legislative culture there was a direct correlation between where a State Police post was located and the guys who sat on the House and Senate appropriations committees. You could pretty much figure that if one of those lawmakers wanted a post, one would magically show up in that lawmaker’s neck of the woods.

Over two dozen posts are being shuttered, and none of the old-time lawmakers are around to bellyache about it. So much for that tradition.

When the story broke, there were all sorts of fears that with each closing, troopers would be laid off, too. Not so. In fact, the trooper’s union figures the move will see more officers on patrol instead of being a desk jockey at some far and away building stuck in the northern woods somewhere.

The troopers new “offices” will be on wheels…their scout cars, complete with computer, communications and a cupholder for their coffee and donuts. The only thing missing will be the head.

Technology is a wonderful thing. The only problem is what happens to the poor schlub who wants to walk into the nearest State Police post for help?

Now those guys will have to go hunting for a blue car instead.

Columns

Jack Lessenberry

Honest Debate Needed
on Public Employee Pay

January 7, 2011

New Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is facing a $1.8 billion deficit that must be eliminated by the end of September or the state will shut down. So how does he do that?

Many observers think he is likely to start by going after public employee pensions and benefits, if not salaries. For years, conservatives have been insisting on the need to “get state worker pay and benefits in line with those in the private sector.”

New Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) said Thursday that state employees would have to make new concessions or, they indicated, they’d be forced on them by the legislature.

James Hohman, a fiscal policy analyst at the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy, says “there’s a way to save Michigan taxpayers $5.7 billion without cutting a single program.”

The solution is, he argues, scaling back public-sector benefits, which, he argues, “far outpace” those most private sector workers get. His dollar figure is considerably higher than other studies.

But the idea that government workers are too-lavishly compensated is now widely accepted, in Michigan and elsewhere.

Many politicians also talk as if there were far too many government workers, and have called for massive layoffs.

Yet — is all this true?

Maybe not. Remarkably, a number of studies indicate that what everybody thinks they know about worker compensation may be just wrong. Two years ago, Charles Ballard, an economics professor at Michigan State, and Nicole Funari, now with the Federal Aviation Administration, made a detailed study of the Michigan workforce.

Their conclusions? The number of state employees in Michigan has fallen sharply since 2001, and their salaries and benefits haven’t kept pace either — especially for the highly skilled.

“State employees with a high school education receive salaries that are roughly comparable with their counterparts in the private sector,” they conclude. However, that changes dramatically for workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.

“In terms of salaries, on average, these highly educated state employees fall substantially short of their private sector counterparts.”

State workers do have benefits that are better than some private sector workers. But even these are contracting; state workers have had significant “increases in their health insurance premiums, copays and deductibles.” In a shift that will save the state billions in the long run, Michigan moved in 1997 to switch new state employees from its old, highly expensive “defined benefit” pension plan to a “defined contribution plan.”

What’s been most dramatic, however, is the considerable drop in the sheer number of state workers. The study found that Michigan’s state employee workforce peaked in 1980.

In the seven years beginning in 2001, it declined rapidly, mainly through attrition, falling by 18 percent, or 11,000 total workers.

During that same timeframe, their wages barely kept pace with inflation.

Michigan was not an isolated case. Other studies, by the nonpartisan National Institute on Retirement Security and the Economic Policy Institute, reached much the same conclusion about government workers nationally. While they had a little more job security, they tended to be at least slightly under-compensated.

None of this is likely to sway many Republicans, who now firmly control every branch of Michigan government. They have a massive deficit to eliminate, and many, perhaps most, of the GOP legislators vowed not to increase taxes when running for election last fall.

Roger Martin, a former award-winning reporter now with Martin Waymire Advocacy Communications, an issue-management firm in Lansing, is scarcely a neutral party. He represents Citizens for Accountability in Reform, a coalition of state and local public employees who, understandably, want to hang on to as many benefits as possible.

Even he acknowledges that sacrifices are likely. But he maintains that “our goal here is to make sure the debate is honest. If they are going to cut public employees even more, the politicians can’t be allowed to get away with positioning it as ‘bringing compensation more in line with the private sector.’ It already is.”

“The problem is that too many politicians argue perception when they lose on facts.” he added.

Hard to argue against that.

•

Speaking of well-paid state employees, there was an immense media hullaballoo this week over the drawn-out firing of University of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez — who was technically a state employee of sorts, since it is a state school.

The coach’s salary was a mere $2.5 million, which is only three times as much as the president of the university makes. Put another way, he was paid more than four times as much as the president of the United States, and 15 times the salary of Michigan’s governor.

Supposedly, his salary is covered by the U of M’s self-funding athletic department, and the taxpayers will be held harmless.

But if the athletic department could afford that, plus a healthy $2.5 million severance package, don’t you wish they’d find a way to help close the state’s budget deficit too?

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



Tim Skubick

Civil Disagreement

December 24, 2010

The transition of power from one governor to another is always a hoot. It can go either way.

When John Engler beat Jim Blanchard there was tension. Not in your wildest dreams would you have expected Mr. Engler to do what the current governor and incoming governor did: decide to share appointments to a critical state agency.

Note that Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Gov-elect Rick Snyder did not have to do this. The 20 members of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation tendered their resignations, which gave the new governor a chance to install all of the replacements…all of them.

But instead these two decided to divvy them up.

“This is unusual,” the current governor observed. In vintage Snyder-speak he added, “It was a good team effort.”

Renewed bipartisanship is all the rage in this town, as the new governor is all about working with the other party. The current governor wanted to do that, too, and claims she got 80 percent of what she wanted from the Republicans in the legislature — yet there is the lingering feeling that she never really hit it off with GOP Senate leader Mike Bishop and House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat.

She has hit it off with Mr. Snyder, a Republican.

But then in the midst of all this cooperation, came some disagreements, thanks to a news media that cannot stomach large doses of goodwill, even at this time of the year.

Please note, however, that the two disagreed in an agreeable manner, which is consistent with both their personalities and styles.

Mr. Snyder was careful when the discussion turned to her record of providing jobs. He respectfully noted that there were signs of progress. Now, he could have said: “She tried, but didn’t get it done” or “There was some job growth, but I can do better.” He did neither.

Instead, he politely told the media, “We need to pick up the pace.” She stood by his side and let it slide without a rebuttal.

But there were two other questions where they agreed to disagree and she did step in.

Issue one: how to attract jobs to the state.

Mr. Snyder is a gardener not a hunter. That means he wants to focus on cultivating new jobs from the companies that are already inside our borders, and he would not spend a ton of energy on hunting for jobs beyond the state line.

She tiptoed into the disagreement with, “I don’t want to speak for you, but I think we should do both.” He kept quiet.

Issue two: in every exit interview she has noted the creation of 650,000 jobs, and even though she lost more jobs on her watch than she created, she wants that legacy.

So the question was, “Has Michigan’s economy hit the bottom?”

He noted advances on the auto front, but “in terms of believing, it will take some time to know…In terms of Michigan being out of the woods, we have a lot of hard work to do.”

She could not let that one slide, but again was careful to preface her remarks with the suggestion that he didn’t answer the question that was asked. “We have bottomed out,” she said, beginning her defense of her eight years in office.

He did not take the bait.

Before they left, she touched his shoulder and congratulated him on his “spirit of bipartisanship” and predicted it would serve him well in the next four years. And then she laughed and added, “We hope.”

On that they did agree.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series Off the Record since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra…
(A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

One and Counting
It’s pretty amazing that this guy is getting any media coverage. After all, he has no money, no organization, no political connections, and some unkind louts would say he has no brain either.

The other stuff is true, but Steve Harry does have some gray matter and he’s on a one-man crusade to put it to good use by abolishing the Michigan Senate, abolishing term limits, abolishing collective bargaining for public employees and converting the union-dominated state into a Right-to-Work state and gut the union movement big time.

Harry wants to launch four petition drives and recently appeared before a state election agency to get approval of his petition forms.

That’s the easy part and it didn’t cost him a dime. Isn’t state government grand?

Now all he needs is about $2-3 million, by his own estimate. He’s probably short about a mil or so, but who’s counting?

“I think by April we can come up with the money,” he says optimistically while trying to convince the doubters that maybe he doesn’t need a brain transplant.

“I can’t do this alone,” he confesses in the understatement of the month.

Yep. He will need help, and he hopes to drill a successful hole by asking the Tea Party folks to join in the fun.

“I will talk to them,” he suggests.

Now all he needs is about 400,000 signatures to put these four reforms on the statewide ballot. And if he gets those, he’ll need another couple bucks to sell them to the voters.

Mr. Harry is a former state worker ready to do his part to revamp the government.

Maybe he could get the Nerd to help out. Ya know, hold some town hall meetings, draft a four-point-plan and then hope Virg Bernero gets angry again and comes out against it.

From Beehive to Hornet’s Nest
The Utah budget director turned in the new state budget there recently. Now the fun begins: writing one for Michigan.

John Nixon, sans family for the time being, is saying good-bye to the Beehive state and transplanting himself smack dab in the middle of a hornet’s nest of a budget mess.

Tapped by the governor-elect to figure out a way to swim out of $1.6 billion of red ink, Mr. Nixon will find no quick fixes.

Ask Jim Curran.

Mr. Curran recently co-chaired one of those study commissions to uncover ways to squeeze more savings out of the state government machine. The group produced a report, and Mr. Nixon wants to chat with Curran about it. When they do, it could go like this:

“Mr. Nixon, welcome to Michigan…I think.”

“Thanks, Mr. Curran. I’ve been getting a lot of that lately. So let me begin. I want to impress Gov. Snyder, so give me the quick fixes first.”

“I’m not sure I’m prepared to answer that one,” Curran will say, because he used those exact words in an interview the other day.

Undaunted, Mr. Nixon may then ask, “Give me the easiest places to find new dollars.”

And again Mr. Curran will say, as he did in the interview, “I’m sorry, I really can’t answer that.”

“There are no easy answers,” Mr. C. continues, stating the obvious. Those were used up years ago by other budget cutters.

He adds that it’s like the dog chasing the car and catching it. He barks, “What do I do now?”

Welcome, Mr. Nixon. What the heck are you going to do now?

Columns
John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service

Smaller Government
at Work

November 25, 2010

It was a story at the dinner table. A friend described how he was involved in a fender-bender out in a rural area. There were no injuries. It was a simple, ordinary traffic accident where car meets car unintentionally.

But the story reflected the increasing change in government, and forecasts what the public will need to get used to in the coming years. It also represents what the public must get used to unless at some point the public decides to change its mind.

Because after the friend and the other driver called in the accident, there was a wait of better than two hours before a police officer could arrive to write up the accident report. There was just one officer out on patrol in the area, and a fender-bender, frankly, didn’t rate high on the emergency list.

It is an example of smaller government at work. And at this season of gratitude, one should be happy the cops were able to show up at all.

As the state rumbles down the road to Governor-elect Rick Snyder taking charge on January 1 (or at least trying to take charge), the clues of his priorities are becoming even clearer.

What those clues seem to indicate is that government will indeed become leaner and cheaper, which is what he has called for. Whether it becomes more efficient, the third leg of his oft-cited overall policy stool, will take some time to truly assess.

No matter, though, government is going to get smaller. Both at the state and local levels, government will get smaller.

This is, of course, what the voters wanted, at least a majority of them. In many localities across the state, the voters directly decided to enact smaller government. So let us be thankful that what the voters voted for is taking effect.

Smaller government has been a fact for sometime now. No one with any wit can fail to have noticed there are fewer state workers, that there are fewer cops on the road, that when calling city and state offices hold times are longer, that it may take longer to see weeds cut, parks cleaned, roads repaired.

But even-smaller-government-yet is coming, and by design and intent.

Now the honest question to ask, as we nod away to tryptophan-induced dreams, is are we really ready for much smaller government, and do we want much smaller government?

One more question: could smaller government lead to bigger government in the end?

With his swearing in drawing closer, Mr. Snyder is letting out more hints of what his priorities will be. Clearly, helping the state recover its economic standing is chief among them.

Another, however, is reducing the overall cost of government. Last week, while meeting Republican governors and going to new governor school, Mr. Snyder made plainer his view that public employee compensation had to come under tighter control.

Prior to this, Mr. Snyder had given broad hints of his view when he would refer to the “good people” who were state employees and how these “good people” had to have some assurance of what their status would be in the future.

Decades of reading through Soviet-style statements teaches someone how to find the clues, and so use of the phrase “good people” was a broad hint that state workers just might not be happy in the near future.

Actually, that could also be a big problem for Mr. Snyder. During the campaign he received counsel from various individuals that Michigan’s state employees did not have a customer-service attitude (of course, state workers might ask that why should they be cheery and helpful when their numbers have been cut, they must do more individually and they are always a target). He has indicated creating a customer service mindset is important to the overall goal of turning Michigan around economically.

It’s a mite hard to get a new culture — company- or state government-wise — up and going, however, when the people upon whom you will rely to implement the new culture aren’t feeling too happy about he who has imposed the new culture. It will take some superior managing on Mr. Snyder’s part to see that issue through.

Even if he does nothing, and the legislature does nothing, state government automatically becomes smaller because of the number of state employees who are retiring under the incentive the state offered just prior to the election.

That incentive was intended to make government smaller and cheaper, and by all estimates it will do that.

Again, that could pose a management problem for the new administration, depending on which agencies and bureaus the workers have retired from, and how the administration will fill in those gaps. Because until and unless actual state functions are ended, the gaps will need to be filled and the functions fulfilled.

So before anything else happens, before any state policy changes are issued, state government will become even smaller.

Most people in the state may not notice that, at least not right away. Unless someone has a direct contact with state government, the fact that there are fewer people manning the decks may be unremarkable.

Indeed, given the voters’ mood, the fact that there are fewer state workers will likely be seen as admirable. One expects, then, there will be no complaining if someone is forced to sit on hold for a much longer time, because this is the government wending the voters’ will. It would provide an easy catch-all excuse as well. “I’m sorry you were on hold for 45 minutes trying to get information on tryptophan vaccines, but, well, you wanted it, you got it.”

Where the public is most likely to see the effects of smaller government at first will be at the local level.

Some of these reductions, such as Pontiac police trying to stay intact as a viable police force, are the results of the economy. High unemployment and reduced property values mean far less in local revenues, forcing cutbacks at many local governments. Sometimes the cutbacks are very dramatic.

Other cutbacks are due to a combination of factors, the economy being one, the voters unwilling to tax themselves another. So it is in Troy, for example, where after failing to approve a tax measure that would have allowed the city to keep open its library, the city now prepares to close the library.

For some years, communities have been cutting back around the margins. As was pointed out earlier, it may be that parks are not cleaned as often, it may take longer to patch a road. And the public has mostly accepted it, though not without some grumbling.

Now, the cutbacks will start becoming more extreme. Greater management efficiency is always a goal, but efficiency cannot make up completely for no revenue.

One has to imagine that various city fathers and mothers will not bring themselves to recording on city answering lines, when a resident calls to complain about reduced trash pickup or the fact that it takes the cops hours to respond to an accident or that the library is closed: “you wanted it, you got it.”

But now the public will have to ask itself, did it really want government cut to the extent one imagines it could be cut to. The public will, or at least should, ask itself if such a reduced level of government service is good for the local economy and the overall quality of life.

Hey, perhaps it will be. Perhaps with time, lower taxes and smaller government will actually provide a major boost in the economy, which could provide more revenues. Should that happen, though, does government then get bigger? Are the services that have been cut back or eliminated restored?

A major argument for the cuts is, in its own way, to boost revenues in the long-term. So, if that works, do the mayors and does Mr. Snyder reverse the smaller, cheaper mantra? Could government after a long enforced diet find itself expanding again?

Well, probably, because it is unlikely the general public is as ideologically committed to the idea of small government as many politicians are. And since politicians like to respond to the voters, we could see bigger government eventually.

More likely, though, is that state and local governments will find themselves in a constant tug over the revenue/services question. Sometimes taxes will go up and government will get larger, and officials will try to keep it as the smallest large government they can, in hopes they don’t have to cut any more when either the voters or the economy demands such cuts.

It’s almost enough to make one want to call a cop to sort it out…and be thankful a cop eventually shows.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.

Columns

Tim Skubick

Inexperience Engulfs
the Capitol

November 25, 2010

Imagine showing up at work where you have 110 employees and, suddenly, 65 of them are brand-spanking new and you don’t know them from Adam.

Also imagine you get a memo that says a new CEO is on the way and he has never worked in your field.

And when these new folks all show up, their first assignment is to fix your company budget, which is $1.6 billion out of whack.

If you have even an ounce of brains you should be going: Gulp!

Welcome to the state Capitol, where in a matter of days that exact situation will begin to unfold. Double Gulp!!

Can you say “inexperienced?”

Let’s begin this sorry tale in the Michigan House, where about 70 percent of the new members have never served before. Term limits and the stunning election victory by the GOP combined to send 65 lawmakers into retirement, and with them a boatload of institutional knowledge.

Among the new legislators you have: a 23-year-old waitress; a 55-year-old trucking business owner; a 46-year-old self-employed excavator; and a 63-year-old guy who owns a concrete company — which will certainly qualify all of them to run state government starting on day one.

The loss of hands-on experience in the House will be painfully evident when you look at the composition of the Appropriations Committee. It is the most important committee in the budget process, and get a load of this…

There will be at least 15 new members who are just like new Gov. Rick Snyder — i.e. never been there, not done that — yet they will be called upon to make critical financial decisions that will shape this state for years to come.

If there is any glimmer of hope in all this, it resides in the Michigan Senate, where the turnover will be great but many of the new folks coming in have served in the House and will bring experience to the table.

There also will be new Senate leadership, with new Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) possessing a fine record of bipartisan cooperation, unlike outgoing leader Mike Bishop, who steadfastly blocked almost every move the current governor made in that direction.

The new Senate Democratic leader, Gretchen Whitmer, is a veteran, and her working relationship with Richardville will be dandy. She and he won’t agree on everything, but they have the ability to talk and listen to each other, which is huge.

There’s also a new House speaker with two years under his belt. Rep. Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) is a bit of an unknown quantity, and his Democratic counterpart is Rep. Rich Hammel of Flint. At first blush, they should be able to get along.

So as we move into the holiday season, things are looking fairly rosy when it comes to potential cooperation under the dome. Yet all the inexperience that engulfs the Capitol will make for some rough going, and it’s oh so easy to talk about peace when the war has not yet begun.

Chances are that it’s only a matter of time.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series Off the Record since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra…
(A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Labor Wars
These are tenuous times if you walk around with a State of Michigan employee ID around your neck. You have every right to believe there may be something else around your neck sooner than later.

Can you say noose?

The governor-elect is making noises about reducing state government employee salaries and maybe even benefits.

The current governor and lawmakers have already taken a chunk out of the state worker “bennies,” which is why three labor unions hauled the good governor into court in an attempt to block it.

Workers are being forced to kick in 3 percent of their pay for health care costs, but one labor leader complains lawmakers had no right to do that.

“It’s a bargaining issue,” protests Ed Williams, who runs UAW Local 6000, with thousands of state bureaucrats in the ranks.

Mr. Williams contends the Granholm folks signed a contract saying there would not be any more concessions until a new contract is opened on January first. “If they needed more concessions or more money from the employees, they should have come to us. We’ve pretty much given them everything they’ve asked for.”

So was this a broken promise?

“Yes, absolutely.”

Now comes Mr. Snyder saying he wants to compare the paychecks of those on the public payroll against those on the private roles, which is code for — brace yourself — another round of cuts across the board.

It’s not of a question of “if” it will happen. The only guessing game is “how much” of a sacrifice will be demanded.

This will be one of the first tests of the new governor’s “let’s work together” mantra. He says he wants to talk to the unions, but they probably won’t like what they hear.

Fact is, as the new state CEO begins the arduous task of “reinventing Michigan,” state workers will be the first ones in that barrel.

Can you also say “labor wars?”

Ds Not Powerless
Not so fast on summarily dismissing the influence of Democrats on the legislative process in the new year with the GOP in control of everything.

The easy and yet misguided thing to do is to conclude they have “virtually no power,” as one observer noted the other day.

On the surface it does make sense: House Democrats no longer control that body and have 43 instead of 67 votes. Things are even gloomier over in the Senate, where the Democrats are down to an even dozen. They have 12 lousy votes and can do nothing to influence what the Republicans want to do other than hope the Rs will at least talk to them before using their 26 votes to do whatever they darn well please.

But (and there is always a “but” when it comes to the political game) the new governor has advised that he wants Democrats to vote for some of his programs. And if that’s so, Rick Snyder will have to give them some reason to do so, which in turn means he will have to compromise and change some of his suggestions to meet their wishes.

Let him try that and see what his Republicans begin to mutter either under their breath or in front of the cameras: “Hey, we have the votes. Why do we need the Democrats? Forget about them.”

Then what does the bipartisan governor do if segments of his own party leave him high and dry? That’s where the Democrats suddenly become relevant.

There are a whole host of folks in this town who predict that the more moderate appearing the governor-elect is, the more he will actually “need” Democratic votes to implement some of his policies, including budget cuts.

Let’s take the cities in general and the City of Detroit specifically.

“I want to be a partner to Detroit,” Mr. Snyder told audiences all over the state, including citizens who live beyond 8 Mile Road. If being a partner includes sending some state tax dollars inside of 8 Mile Road, how many outstate GOPers will sign up for that? You can count them on no fingers.

Now, all of a sudden, those 43 House and 12 Senate Democrats are relevant and anything but “virtually powerless.”

And that could apply to other issues as well… or at least the Ds hope so.

Who Will Be First?
For you history buffs, Michigan has had one school district go bankrupt. And the Kalkaska insolvency is credited in part with spawning a new way to finance all our schools.

Today’s question is, when will the first city in Michigan end up in the red, and what reforms, if any, will follow that?

Hamtramck is in the lead right now, but it’s got 67 competitors in various phases of fiscal disarray and the bankruptcy clock ticking.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm hears the tick-tock, saying: “If we continue down this path [not fully funding the cities] you will have more and more cities that are going to be asking for an emergency manager or bankruptcy.”

Fortunately for her, she will be long gone if it comes to that, which means the new gov and new legislature can begin their New Year worrying about that, too.

Over at the Michigan Municipal League, which lobbies the legislature for city funding, it continues to watch a perfect fiscal storm brewing. It’s one part loss of revenue from the state, another part loss of dollars from fewer and smaller property tax collections, and a final part of rising costs without enough dough to pay for them.

Tick-tock.

“No city wants to be the first to go into bankruptcy,” says MML lobbyist Andy Shore, but “it’s possible if the situation gets more dire.”

Cities cry out they have already cut too many cops, too many firefighters and too many services. There is $400 million in state revenue sharing that is also at risk, and no one would be shocked if that got cut, too.

Shore concedes municipalities have the option to raise local millages, and some have done that. Others are scared to try for fear of voter pushback. He would like to see state lawmakers take the lead and do some revenue raising on their own.

Right. Like the old song goes, “Something’s Gotta Give.” And if it doesn’t, some city is going to join Kalkaska for the dubious distinction of being the first municipality to go under.