Michigan State Senate

EPIC-MRA also asked a series of questions on the budget.

56% are opposed to the proposal, 64% think that the tax would increase above 2% if passed, and 53% feel that Granholm should make more cuts.

Same explanation for this opposition still applies. We need to see Bishop's plan.

Tired of Bishop's budget babble?

Tell your legislators you want the budget crisis solved now.

A Detroit Free Press poll released yesterday showed that 58% of Michigan residents oppose the proposed tax on services.  In response, wizardkitten argued that many of the same people opposed to a tax increase would probably also be opposed to drastic budget cuts.

A Freep poll this morning tells us that people don't support the service tax idea, but these are people that have not been shown the consequences of not raising some revenue. It would be nice to see a poll on the Republican plans for drastic cuts, wouldn't it? Bet they wouldn't like that, either, because on the flip side, they still want higher spending for health care and education by whopping margins.

Unsurprisingly, she's right.  A Detroit Free Press poll released today shows that six in ten Michigan residents support an increase in higher education funding.  So, the message is that people don't want more taxes, but also do want increases in spending.

Obviously, there is a substantial disconnect between the perception of what taxes do and the actual role that taxes play in maintaining our quality of life.  For example, we know from other studies that people believe we spend far more on food stamps and foreign aid than what we actually do.  Our perceived budget priorities are not aligned with how that money is actually spent.

This is why it is so important that we actually see the Republican plan for cuts.  As advocates for solving our budget problems through cuts alone, the Senate Republicans have a responsibility to be honest with the people about what their plan entails.  Once people realize that they are going to be affected by particular budget cuts, the public outcry for a solution will start.  It's a matter of awareness.

Senator Schauer's recent YouTube message and the new Michigan Progress TV show are both examples of elected officials in Michigan using new methods to directly communicate with the progressive community in Michigan.

There's no reason that candidates in Democratic primaries in Michigan can't do this as well. Perhaps for the first time, candidates have the opportunity to speak to us directly while incurring virtually no costs to themselves. When the time comes, I encourage each one to take the opportunity to introduce themselves to us.

The Jackson Citizen-Patriot yesterday editorialized on lawmakers who sell us out for cushy lobbying jobs as they're being term-limited out of office.

But there's a difference between a professional lobbyist whose key asset is information, and a former lawmaker who is capitalizing on relationships within the circle of back-slappin' friends and cronies he or she developed in the Legislature. That's the kind of lobbying that needs reasonable limits.

I want to make it clear:  I'm not opposed to lobbyists or the notion that they have a role to play in government.  However, the system of legalized bribery that we currently have now is only made worse by legislators who are worried about their future job prospects.

We're faced with a system of warped incentives:  If a legislator is facing term-limits, the incentive to pass legislation that favors their future employers may be greater than their desire to protect the public interest.  That's just wrong.

IMO this is a fantastic first step.  It demonstrates a willingness to both reach out to the progressive community and try new things.  Being on YouTube means that anyone can embed it on their blogs and spread the word.  Sure catches our attention, too.

Although I am very grateful for this, it does feel a little boring.  The "blogosphere" is not simply another vehicle for communications departments to get their message out, and it takes more than stale talking points to motivate people.  That advice applies to virtually every Democratic candidate and elected official in Michigan that has attempted blogger outreach, not just Senator Schauer.

According to the subscription-only MIRS, Senate Republicans are planning to reject the Governor's executive order that would have reduced our spending by $200 million.  Despite the devastating cuts that would have been inflicted on some programs, it apparently wasn't enough for the Senate Republicans.

I hope that they have the courage to put their own proposal on the table.  These people have consistently refused the responsibility of identifying which programs they think should be cut.

UPDATE:  wizardkitten has more.  Unsurprisingly, the Republicans haven't offered any suggestions about what they would cut, although "school aid reductions are on the table."  Real classy, guys.

UPDATE 2:  JWinston70 started a thread about this over at Michlib.

Surprisingly, Michigan isn't on the list of states with pending video game legislation.

Let's keep it that way.

If anything, I think that legislation modeled after Indiana's proposed system would be the most effective. Their system would match age requirements to buy games with the ESRB's rating system. Although the ESRB's system isn't perfect, it is a good indicator of the general "maturity level" of a game.

Mad props to the always-excellent Zack for pointing both of these out.

Michigan Tax Truth is a website that aims to emphasize the value that state-funded services contribute to Michigan.

In a related editorial, Craig Ruff argues that raising taxes in a fair and responsible manner can help us lower our unemployment rate. He points to Virginia as an example. Mark Warner accomplished some incredible things during his term as Virginia's Governor, and I've long felt that his approach toward governance is an ideal model to follow.

Remember, Warner raised taxes in a Republican-leaning state and still walked out with an 80% approval rating and one of the most well-managed states in the nation. It can be done.

The North Dakota State Senate today passed a bill out of committee that is modeled after the Kalamazoo Promise.

Senate Bill 2347 would require the state to pay the bulk – and eventually all – of North Dakota students’ tuition bills, if students meet certain criteria.

Requirements include being a state resident since kindergarten and completing four units of math and science in high school.

Students also must earn at least a 23 on their ACT cumulative composite score or math score.

I like this idea.  These days, higher education the key to social mobility and the American Dream.  By giving kids a path to improve themselves, we help to build a better society for everyone.  Although the ACT has its flaws, I think that it is a far better benchmark of academic potential than the MEAP.

Given our state's current economic woes, it is vital that we develop a talented workforce and keep our kids in state.  For us, increasing access to higher education is even more important than it is for North Dakotans.

The Lansing State Journal reports that the Senate Republicans went ahead and proposed a $290 million cut from the revenue that used to come from the Single Business Tax.

Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled an outline of a replacement proposal for Michigan's soon-to-be-extinct business tax, with their plan lowering business taxes by at least $290 million overall.

As expected, they failed to identify which state programs would be affected by the cuts.

The lawmakers didn't immediately specify spending cuts to make up for the lost revenue, drawing criticism from Democrats.

Given our current budget problems, it seems a little irresponsible to be proposing even more tax cuts without identifying who or what will be affected by them.  It is always easy to propose tax cuts, but its quite another to take some responsibility and be honest about their consequences.

A much more extensive discussion of this is forthcoming.

Given that the Iraq war has cost Michigan taxpayers over $10 billion dollars, stopping President's proposed escalation is a priority for Michigan residents.  An escalation of the Iraq war would only serve to endanger our service men and women and increase tensions in the region.  Luckily, we can take action right here to prevent the President from implementing this misguided policy.

The Progressive States Network argues that state legislatures can play a key role in influencing the debate on national issues.  I remember many months ago when the Michigan Legislature passed a resolution on rising oil prices, which was a national issue.  Given that there is a precedent for our Legislature to weigh in on national problems (some as irrelevant as the Terri Schiavo case), I believe that a resolution condemning the President's plan to escalate the Iraq mess is appropriate.

Please contact your State Representative or State Senator and urge them to sponsor the following resolution on the proposed escalation.

WHEREAS, The President has proposed an escalation in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and the wounding and disabling of more than 22,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and

WHEREAS, This proposed escalation will further extend National Guard tours in Iraq, that the costs to the states of the call-up of National Guard members for deployment in Iraq have been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries and psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in our communities; and

WHEREAS, The American troops have valiantly upheld their duty in Iraq under dire circumstances; and

WHEREAS, More than $357 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, money that could fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in our communities in the United States or humanitarian assistance abroad; and

WHEREAS, Previous budgets that have prioritized Iraq have led to cuts in critical block grants for states and have increased the federal debt, which compounded by interest payments, will likely lead to even larger cuts in funding for critical needs in the States; and

WHEREAS, Polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not support increasing the number of troops in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, Most military experts oppose escalation in Iraq and press reports indicate that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed such a strategy; and

WHEREAS, Legal experts on all sides have determined that Congress has not only broad authority, but a long tradition of limiting escalation or forcing redeployment of troops through the Constitutionally-designate power of the purse.

BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of ________, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of ________state, and to the United States Congress.

Watch in a Video Player

Listen in an Audio Player

UPDATE:

Matt Ferguson writes:

Floor statement from Sen. Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck). Taped and will transcribe later. Says Google wanted a net neutrality clause, but ultimately decided they didn't want to derail the whole bill.

Both Birkholz and Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) pulled their amendments dealing with net neutrality. The issue never even came up for a vote.
Birkholz says the Governor has promised to take up net neutrality on its own in the next session.

The bill passed 26-12 with no net neutrality provision. I'm inclined to believe that the Governor is going to follow through with this. Then again, given the posturing of the various sides at the national level, people who are pessimistic about it are more than justified in not counting on net neutrality legislation next session.

SECOND UPDATE:

Matt at Michlib transcribed Rep. Birkholz's floor statement:

Thank you, Mr. President. As we have had some very deliberative debates today on this huge issue before us, I wanted to remind my members about the net neutrality issue - and how important it is to consumers across the state, especially those in the more rural and suburban areas.

Yes, this needs to be addressed by the federal government. Yes, the federal government is working on it, but, as we know the federal government lately has been very slow to react to states' needs and we as states have found ourselves leading the federal government - not behind them in the parade. Unfortunately, we do not have the net neutrality amendment on this bill. But it is still very important to look at in the future. It's become known as the Google amendment - and they feel very strongly that Michigan needs to insure consumers' access to all forms of video services - not just those that are offered by cable and phone companies. But they have also indicated their support of increased competition for Michigan consumers and decided that they had no desire to derail the whole process.

So, in deference to them and to my constituents who have e-mailed me and snail-mailed me, and phoned me about this very issue, because they feel so strongly, I have decided that I would not put the amendment on as you know.

We've also been in contact with the governor's office, and it's my understand that the governor's office has suggested to Google and the other supporters of net neutrality, that they will pick up the bill again next year in standalone legislation.

Therefore I did not put the amendment on, but I want members to be aware of the fact that this is a huge issue facing us and we need to continue working on it in the future.

Thank you for your support.

Fascinating...

UPDATE 3:

Matt Stoller updated MyDD readers with the results of the MI Senate vote on HB 6456. See our discussion on the way the Michigan and national progressive blogs reacted to this issue for more information.

Although the vote is now over, we can use this as a learning experience to more effectively confront these kinds of challenges in the future.

On my end, I should have spent a lot more time trying to understand net neutrality and cable franchising from a political standpoint before even beginning to speak on this issue. There were political dynamics taking place here that I was completely oblivious to (mainly due to my own recent time constraints), and that had a significant impact on my ability to talk about this authoritatively.

Now, we need to determine what we want to do to rectify the situation. Assuming we want to continue to pursue this, it means stuff like getting a commitment from the governor to push for net neutrality at the state level, lobbying John Dingell and John Conyers to bring it to the agenda at the national level, and holding the phone/cable companies accountable (especially on the "jobs" ploy).

Although not including net neutrality in this bill sets a bad precedent for other states, I have hope that net neutrality can still be introduced in Michigan. I believe that Granholm is going to come out strong on net neutrality, and by taking back the House we have a much better shot at getting it done.

UPDATE 4: Everyone who has been following this issue needs to see matt's post on what happened with net neutrality in the Michigan State House today. I agree -- we got a very late start, and just ran out of time before we could even get our bearings.

I have a sinking feeling that there is more to this issue than what I (and we) originally thought.

After they posted their initial Granholm "sell out" post, I posted a response in the MyDD thread, and InterrupT followed as well. More discussion on it took place over at Michlib in an unrelated thread. We let them know that we weren't totally on board with what they were doing, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't fair of them to attack Granholm or get involved without at least talking to us first.

Matt (Stoller) initially replied to the comment in my thread, and then created a follow-up post based on some of my and InterrupT's comments on the MyDD Granhom "sell-out" post. I also got an e-mail from someone at MoveOn (not a mass e-mail) responding to what I wrote. On one hand, its great to see that they actually listened to us and acknowledged that we weren't comfortable about this, as opposed to dismissing us outright. On the other hand, I'm becoming increasingly more aware that this issue is very complex and tough to figure out based on secondhand info only. They are clearly making an effort to reach out to us now and explain their side of things, which I appreciate.

We're talking about this on the MI-bloggers list a bit, and my "gut feeling" is that there is validity to wanting to get this done now.

UPDATE: InterrupT has more on Matt's follow-up:

Your argument has a fatal flaw, it assumes that we have to bargain for a neutral network. No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds. AT&T already owns at least half of Dish Network, so they are already providing video services in Michigan (along with Internet and telephone services), they just also want to provide terrestrial video services. If every state that hasn't done so already, denied them franchising rights to their state, they would instead improve their Dish Network service so more people could get a better signal. Also we can't forget that Verizon isn't asking for franchising rights in Michigan yet would still be allowed to operate in Michigan even if the new bill in enacted. So what do Verizon have to bargain for? They can just as easily enact a two tiered network as anyone else.

Your argument is also flawed in that you assume that this bill allows for a two tiered Internet, and the point in my post that you link to is that it does not allow such a thing (but it also doesn't stop it). You are right however that this bill could allow for a greater abuse of the telecoms power.

It is true that the Telecoms have an insanely powerful lobby, which is why a bill has yet to be passed at the national level, but that doesn't not mean that they will always win. Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality. This bill has been a hotly debated topic in Michigan, gaining a lot of press about it and a lot of talk on the blogs. Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.