The "Efficiency" of Government

In the wake of the mass murder in Connecticut where 20 children and seven adults, including the shooter, died, various politicians from both sides have been looking at doing “something” about these shootings. The most often “solution” is to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 but expired in 2004.

Do you realize that the assault weapons ban would not have stopped the assault in Connecticut? Adam Lanza, identified as the shooter, had three weapons. Two handguns and an assault weapon. The assault weapon was found in the back seat of his car, unused. So how would an assault weapons ban saved anyone at the Sandy Hook school?

During the assault weapons ban for ten years, there was no discernible difference in violence involving guns. The difference between incidents seems to be the same as the difference between a plane crash and a car accident. It’s been well established that flying is the safest form of transportation. But when a plane goes down, it can take a couple of hundred people. You can’t get that many deaths even in a bus accident.

I’ve heard many so-called news reporters and radio talk show hosts asking why anyone needs assault weapons. They aren’t designed for hunting season. They are only designed for mass killings. I’ve heard them say that those types of weapons should only be for those in the military and law enforcement.

Are the military and law enforcement exempt from having someone lose control and start shooting up a crowd? Did I just hear a huge gasp that I would dare suggest that the military or law enforcement would ever do anything untoward? Well, I remember early in the Iraq war that a soldier killed several fellow soldiers because he didn’t want to be there. I seem to remember a shooting in Fort Hood by a soldier and in fact a counselor, psychologist or something in the psychological field, where over 30 people were shot and 13 dead. I also seem to remember a cop in Illinois, I believe that was being tried for killing several wives.

I don’t know that assault weapons were used in any of those, although I think one was used in Ft. Hood, but why should I have to be accurate in defending weapons when pundits and politicians aren’t accurate about banning the types of guns used in Connecticut?

So why are politicians now so anxious to ban certain types of weapons when those weapons have nothing to do with the shooting in Connecticut?

There is an answer to the question “why are these weapons available” but those that disagree will not give a direct answer. Their answer will be, “you’re paranoid” or “you’re an extremist” but they will not have a direct answer. My answer to why these weapons are available is because the other guy has one.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

I AM LIVID!!!

What the hell is wrong with people?!!?

Another shooting in a school! This time at an elementary school. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a man ( I use the term loosely) walked into an elementary school and apparently shot his mother and the students in her classroom. At least 20 children are dead six school officials and the shooter. The shooters mother is dead and it's being reported that the someone the shooter lived with is dead.

This happened at 9:40 a.m. I turned on my radio and unfortunately, Geraldo Rivera was on. The first conversation I heard on his program was about guns and their legality. That's probably where this will go as it does after all shootings. They'll want gun control. How well has that worked so far?

There are 15 day waiting periods. Requirements for getting a license to carry a concealed weapon and on and on. All of these controls and licenses and checks on people carrying weapons and wanting to buy weapons and still people are being massacred in movie theaters, schools, shopping malls, and churches or temples (and I don't give a rip which religion it is, it's WRONG!), military institutions, and shopping centers where Congress members are speaking.

Another 22 children were slashed by someone wielding a knife. This took place in China, also today.

In Washington we have the President and the Speaker of the House that are saying the other one isn't being serious about solving the so-called "fiscal cliff". The leader of the Democrat Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is "bored" with all of this.

In Michigan we have Union thugs beating up reporters because they work for Fox, and older folks in a tent set up as an advocate for Right to Work, have their tent pulled down on top of them.

Where is the respect for human life? Where is the respect for the elderly? Where is the respect for others opinions that may not agree with your own opinions? What the hell is wrong with people in this country and around t he world?

Young children and the elderly are the least able to defend themselves, but we're having it proven to us over and over that we are all defenseless against someone that is bound and determined to cause harm to large amounts of people unless we are allowed to defend ourselves.

The police aren't called until something has happened. In what appears to be ten minutes time (the time it took for the police to be called and arrive at the scene) 27 people are dead!

We depend on these schools to teach and protect our children. Obviously our protection isn't working. Rather than side on the side of gun control laws, I'm more interested in people arming themselves to protect those that they are responsible for and those around them.

Do you need further examples? Think back to the day we were attacked. September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked. One flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the Pentagon. None of those were rescued, nor deterred from their targets by any government entities. The police, the national guard, the air force. Not one of those agencies did anything to protect where those planes were headed nor the people on board.

Another plane was headed for the Capitol. None of those government entities saved the people on board that plane. However, the citizens of this country that were on the plane did step up. They took back the plane and while it crashed in a field in Pennyslvania, and all were dead, those citizens actually protected the government!

Senator John Kerry admitted that he sat there frozen in the Capitol when he heard of the attacks happening. Suppose those citizens on that plane hadn't fought back. He could be dead now if not for citizens of this country. How many others were in the Capitol building that could have died had it not been for the passengers on that plane saving their lives?

Nearly 3,000 dead on that day and the only ones who's lives were saved were government officials in Washington D.C. and they were saved by American Citizens fighting back against the terrorists.

Imagine if even one teacher had been armed. One school official had been armed. Maybe the same amount would be dead. But then again, maybe not. Maybe the gunmen would have been the only dead one.

There is no perfect answer. But when given the chance to defend oneself, there is at least a chance that lives would be saved.

But what we're likely to get is politicians that will say "if there are no guns, we will prevent these things from happening." Where's your proof?

This country has serious problems. From the lack of leadership, to the lack of a moral center any longer. One thing is certain. If you think the government is going to protect you, the proof is not there.

These idiots that want to perpetrate mass murder know that the best place fo them to accomplish their desire is to go where the most people are assembled together. Schools, churches, shopping malls and even our own military installations. We need to counteract the idiots by being smart, not be becoming idiots in a different way.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Right To Work in Michigan

The Michigan Legislature passed the Right to Work Law in the State of Michigan today and Governor Rick Snyder signed it this evening. This makin Michigan the 24^th state to be a right to work state.

Michigan is the birthplace of the United Auto Workers and home of the Auto manufacturing in this country making the Right to work law an unexpected event. But it really shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Governor Snyder cautioned the Democrats and the Labor movement earlier this year not to push Proposal 2 which was to add Collective Bargaining as a right in the Michigan Constitution. He warned them it could lead to a push for Right to Work in Michigan. It’s generally thought that Snyder didn’t want to get into this battle and didn’t want to deal with this law, but his hand was forced because the Democrats went ahead with their proposal and lost.

Unions and hard core Democrats have been fighting this law for a long time. They call it the Right to Work for less. Even President Obama was in Michigan yesterday calling for the law not to be passed.

12,000 protestors showed up in Lansing today against the law. The story has led the news locally and become a national story. Many of those were quoted saying that this was all about union busting. Some said that it wasn’t fair that their union dues would go to pay others benefits and of course they have the usual ones saying that wages will drop and Michigan will become like a third world country.

There is a lot of hype, but not much in the way of accurate information. So, let’s take a look at some of this.

Right to work for less. This is one of those word games. Yes, in most of the right to work states, workers do make less than in other states. It costs a small fortune to just exist in New York. The cost of an apartments in New York can be more than owning a house in the Midwest. This is why we use the Cost of Living Index (COLI). Living, eating, sleeping in Alabama is much less expensive than the industrial states.

On the other hand, we can look at the unemployment rate. In Right to work states the unemployment rate is lower than the union states. Not quite a full percentage point, but still lower.

The auto companies are building their plants in right to work states in the south and not in Michigan, which has always been the car making capitol of the world. So what good will it do to have a union if you don’t have a work place to have a union?

It’s unfair to use my union dues to pay for others benefits: The irony in this statement is just too hard to pass up. The other big issue of the day is the “fiscal cliff”.  The President wants everyone above $250,000 income to pay more taxes because they can afford it. The argument is that they should give more to help the country. But what happens with that money that is collected? It’s given to people that won’t work. Yes, the government helps those that are down and out for various reasons, and there are many in that position now due to the governments lack of discipline in managing the nations finances. But money is also given to those that want to be lazy and don’t even try to better themselves. In non right to work states, if you don’t join in the union within a certain time frame, you don’t’ get to keep your job. This is confiscation of union dues. Even if you don’t join the union, you must pay union dues. Still confiscation of union dues. So it’s not unreasonable to consider union dues just like another tax. Where does the union dues go? A tremendous amount of it goes to the Democrat Party. Is it not unfair to apply money that one person pays to a party that they don’t want to help fund?

So I don’t feel sorry for the ones that complain that others are using their money to fund others after years of the others money going for things they wouldn’t support.

This is all about Union Busting!: There is not one word in the law about ending unions. In fact, this is an opportunity for unions to be better than they’ve ever been in history. I expect that the first thing that will happen is that many will drop out of the union as soon as they are allowed to in April of next year in Michigan. Those will be the ones that haven’t wanted to be part of a union in the first place. That’s only natural.

Another thing that will likely happen is that many union members that want to be union members will see that their co-workers that are no longer paying their union dues are still getting the same from unions as they themselves get and they too will drop from the union. Why stay in the union if you can get the same representation and not pay for it?

There will be another group that will see that their union dues is actually another bill or tax and first they’ll ask that their dues not come out of their paychecks. Then they’ll not pay the bill when it comes.

There will be those staunch union members that will always pay their union dues regardless of current events or expenses that they have. They are proud to be in the union and happy to pay.

It these unions are smart, they will act between the first event happening, which they won’t be able to stop and the second event listed which they could stop by changing their ways. I don’t believe the unions are smart. I think they will waste tremendous time and resources fighting the new law in court and not prepare for the future and the opportunities they have with the new law.

They could put together a package of perks for their members. Discount Health Cards. Maybe some competitive college scholarships for children of their members. There’s any number of things they could put together as part of being in the union.

They will also have to change their ways regarding management and discipline of employees that get into trouble. Ironically, today 13 Chrysler workers got their jobs back due to the grievance system with their union. In September of 2010 they were fired after being caught by a local news crew on tape, smoking dope and drinking while on break from their job. It was reported on the news and they were suspended then fired. They filed a grievance through the union and today (of all days) they got their jobs back after two years. An arbitrator found there wasn’t enough proof of what they were doing and ruled in their favor. Chrysler now has 13 more workers that may or may not be drunk or high while building our cars, back on the job. This type of representation has to change if these unions want membership and respect.

It will probably take a vote of the rank and file to bring in new leadership that will work towards these goals to make the unions more palatable to both worker and management.

They have an opportunity to move forward and be better than ever, or they can keep screaming about union busting and crying about workers earning less when they won’t be.

Michigan will start getting more businesses here in the near future due to the Right to Work law and that means more people will have jobs. Unions would be wise to partner up and take advantage of the additional workers and make their existence viable rather than whining and crying about being picked on by the people’s representatives in this state doing the people’s bidding.

I'm going to say one more thing in closing. Protesting. It's a right we have to protest what our leaders are doing. But, we do not have the right to destroy property of the state or other people's property nor to assault other people including the police. Tearing down the oppositions signs while carrying their own signs, is wrong. Each side should be permitted by each other to hold their signs or set up their signs without fear of vandalism. The union people did just that by tearing down the oppositions signs. 

There were arrests today when protesters attacked the police and things got violent. Peaceful protest is fine and I believe should be encouraged. But violent protests are only showing that you believe the other side has no right to their own opinions if they differ from yours. Those violent protesters did absolutely nothing to further their cause with their actions. They only showed how intolerant they are of others opinions. 

Unlike those violent Union protesters you’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Our Elections are Corrupt!

Pennyslvania law states “Pennsylvania election law states "no person within a polling place may electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body, or candidate, nor may any unauthorized written or printed materials be posted within the polling place."

Yet the above picture shows a mural of Obama on a wall in a school where people are expected to go vote.

In addition, 70 Republican election officials were denied access to polling places in Philadelphia where elections take place.

Remember the black panthers standing outside of polling places in Philadelphia in 2008, intimidating those that showed up to vote? Well, that too is happening again.

These are all violations of election laws in this country.

The election laws in this country have been ignored and expanded on to accommodate those that can’t take the responsibility of exercising their privilege to vote and violating the privileges of those voters that do vote legally and responsibly.

In fifteen wards in Philadelphia court appointed Republican election officials have been removed from polling places that they were required to show up for. One of those, a woman was physically pushed out.

Apparently, the Democrats in Philadelphia have no confidence in Obama getting re-elected so they aren’t going to allow voters that look like they are going to vote for Romney to vote.

In several areas, people have used the electronic voting machines and when they voted for Romney, the machine automatically changed it to Obama. In one case it went the other way and an Obama vote was changed to Romney.

My solution. Eliminate electronic voting. Eliminate punch cards (no more chads). Print up ballots and put empty boxes next to each person and each item to be voted on. Purge the rolls of all voters and have everyone that wants to, get a voter registration card. If they don’t do it 30 days before the election, they are not eligible to vote in that election. When they show up to vote, they must prove who they are. Picture ID with a copy of a phone bill or utility bill that was sent to you in the past thirty days. Hand them their ballot and an ink pen. Have them go to a table and put an X in the box next to the person and the item they want to choose.

When they are done, they put their ballot into a box, return the pen and leave. At the end of the day when the polls close, the election workers then start counting the ballots by hand to figure out who won the election in their precinct.

Is this a sexy way to vote and count the votes? No. Is this technologically advanced? No. Is it accurate? Yes. The only way that it can screw up is if the person counting the ballots can’t count by ones. The only other thing that can be wrong is that the person doing the counting lies about their own count.

No advertising outside within 100 yards of the polling station. No advertising within the polling station. All references to any candidate or issue is to be removed or completely covered up and hidden from view. No campaign workers or advocates for any  candidate or issue position to be allowed within 100 yards of the polling station.

This may not  be an ideal way for people, but the current way is failing miserably. If it’s not broke, it doesn’t need to be fixed. This system is broke and needs to be fixed and the most accurate way is for people to actually have to count each ballot.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help You

Have we learned nothing from history? Seven years ago, Hurricane Katrina embarrassed the President of the United States, George Bush.  It embarrassed Governor Blanco of Louisiana. It embarrassed Mayor Nagin of New Orleans. How long did it take FEMA to get water to the Superdome? 5 days?

Now we get Hurricane Sandy hitting the northeast. New Jersey, New York and Connecticut are hit the worst. Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania were also hit, although not as hard. Here in Michigan, we had some power outages, but by the time Sandy got here it was just a big wind with a little rain.

They are still pulling bodies out of houses. The power is trickling on. People are shooting at each other. Gas lines are hours long.

President Obama showed up after the Hurricane was over and landed and flew in a helicopter over New Jersey. That sounds familiar. Bush showed up with a flyover a day after. However a few days later, he was on the ground in the Southeast, which was not only Louisiana, but Alabama and Mississippi as well.

New York had an answer to the hurricane. Mayor Bloomberg decided that the people needed to “feel” better, so he decided the New York Marathon would go on as planned. People that were stranded from leaving by the Hurricane, were forced out of those hotel rooms to make room for the runners of the Marathon. People who’s homes were destroyed and were lucky enough to get a hotel room, were told to leave to make room for the runners.

The people of New York were angry and criticizing the Mayor. People around the country were angry about the Marathon going on in the midst of the devastation with so many people that were left without food and shelter.

Mayor Bloomberg then decided to cancel the Marathon. This reminded me of the Democrats Convention two months ago when they left out God and the capitol of Israel out of their platform, then changed their mind when the criticism began. Apparently, the people of New York didn’t “feel” better after all.

Obama was asked about the people’s anger about their treatment and like Benghazi, he ignores the questions and gives no answer. It really makes me wonder how the Democrats can count on New Yorkers going to the Democrats in the coming election.

Volunteers came from Alabama came to help the people of New Jersey and New York. They were turned away by Union members because the Alabamans weren’t Union workers. I don’t remember Alabaman’s refusing New York’s help when they needed it following Katrina because the helpers were Union workers. The red cross is passing out cookies and hot chocolate to some, but what’s needed are coats and blankets.

Michelle Obama has pushed for more healthy menus at the schools across the country. Kids are wasting that food. They don’t like it, don’t want it and don’t get enough to eat now. But they can’t food to the northeast?

Yet, the Democrats are claiming that the Republicans are politicizing the hurricane.

If things don’t improve drastically really soon, the problems are going to get worse in the Northeast because the weather people are predicting a nor’easter this next week.

If people can’t get coats and blankets, let alone shelter, what happens if they get freezing rain and snow this week while out in the elements?

Here’s a little bit of irony for you. The Roe v Wade decision was in 1973. Since then we’ve had five Republican Presidents and three Democrat Presidents. In each election the Republicans are called out on whether they will overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s never happened in 23 years of Republican Presidents since then, and certainly not in the 16 years of Democrat Presidents. Yet, gun control, while not as prevalent any longer has been an important issue in the past and is still mentioned, although not much, in each election.  

The people of the Northeast, a Democrat stronghold, are now arming themselves, with guns if they have them, some with bows and arrows, and others with baseball bats to protect themselves. I wonder if they are now more worried about gun control or abortion.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Buck Stops........Where?

Do you remember April 19, 1993? That was the day that the federal government served the warrant on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas and ended up killing over 100 men, women and children citizens of the United States.

In the following days, Janet Reno took responsibility for ordering the raid which ended up with an out of control fire and many deaths. President Clinton originally said he knew of attack plans, but didn’t plan them, then “supported” Reno’s decision, and finally took responsibility for making the decision.

Now we have Benghazi and the attack on the consulate resulting in the death of our Ambassador, two seals and a security agent. President Obama and the White House spent the past couple of weeks blaming a video, then spent a couple of days with the White House saying it was terrorism, and Obama still blaming the video, and at the debate of Vice Presidential candidates Biden said that he and Obama didn’t know that more security had been requested.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State stood up and said that the buck stops with her. That it was her department that was responsible for the lack of increased security.

Will the White House let Hillary Clinton take the responsibility or will they be looked at as allowing a woman to take the blame for him, which might put him in a bad light, then turn around and say it was his responsibility? It will be interesting to see. If he does take responsibility (after all, isn’t anything that happens in his administration ultimately his responsibility) which would in effect undermine both his Vice President and his Secretary of State, won’t it make him look even weaker and out of control?

We may find out at the debate tonight.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Terrorism is Alive and Well Again

President Bill Clinton and Terrorism 

During the Bill Clinton years from 1993-2001, there were numerous terrorist attacks against this country. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, the USS Cole. These are just the well publicized ones like the Khobar Towers. I’d even include the TWA 800 flight that exploded just after take off as a terrorist attack, but that’s another topic for another time…maybe.

The World Trade Center attack took place just over a month after he took office. So a case could be made that having such a large event take place so soon after taking office could make him slow to react and improperly. However, I don’t believe it should. We have a transition take place from one President to the next when the election is over that begins virtually the next day and runs beyond the new President taking office. Presidents also have former Presidents to turn to for assistance or questions, privately or publically if needed. Clinton made the WTC attack a criminal matter rather than an act of war.

Americans died here and around the world during his eight years in office and other than prosecuting a few in the criminal courts, there was only one thing that Bill Clinton ever did as President. He threw a bomb into Afghanistan to try to kill bin laden at a training camp. He missed. Bin Laden was gone already. He also tossed a bomb at pharmaceutical company where a janitor was killed at the same time as the training camp bombing.

So President Bill Clinton did virtually nothing during his 8 years in office about terrorism. By contrast, George Bush took office in January 2001. The first days were filled with replacing computer keyboards that the outgoing staff had destroyed by taking out the W’s from the keyboards, and left the White House looking trashed.

President George W. Bush and Terrorism

Less than 8 months after taking office, this country suffered it’s worst attack on our own soil with the bombing of the World Trade Center where four commercial airliners were flown into, as well as into the Pentagon and the other failed to reach it’s target because of brave citizens that took the plane back from terrorists and crashed it in a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 dead from these three places on the same day.

President Bush responded quickly and forcefully. Less than 30 days after the September 11, 2001 attack, on October 7, 2001, we started the aerial attack on Afghanistan. There were no attacks following that. There were attempts, but a combination of new policies and safety measures by the Bush administration and citizens more aware and willing risk their lives to thwart them stopped those attacks before they could succeed.

President Barack Obama and Terrorism

Now we have President Barack Hussein Obama. First terrorist attack was in June in Arkansas. One marine dead, one wounded. One terrorist is charged for a crime.

Another attack at Ft. Hood. 33 people dead or wounded. This one by a military officer that is Muslim and shouted Alihu akbar as he fired. He’s still awaiting trial.

Now we have September 11, 2012. Our embassy has been attacked. Our Ambassador has been killed along with three others. The day after the attack, President Obama said that acts of terror will not be tolerated but never said that this was a terrorist attack.

For the next ten days, the attack was chalked up to being a group of protestors and not an organized attack. The protestors were upset about a video put out in the United States. Susan Rice, the ambassador to the UN appeared on the talk shows saying it was due to a video while on some of the same programs, leaders in Libya, where the attack took place, were saying it was organized although they didn’t know for certain by whom, they suspected Al Queda.

Now it’s over a month later and we know it was organized and implemented by Al Queda operatives. We also know that there was a warning prior to the attack and we also know that the embassy had requested more security before the attack. Still, nothing has been done. It’s October 13, and nothing has been done.

In the debate recently between Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan, Biden said “we didn’t know “ that they wanted more security. This brings up another question. The State Department knew. That’s part of the administration headed up by Hillary Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton. But Biden says that neither he nor President Obama knew of the request for more security. Why didn’t they know? Wouldn’t that have been in the briefings? Doesn’t the State Department report to the White House?

The White House has blamed a video. Blamed the lack of knowledge and even tried to blame Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. But, still, nothing has been done. Do they have a plan or is this just complete incompetence on the part of Obama?

We are in the midst of an election. Obama is falling in the polls and it’s looking more and more like Romney/Ryan could win this election. So what might happen? The administration has already been accused of cooking the books on the economy by bringing the unemployment rate down to 7.8% just in time for the election.

What could they do about this terrorist attack? Could they fire Hillary Clinton saying that her ambitions sabotaged the administration by not telling them of the additional security desired? Or, could they all of a sudden figure out where a large al queda camp is, send the bombers in and claim that they’ve killed or captured those responsible for the attack on the embassy?

We know that Clinton did next to nothing and treated terrorism as a criminal activity and attacks continued. We know that Bush fought back less than a month following the attack on 9/11/01, and there were no more attacks for eight years, and we know that Obama has treated terrorism as a criminal activity. Will his response be election driven or continued to be treated like a criminal activity? 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Michigan Proposals

The following is about the Proposals on the Michigan ballot. I don’t know if other states have similar proposals or not. So, if you’re not in Michigan, this may not interest you.

There are six proposals on the ballot in Michigan this year. I’m putting them below and my own comments following each one. I am only commenting on these based on my reading of them and what advantages or pitfalls may be in them. While it may show that I’m for or against each of these proposals, I’m very open to opinions and ideas or even explanations of others. So please, if you have something to say about them, I’m interested in your opinions in the hopes that if I’ve missed something, someone will point it out.

PROPOSAL 12-1
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

·        Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

·        Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

·        Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

·        Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this law be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I’m inclined to choose no on this one at this time. Governments around the country are going broke, much like the federal government. Bullet point one I can agree with. I believe that if local governments are going to receive state or federal money that there is nothing wrong with establishing a pathway to find if the money is being used in a sound manner.

Bullet point two is mixed in my mind. I don’t mind if the Governor appoints an emergency manager when there is a financial emergency in a community. However, the second point creates a problem. It allows the EM to act “in place” of local government officials. The local government was elected by the people in that community. They are  responsible for running the government of the city. They are chosen by those that elected them in that election to do a good job or a poor job or somewhere in the middle. The state and federal government can cease giving money to the city if they feel the money isn’t being used properly, but the elected officials are the ones to ultimately be held responsible.

If it said that an EM was needed and it was publicized that the community had to have one and that the results of the EM as well as any recommendations that they may have are publicized, I think this would be a much better law to add to the books. If that was to happen, the elected officials would then be held responsible, and in their next election, they’d be running against not only their opponent, but also the report of the EM regarding the city that they are responsible for.

Due to that second part of bullet point two, I am voting against this proposal. Remember, this is an amendment to the Constitution. If you’re going to amend the Constitution, you should be required to do it right without taking away peoples rights and responsibilities.

PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

·        Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

·        Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

·        Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

·        Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I will definitely be voting no on this one. People can organize now and create a union if they so choose. I don’t like the idea of government employees having a union because they are supposed to be working for the people and not hold their neighbors hostage to get their benefits paid for while the taxpayer foots the bill.

I believe that if this law is passed, it will drive businesses out of the state because businesses will not like being forced into a union and having their businesses dictated to by union officials who’s only tie to the business is that they collect union dues from the employees of that particular business.

Is changing the Constitution to favor unions doing anything for the people or just for the union people? People already have the ability to create a union and work with their employers on creating one. Making it a part of the Constitution just seems to be overkill on the part of the unions. Remember, it says an employer is defined as one employee or more. A lot of individuals with their own business that have no other employees besides themselves will still be required to be in a union.

This one is a definite no for me.

PROPOSAL 12-3
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

·        Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

·        Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

·        Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

·        Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I’m voting no on this one. Wind, solar, biomass and hydropower has not been proven to be enough to power what’s needed. The amendment even recognizes this by saying they don’t have to reach the 25% level until the year 2025. If they can get 25% of their energy from those sources earlier, on time, or later, if it’s beneficial,  and cost effective,  the energy companies could then choose to go to the 25% or even higher if feasible. This is something that can’t be achieved right now, so why the need for an amendment right now?

Next it wants to limit rate increases to 1%, but in the next bullet point it gives an out for the 1% increase to be increased even more.

Finally, why require Michigan  made equipment and Michigan residents the jobs? If they require only Michigan made equipment, it takes the market away. Suppose an Iowa company makes a machine just as good or better for the same or lower price than the Michigan Company. This law would require the more expensive just because it’s made in Michigan. What incentive does it give a Michigan company to compete for the business if their product MUST be used?

This is a definite no.

PROPOSAL 12-4
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

·        Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

·        Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

·        Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

·        Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments:  In-home care workers covers a couple of categories. Not only is it the definition of someone in their home opening a business to take care of senior citizens and disabled people, but it also can include child care providers, and babysitters. The MQHCC is the Union known as SEIU.

A person wants to start a business. The business they choose is to take care of the elderly or the disabled. They may be in their home or they may be in the patients home.

Obviously they are licensed to carry on this work. They are usually self employed or working for someone that has been successful and needs help because they have too many patients for one person, so they hire another or more to satisfy the needs of their patients.

This amendment would force them to join the union and specifically the MQHCC aka SEIU. It would also force patients to use the financial services to manage the cost of their in-home care. This seems to be a conflict of interest. In addition, forcing someone opening a business out of their home or in the homes of their patients to join a union is not what we should be doing. If the business owner wants to join the union, great. But forcing them too and then requiring financial services for the patients by the union and keeping a registry of the patients smacks of big brother. These are things the business owner should be doing. Finding someone to provide financial service, if needed, would be a perk for a business owner to provide, and keeping track of their patients on their own, is the business owners responsibility.

Requiring that these elderly, disabled and parents pay certain minimums for the care they are getting is another intrusion by the union. These are things that should be worked out by the business owner and their clients or patients.

I have to add a little disclosure here. I’m in the financial services field. So if you want to perceive a bias from that regarding any mention of financial services, that’s your choice. You should be looking at the proposals yourself to decide what’s right and wrong with a particular proposal. I’d urge you to try to see the other requirements if you think I’m using a bias when it comes to the financial services.

Offering a union to employees is one thing, but forcing a union on them is something removing a freedom. Removing freedoms should not be in the Constitution. That statement could even be used with some of the other proposals.

This proposal is a no.

PROPOSAL 12-5
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and State Senate, or a statewide vot of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in now way be construed to limit or modity tax limtations otherwise created in this Consitution.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

 Comments: With the recession we’ve recently gone through we are now seeing what our legislators do. They spend tremendous amounts of money. When the governments get additional revenue, remember, records were set on the amount of revenue the government received following the two most recent tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they not only spend what they were spending but they spend the additional as well and even spend more than what they have to spend. Then when times get tough, they want to raise the taxes of the people to make up for the excessive spending that the government has done.

If this amendment is passed, the legislature will now have restrictions on what they can collect from us to cover their irresponsible spending. This isn’t taking away their ability to tax, it’s just ensuring that a super majority of the people and Congress agree that more taxes are needed. This does not remove freedoms from the people. To the contrary, it actually makes them more involved in their own freedom.

PROPOSAL 12-1
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

·        Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

·        Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: Make no mistake about this proposal. While it applies to ANY bridge built in the future between the United States and Canada, it was started by the controversy over the construction of the bridge to replace the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit.

This debate about the bridge in Detroit has been going on for years. In the recent past, there have been questions about Canada paying $100 million that the US will not have to pay for this bridge. However, it came out recently that the US will have to pay at least a portion, if not all of the $100 million.

Remember the bridge to nowhere from the 2008 presidential campaign? Money spent to build a bridge where it wasn’t needed. It was a pet project of Congress to get money for certain areas. Most notably in that case was for Alaska.

Whether you are for the bridge in Detroit or against it, one thing is very clear. Congress, the legislatures can and have passed bills (wasted money) on things that weren’t necessary. Sometimes they actually do spend money wisely for things that are needed, but sometimes they don’t.

This amendment if passed would give the people say about whether a bridge should be built. If they pass it and it’s a bad deal, the people have chosen. If they pass it and it turns out to be a good deal the people have passed it. It’s not the legislature or Congress that is just spending money without concern for need. The people in the area where the bridge is to be built, will decide. How can that be a bad thing?

You’re welcome, and asked, for comments.

Brett

The Michigan Proposals

The following is about the Proposals on the Michigan ballot. I don’t know if other states have similar proposals or not. So, if you’re not in Michigan, this may not interest you.

There are six proposals on the ballot in Michigan this year. I’m putting them below and my own comments following each one. I am only commenting on these based on my reading of them and what advantages or pitfalls may be in them. While it may show that I’m for or against each of these proposals, I’m very open to opinions and ideas or even explanations of others. So please, if you have something to say about them, I’m interested in your opinions in the hopes that if I’ve missed something, someone will point it out.

PROPOSAL 12-1
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

·        Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

·        Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

·        Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

·        Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this law be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I’m inclined to choose no on this one at this time. Governments around the country are going broke, much like the federal government. Bullet point one I can agree with. I believe that if local governments are going to receive state or federal money that there is nothing wrong with establishing a pathway to find if the money is being used in a sound manner.

Bullet point two is mixed in my mind. I don’t mind if the Governor appoints an emergency manager when there is a financial emergency in a community. However, the second point creates a problem. It allows the EM to act “in place” of local government officials. The local government was elected by the people in that community. They are  responsible for running the government of the city. They are chosen by those that elected them in that election to do a good job or a poor job or somewhere in the middle. The state and federal government can cease giving money to the city if they feel the money isn’t being used properly, but the elected officials are the ones to ultimately be held responsible.

If it said that an EM was needed and it was publicized that the community had to have one and that the results of the EM as well as any recommendations that they may have are publicized, I think this would be a much better law to add to the books. If that was to happen, the elected officials would then be held responsible, and in their next election, they’d be running against not only their opponent, but also the report of the EM regarding the city that they are responsible for.

Due to that second part of bullet point two, I am voting against this proposal. Remember, this is an amendment to the Constitution. If you’re going to amend the Constitution, you should be required to do it right without taking away peoples rights and responsibilities.

PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

·        Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

·        Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

·        Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

·        Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I will definitely be voting no on this one. People can organize now and create a union if they so choose. I don’t like the idea of government employees having a union because they are supposed to be working for the people and not hold their neighbors hostage to get their benefits paid for while the taxpayer foots the bill.

I believe that if this law is passed, it will drive businesses out of the state because businesses will not like being forced into a union and having their businesses dictated to by union officials who’s only tie to the business is that they collect union dues from the employees of that particular business.

Is changing the Constitution to favor unions doing anything for the people or just for the union people? People already have the ability to create a union and work with their employers on creating one. Making it a part of the Constitution just seems to be overkill on the part of the unions. Remember, it says an employer is defined as one employee or more. A lot of individuals with their own business that have no other employees besides themselves will still be required to be in a union.

This one is a definite no for me.

PROPOSAL 12-3
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

·        Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

·        Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

·        Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

·        Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: I’m voting no on this one. Wind, solar, biomass and hydropower has not been proven to be enough to power what’s needed. The amendment even recognizes this by saying they don’t have to reach the 25% level until the year 2025. If they can get 25% of their energy from those sources earlier, on time, or later, if it’s beneficial,  and cost effective,  the energy companies could then choose to go to the 25% or even higher if feasible. This is something that can’t be achieved right now, so why the need for an amendment right now?

Next it wants to limit rate increases to 1%, but in the next bullet point it gives an out for the 1% increase to be increased even more.

Finally, why require Michigan  made equipment and Michigan residents the jobs? If they require only Michigan made equipment, it takes the market away. Suppose an Iowa company makes a machine just as good or better for the same or lower price than the Michigan Company. This law would require the more expensive just because it’s made in Michigan. What incentive does it give a Michigan company to compete for the business if their product MUST be used?

This is a definite no.

PROPOSAL 12-4
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

·        Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

·        Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

·        Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

·        Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments:  In-home care workers covers a couple of categories. Not only is it the definition of someone in their home opening a business to take care of senior citizens and disabled people, but it also can include child care providers, and babysitters. The MQHCC is the Union known as SEIU.

A person wants to start a business. The business they choose is to take care of the elderly or the disabled. They may be in their home or they may be in the patients home.

Obviously they are licensed to carry on this work. They are usually self employed or working for someone that has been successful and needs help because they have too many patients for one person, so they hire another or more to satisfy the needs of their patients.

This amendment would force them to join the union and specifically the MQHCC aka SEIU. It would also force patients to use the financial services to manage the cost of their in-home care. This seems to be a conflict of interest. In addition, forcing someone opening a business out of their home or in the homes of their patients to join a union is not what we should be doing. If the business owner wants to join the union, great. But forcing them too and then requiring financial services for the patients by the union and keeping a registry of the patients smacks of big brother. These are things the business owner should be doing. Finding someone to provide financial service, if needed, would be a perk for a business owner to provide, and keeping track of their patients on their own, is the business owners responsibility.

Requiring that these elderly, disabled and parents pay certain minimums for the care they are getting is another intrusion by the union. These are things that should be worked out by the business owner and their clients or patients.

I have to add a little disclosure here. I’m in the financial services field. So if you want to perceive a bias from that regarding any mention of financial services, that’s your choice. You should be looking at the proposals yourself to decide what’s right and wrong with a particular proposal. I’d urge you to try to see the other requirements if you think I’m using a bias when it comes to the financial services.

Offering a union to employees is one thing, but forcing a union on them is something removing a freedom. Removing freedoms should not be in the Constitution. That statement could even be used with some of the other proposals.

This proposal is a no.

PROPOSAL 12-5
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and State Senate, or a statewide vot of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in now way be construed to limit or modity tax limtations otherwise created in this Consitution.

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

 Comments: With the recession we’ve recently gone through we are now seeing what our legislators do. They spend tremendous amounts of money. When the governments get additional revenue, remember, records were set on the amount of revenue the government received following the two most recent tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, they not only spend what they were spending but they spend the additional as well and even spend more than what they have to spend. Then when times get tough, they want to raise the taxes of the people to make up for the excessive spending that the government has done.

If this amendment is passed, the legislature will now have restrictions on what they can collect from us to cover their irresponsible spending. This isn’t taking away their ability to tax, it’s just ensuring that a super majority of the people and Congress agree that more taxes are needed. This does not remove freedoms from the people. To the contrary, it actually makes them more involved in their own freedom.

PROPOSAL 12-1
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

·        Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

·        Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."

Should this proposal be approved?
YES __
NO ____

Comments: Make no mistake about this proposal. While it applies to ANY bridge built in the future between the United States and Canada, it was started by the controversy over the construction of the bridge to replace the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit.

This debate about the bridge in Detroit has been going on for years. In the recent past, there have been questions about Canada paying $100 million that the US will not have to pay for this bridge. However, it came out recently that the US will have to pay at least a portion, if not all of the $100 million.

Remember the bridge to nowhere from the 2008 presidential campaign? Money spent to build a bridge where it wasn’t needed. It was a pet project of Congress to get money for certain areas. Most notably in that case was for Alaska.

Whether you are for the bridge in Detroit or against it, one thing is very clear. Congress, the legislatures can and have passed bills (wasted money) on things that weren’t necessary. Sometimes they actually do spend money wisely for things that are needed, but sometimes they don’t.

This amendment if passed would give the people say about whether a bridge should be built. If they pass it and it’s a bad deal, the people have chosen. If they pass it and it turns out to be a good deal the people have passed it. It’s not the legislature or Congress that is just spending money without concern for need. The people in the area where the bridge is to be built, will decide. How can that be a bad thing?

You’re welcome, and asked, for comments.

Brett