Stitching and Weaving Politics and Policy

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
April 30, 2010

May beckons, and with it a growing sense of urgency seems to build in state government. Deadlines, hard deadlines in some cases, loom, so the weavers that stitch together policies and politics together have stepped up at least their public efforts to resolve the pending items.

During all of this, though, an interesting question of history was raised at one point. It was a question that goes in part to the heart of the overall purpose of governing, and it was a question that raises a troubling contemplative point.

So, in unraveling the first line in the warp and weft of the week is the question of whether Geoffrey Fieger will put his Lexus in the garage as he tours the state in a U.S. luxury car seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. He has hinted, again, that he might run, despite enduring a devastating defeat to then Governor John Engler in 1998.

And a recent poll of likely Democratic voters showed the only name that attracted more support than Mr. Fieger was “undecided.” In an initial indication, Mr. Fieger outpolled House Speaker Andy Dillon, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero and Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith.

The silent scream you didn’t hear was from top Democratic officials rending their garments at the prospect. Everyone in the party knows Mr. Fieger is a generous financial backer and probably as rock-ribbed a Democrat as one could get. No one disputes he could prove very formidable in a primary.

But politically Mr. Fieger is not very politic, which is both his draw and downfall. Can one honestly think that his comments on Jesus Christ that dogged him all through the 1998 campaign will not be, ahem, resurrected? Or that Republicans won’t make huge hay out of his ongoing fights with the Supreme Court and federal courts? Mr. Fieger on the ballot will help generate Republican turnout, because even moderate Republicans (of which there are still a fair number in Michigan) will show up to vote against him. The initial betting has to be that he would draw better than the 38 percent he got in 1998, but not enough to win.

The hard deadline he faces is May 11, by which he would have to produce 15,000 petition signatures to run for governor. The longer he delays in saying he is out there running, the harder that task becomes, so one could reasonably expect Mr. Fieger to make something that appears like an actual decision soon. Then again, known for going with his gut, reason may have little to do with Mr. Fieger’s decision.

The second thread to tug at are the efforts to resolve the state employee and teacher retirement issue. Having already missed the April 1 deadline, legislators kept Thursday’s session open long as they tried to reach an agreement before May 1.

Governor Jennifer Granholm had called for lawmakers to reach a hard decision by a hard deadline so school districts, especially, could try to convince older teachers to step aside to allow younger teachers in.

Typically, in the past, whenever early retirement programs have been discussed, state workers and teachers are giddy at the prospect. Not so much this time. With the economy still extremely weak, and with the setup of any of the retirement proposals meaning people in their early and mid-50s (when they may still have kids in college or facing the prospect of helping their own parents) would face taking either retirement or paying more for their benefits, the proposals rankle many.

The action also comes as the Michigan Education Association has undertaken an aggressive ad campaign saying teachers will no longer be the punching bag for policymakers.

The anguish public workers have voiced seems to have had some effect, at least according to opinion polls showing the public is less supportive of the retirement proposals than before. At the same time, the public might well wonder about teachers or public workers being actual punching bags in state policy. Clearly, Republicans have long targeted the MEA and the Michigan Federation of Teachers as roadblocks to cutting overall spending. The simple facts are, however, they have hardly blown those impediments away (or to continue with the sewing analogies, ripped the seams out). Compared to what state workers have had to endure in the last decade, teachers haven’t faced some of the budgetary constraints.

No, teachers have not been immune from pain, especially as districts have been forced to make layoff decisions. But the point is, lawmakers have tried to protect education funding before anything else, so on the relative scale of public employee suffering, teachers have done better.

And while the public may sympathize with the worries of teachers and public workers about having to pick up more of their insurance and retirement costs, it would be well for public workers to remember that private sector workers have shouldered those burdens for quite some time. Appeal to the public’s sympathy if you will, ah, but don’t somehow imply you got it worse than they have had.

The next thread hanging is the intensifying fight over the Detroit River International Crossing. The owners of the Ambassador Bridge are pulling out all the stops to convince lawmakers not to approve plans that give the state okay for the new bridge. The top executives, even the hitherto somewhat elusive Matty Moroun, have come out fighting hard. So far they have been able to hold the Senate Republicans, and picked up a fair amount of support from House Republicans as well, in their corner.

But with the news that Canada would pay the state’s portion of the DRIC project (to be repaid later) coming from a literally breathless Ms. Granholm before the House Transportation Committee, the Ambassador’s executives may have to quickly find a new argument that can win, or find a way to become part of the DRIC deal.

Unquestionably, a new bridge will affect the Ambassador’s business, especially in the short term as industrial traffic will want to shift to the new bridge that ties with Canada’s 401 highway.

The two arguments used against the DRIC are traffic and Canada. Traffic is down substantially in the last several years, the argument goes, and a new bridge will dilute that flow even more. True, but DRIC supporters argue back that traffic has improved some and should grow substantially when the economy improves. There is also the unspoken thought that the DRIC could help drive (or let us say stitch together) an economic boost in the area that will attract more traffic overall.

The argument that Canada alone is forcing the DRIC seems curious. Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) has even in the past said Michigan was being bullied by Canada. Given the history of U.S./Canadian relations, that surely must be a surprise to Canadians who have been annoyed that Americans tend to ignore them except during the Stanley Cup playoffs and worried that at some point the U.S. would just take them over.

Even then, there is a kernel, well, thread, of some truth. No, Stephen Harper (he’s the prime minister, in case you ignored Canada so much you missed that) isn’t sitting in Ottawa sticking pins in a Michigan voodoo doll. But Canada is far more economically dependent on manufacturing, especially automotive manufacturing, than the U.S., so moving goods and parts as rapidly as possible through the Detroit crossing has always been critical to our NATO ally. Therefore, getting the DRIC approved and underway has more resonance to Canadians than initially to the U.S.

The issue overall has a feeling that the ever-stronger winds will at some point shred the sails and overwhelm the opposition. As tough a fight as the Ambassador Bridge execs and allies are putting up, it is hard to see how the DRIC proposal is blocked indefinitely. Ultimately, the answer may be to wrap each other in the coverlet of cooperation and mutual benefit, however such a garment is made.

But during all the knitting and stitching and weaving of the immediate, day-to-day issues, Bill Rustem of Public Sector Consultants posed a question that prompts long-term thinking: What are the legacy issues of this legislature, the issues that will affect and improve the lives of our children and generations beyond?

It is a hard, and in some respects unfair, point to put to the 95th legislature. Lawmakers and Ms. Granholm these past two years have had to fight against an economic collapse not seen in two generations. Worrying about a legacy seems irrelevant when one is trying to hold onto something that could be used to build a legacy on.

In one way at least, conservatives can actually claim some success in building a legacy, because the state has had to pare back, cut spending and the size of government. And they have been successful in blocking tax increases, at least so far. So if one came to government seeking to cut its size and cost, then in that, at least, one has been successful in building a legacy.

But budget and fiscal issues cannot be all that government is about, Mr. Rustem said. His comments echoed a complaint made earlier in the year from Secretary of State Terri Land that the legislature seemed incapable of doing anything other than budget issues.

Budgets will always be a matter of struggle and controversy in governing. It simply goes with the territory. What else can this body point to as that which will actually make a difference for the state in 20 years or longer? What triumphs will the 95th legislature pass onto history?

Unraveling that question may yet leave just scraps and rags to somehow piece back together.

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.