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

The Answer is: Obama is THAT bad!

The first Presidential Debate took place last Wednesday. Leading up the debate the question most often asked in the media was ‘does Romney need to have a knockout punch to have a chance to compete with Obama for this years election?’

The pundits got so bad that they started comparing previous campaigns and that only three challengers had ever won the first debate and then gone on to win the election. But everything was on Romney to do excellent, but even if he did, Obama probably wouldn’t be beaten.

It’s now five days later. Romney didn’t just beat Obama, he annihilated him in the debate. But the Obama group has made excuses. First, they didn’t say that Romney had won. Then as it became apparent that the rest of the nation (with the possible exception of Geraldo Rivera who was surprised that everyone said it was one-sided for Romney where he thought Romney barely beat Obama) knew that Obama looked incompetent during the debate, they started blaming people. First, Romney lied on everything he said; then they tried to float the idea that he’d cheated by bringing illegal notes to the debate; then Obama hasn’t debated in four years; then, in Al Gores case, it was the altitude in Denver; and today they are blaming Senator John Kerry who was the Romney stand in for Obama’s debate practices, saying that he wasn’t as aggressive as Romney turned out to be.

Not one politician. Not one pundit. Not one commentator, has said that the reason might possibly be that this country is in trouble and that Obama’s policies the past four years have failed.

Here’s a quick review:

1.     Obama and the Democrats along with just three Republicans (one of which was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who subsequently changed to the Democrat Party) passed the stimulus package one month after Obama took office.

A.    The stimulus sent money to Obama donors like Solyndra (bankruptcy).

B.    It also sent money oversees (how does that stimulate our economy).

C.    They said unemployment wouldn’t reach 8%. It hit 10.2% before starting to drop and it stayed above 8% for over 43 months.

D.    The deficit has surpassed $1 Trillion per year.

E.    The debt has gone to $16 Trillion in the past three years from the $7 Trillion when he took office.

2.     Cash for Clunkers: This cost the American Taxpayer $24,000 per car.

3.     Takeover of the Health Care Sytem, which was the best in the world. 70% of the people in this country still don’t want that plan. Not one Republican voted for it and due to Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, the Democrats had to pass it under special rules and games or it would have failed.

4.     Terrorist attack in Arkansas. One serviceman dead, another wounded.

5.     Terrorist attack at Ft. Hood. Now being called work place violence rather than a terrorist attack.

6.     Border patrol agent shot and killed by guns supplied to drug cartels by the US government under a program called Fast and Furious.

7.     A terrorist attack in Libya blamed on a video that nobody had seen and now known that it wasn’t just an uprising but it was a planned attack that the administration knew of before it happened and refused to give protection. The Ambassador was killed. An Act of War.

We’ll probably never hear from the press that the reason that Obama lost the debate was because there is no way to defend his incompetence of the past three plus years, but it sure seems to me that that’s the reason for the one sidedness of the debate.

Romney was not my first pick to be the Republican nominee. In fact, he wasn’t even my fifth pick. I don’t like him. But it could have been anyone up  there against Obama and they’d have won because Obama’s record is one of incompetence. Just about every decision he’s made has been wrong. Now they are wrong in blaming everyone but where the true blame lies with Obama’s loss in the debate. Obama lost it because he’s been wrong about nearly everything he’s done and said for the past four years. How do you defend that record in a debate? Romney didn’t have to be good. Obama is that bad.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett