In a clip that has been vehemently passed around Facebook this past week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is seen weighing in on Gov. Rick Snyder and his new tax proposals and his subseqent efforts to revamp the state’s emergency financial manager law.

The bottom line to take away from that clip: Michigan is indeed screwed and democracy as we know it is being kicked to the curb. (You can watch the full clip below.)

Now, if we could all take a minute to collectively breath and shake off the hysteria, I’d like to share today’s columns from the Freep and Detroit News that address the two issues of business taxes and the financial manager law.

On cutting business taxes

The Detroit News editorial board points out that, in the midst of all the shouting and ballyhoo, a major point has fallen on deaf ears. Cutting business taxes and simplifying the Michigan Business Tax is meant to create jobs and put Michiganders back to work.

Adding jobs to reduce Michigan’s 10.1 percent unemployment rate — that’s the official rate; the real number is likely much higher — is as crucial a priority as providing a quality education, maintaining roads, manning prisons or any other function of state government.

What that means is that the plan shouldn’t be viewed as a tax break for business as much as a bailout for Michigan’s beleaguered workers in the form of more jobs and better pay.

Read the full editorial here.

On the hysteria surrounding financial managers

The Freep’s Stephen Henderson points out the weaknesses of the state’s current “rubric” for dealing with these types of emergencies which explains why cities like Pontiac and school districts like DPS were so far gone by the time emergency financial management stepped in.

For years, local governments and school districts have been able to walk right up to the brink of financial disaster without any intervention from the state. So when state officials do rush in, they face horrific conditions with too few options for balancing the books.

The state’s current rubric for dealing with financial emergencies is weak to the point of flaccidity. Legislators are right to firm up the consequences of inaction.

 Henderson does acknowledge, and rightfully so, the fact that the plan does indeed tread on the democratic process and calls for tweaks to those aspects of the proposal. Henderson also addresses the critics claiming the proposal is an attempt by the right to take over.

That’s not to say the current proposal is perfect. Wiping out elected officials, as both the House and Senate versions call for, is decidedly anti-democracy...But overall, fixing the law makes good sense. And it’s overdue, given the number of jurisdictions in financial trouble.

It’s also worth noting, for the benefit of those who characterize this effort as some right-wing attempt to take over the state’s cities, that most of these ideas come from Dillon, a Democrat, who was talking about them well before he was appointed to Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s cabinet.

Read the full column here.

What say you? Weigh in on the discussion and leave a comment.

Nolan Finley of the Detroit News had great column Sunday discussing the possibilities of an alliance between Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and Michigan’s Governor-elect Rick Snyder in the wake of a congratulatory letter Bing recently sent to Snyder.

Going forward, Finley cites that a partnership between these two men is something that can only help bridge the divisive divide that has, for too long, separated the city of Detroit from the rest of the state.

Bing has said several times over that Michigan will not succeed unless Detroit succeeds. During his gubernatorial campaign Snyder shared similar sentiments about the city and what it’s future success would mean to the entire state.

Bing says of Snyder, “I expect us to be partners in turning around the state. And the state won’t get better without Detroit.”

In the letter, Bing approaches Snyder as a partner, not a supplicant, offering his help in applying “business principles to the operations of city and state government.”

Nowhere in the note does Bing ask for a hand-out.

I’m extremely optimistic (what else is new), but for good reason. Rick Snyder and Dave Bing represent what I truly believe to be post-partisan politics. Snyder, who is a moderate and Bing, who has very little if any ties or loyalties to the Democrats are Michigan and Detroit’s best bet going forward. 

I’ll be anxiously watching and waiting and hoping. Read the entire column here.

Michigan Governor-elect Rick Snyder                          Detroit Mayor Dave Bing

thisismydetroit:

<3

Celebrate Michigan - cover (by amy martin)

Some Pure Michigan lovin’ right here.

Upon reading Nolan Finley’s column this past weekend in the Detroit News, I couldn’t help but become a bit irritated with the topic being discussed.  Finley, of course, was talking about the upcoming gubernatorial election this fall here in Michigan; no doubt a crucial election for the state at a pivotal time where economic recovery and sustainability will be key to a successful turnaround. 

In the wake of this most crucial election, the Michigan Democrats have unanimously decided that their ticket must have diversity in order to have a good shot at winning.  So what exactly will they do to tackle this dilemma?   The decision has been made that the ticket’s second spot will ultimately go to an African-American.  According to a Democratic official who was recently interviewed, “the only way to fix [the problem] is by nominating a minority for lieutenant governor.”  Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but tell me again why the color of someone’s skin is a determining factor for choosing a qualified candidate in an election?

With everything that the state of Michigan has endured over the past couple of years, we need, or rather we MUST have a competent leader in Lansing with a clear plan for success in order for Michigan to fully recover.  The last time I checked skin color had nothing to do with determining someone’s aptitude and/or their leadership abilities.  I must also admit that it seemed to me like a real slap in the face and perhaps an insult to Michigan’s black voters for the Democrats to simply assume that because a black candidate is on the ballot he or she will automatically get the black vote.  In other words, the majority of African-Americans blindly vote for candidates who are also black and base their decision on nothing else?  What a sad state of affairs if that is really the case.

Further reading of Finley’s column provided me with another point that subsequently caught me off guard.  Michigan Supreme Court Justice, Robert Young, was being discussed, whom by the way is the highest black elected official currently serving in the state who also happens to be a Republican.  The quote in question read like this: “Young is a prime target of Democrats this year, as Republican justices always are, and Democrats might find tearing him apart awkward if he’s the only black on the ballot.”  They must be joking.  The Dems would feel the need to walk on eggshells around Young instead of treating him like any other political opponent simply because of the color of his skin?  As an experienced and accomplished individual, I think that is absolutely insulting to Young.

In the end the Democrat’s quest for “diversity” should really be looked at more as a quest to meet a quota.  Why can’t the Dems simply put someone on the ticket who is experienced and capable and who, just by chance, also happens to be black?  Why is everything so ass-backwards?  And for that matter, why is it that racism like this is acceptable when it is applied to only certain situations?  Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m a fan of voting for candidates based on character, abilities and competence not the pigmentation of his or her skin.  And, if you ask me, this is no better than when the Republicans dubbed Michael Steele their party leader because he was black or when they nominated Sarah Palin for V.P. because she was a woman.  But then again, as they say, that’s a whole ‘nother issue.

Read the full column here:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100425/OPINION03/4250304/Dems-desperately-seek-diversity

I recently read a posting on TIME.com that was part of their “Assignment Detroit: Blog.” The post detailed the recent upswing in activity surrounding regional development projects in Southeast MI. But I have to ask whether or not this notion of wanting to create a string of suburban downtowns, rather than focus on creating a Mecca of development, is part of the reason we are in the position we are today? The fact that investors, entrepreneurs and the like are focusing on investing heavily in creating “mini-cities” within suburbs like Auburn Hills and Ann Arbor is both puzzling and troubling at the same time. Why are we not focusing our efforts on revitalizing our already existing urban center that is the city of Detroit? Instead of expanding our expressways, why aren’t we implementing a comprehensive mass transit system or expanding the people mover? Why are we not encouraging green development and implementing so-called “green spaces” throughout the various abandoned lots downtown or along the riverfront? When people think of Southeast MI they think of Detroit and the last thing we need is to continue on with this “every-city-for-itself” mentality that has already caused us so many problems while simultaneously crippling Detroit. Cities like Auburn Hills, Ann Arbor, Southfield and so on should be complimenting the city of Detroit not competing with it.

Here’s the link to the TIME post.

http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/02/17/regional-development-moving-forward/