DRSmith Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 So I am wondering why little is being said over what is happening in Michigan with the governor being able to appoint people of his choosing and getting rid of elected officials. Under Public Act 4 Emergency Managers have sweeping, almost dictatorial power to modify contracts, fire officials, and disregard public input. So who is Robert Bobb? It turns out, he’s a recent graduate of the Broad Foundation’s Superintendent Academy. The Broad Foundation, along with the Kellogg Foundation, pays Bobb $145,000 a year on top of his $280,000 government salary. For those of you not familiar with Broad, it is one of the leading foundations promoting school choice and privatization across the country. One might almost think that paying a public official hundreds of thousands of dollars a year might amount to nothing short of bribery, especially given the very specific agenda of a foundation like the Broad Foundation. Perhaps lost in the Wisconsin shuffle is the story of what exactly is happening in Michigan. Newly elected Republican governor, Rick Snyder, is set to pass one of the most sweeping, anti-democratic pieces of legislation in the country – and almost no one is talking about it. Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that. Except it does. The governor simply has to declare a financial emergency to invoke these powers – or he can hire a private company to declare financial emergency and take over oversight of the city. That’s right, a private corporation can declare your city in a state of financial emergency and send in its Emergency Manager, fire your elected officials, and reap the benefits of the ensuing state contracts. http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/03/15/michigan-governor-to-cut-taxes-for-corporations-while-cutting-services-for-the-poor-and-middle-class/ And on top of all that the lower your income bracket the higher the tax rate you get to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Wow...Michigan is turning into a third world nation before our eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Heh. If you want a good look at liberal media bias, check out the above links. Rick isn't doing anything beyond his office, and he's attempting to fix the mess that's been left after so many years of liberalism has destroyed the state. Hard cuts have to be made by someone with authority to make them. This bill is well within the scope of the governor's authority, and it's incredibly necessary. Pretending that the local governments are capable of fixing themselves would require totally ignoring the past 30 years of blue incompetence. The reason Michigan, specifically Detroit and Flint, have been so hard-hit is very easy to see. The public sector and unions have advanced their own interests with complete disregard for industry. You can't be in charge for so long, ruin one of America's most successful cities, and then weep and gnash your teeth when the Piper comes 'round the bend. Yes, things are changing. A lot. I don't expect libs to be happy about it. It's pretty much the opposite of what they want. But if Detroit is to have a chance in heck, we've got to get every township financially straight. Your friendly Detroit taxpayer (that got *crushed* with state tax) with multiple state and federal financial licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Heh. If you want a good look at liberal media bias, check out the above links. Rick isn't doing anything beyond his office, and he's attempting to fix the mess that's been left after so many years of liberalism has destroyed the state. Hard cuts have to be made by someone with authority to make them. This bill is well within the scope of the governor's authority, and it's incredibly necessary. Pretending that the local governments are capable of fixing themselves would require totally ignoring the past 30 years of blue incompetence. The reason Michigan, specifically Detroit and Flint, have been so hard-hit is very easy to see. The public sector and unions have advanced their own interests with complete disregard for industry. You can't be in charge for so long, ruin one of America's most successful cities, and then weep and gnash your teeth when the Piper comes 'round the bend. Yes, things are changing. A lot. I don't expect libs to be happy about it. It's pretty much the opposite of what they want. But if Detroit is to have a chance in heck, we've got to get every township financially straight. Your friendly Detroit taxpayer (that got *crushed* with state tax) with multiple state and federal financial licenses. Your entire post appears to amount to a complaint that local governments have ruined Michigan's economy. I find it tough to swallow that claim. Nonetheless, even if you assume that claim is accurate, it seems just a tad bit unreasonable to permit the governor to dissolve local governments and boot democratically elected officials from office. Are you actually claiming that's a reasonable measure? How would people feel if a liberal governor dissolved local governments controlled by Republicans and installed a bunch of flaming gay, Muslim, black guys to run the show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 No. I didn't make that claim, so you dont' have to swallow it. I'm blaming the public sector and unions. The local governments are currently almost all in the red due to overspending. To fix that problem, we've got to do what any responsible family does when the bills exceed their income: cut out the unneeded parts, even the ones that are nice to have. Union costs to industry are one major reason that the Michigan economy started suffering earlier and worse than other areas. Also, you should read the bill. It doesn't allow Snyder (to quote the OP) to, "dissolve entire local governments." The local governments simply have to adhere to the emergency manager's budget. Failure to do so results in a failure to do their duty, of which one result is loss of office (in the same sense that failing to do your job as an IRS agent would get you fired). Local governments are subordinate to state governments, and that's all there is to the issue. As to your last bit...really? C'mon, you can do better than playing the ad hominem card. Liberal governors had *lots* of chances to fix things in Michigan. And don't forget that we have lots of gay, Muslim, and black office holders. We voted in a fiscal conservative, with many lifelong Democrats voting for him, simply because he was the most qualified person for the job. The fact that he's doing the job he was elected for is making some people upset, and that's ok. If he were not upsetting the same people who were fine with Granholm, it would be an indication that something was very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 There is another thread on this ...... You ignore the city has to be insolvent and in effect bankrupt If local officials cannot do the job,someone has to.....by law http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(urthgwbh3ren0zaecyu03n45))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Act-4-of-2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Union costs to industry are one major reason that the Michigan economy started suffering earlier and worse than other areas. How does have anything to do with cutting government union costs? Unless, of course, you are saying that public union employees need to suffer because private companies screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 How does have anything to do with cutting government union costs?Unless, of course, you are saying that public union employees need to suffer because private companies screwed up. No direct correlation -- My mention of that was where I was addressing two of the reasons (of which one is union costs to industry) that Michigan is such a mess right now. This bill addresses part of the other problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Funny how people want to blame unions only and ignore corporate mismanagment for the state of the economy. Interesting how the people who want smaller government are all for bigger centeralized government when it is their party. I remember how people complain about the phrase never let a crisis go to waste and here we see the Republicans deciding hey your city is in crisis, we are removing power from elected officials and laying off all teachers and now watch a voucher system come to help make the charter schools more money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Why do you ignore that the city,school district ect MUST be in receivership before this action is taken??? You expect the state to simply give them money to waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Why do you ignore that the city,school district ect MUST be in receivership before this action is taken???You expect the state to simply give them money to waste? No previously the emergency managers were to work with all parties now they can break contracts and do not have to work with local elected officials I guess the Feds should do this to the states, I wonder how it would be if Obama decideds to fire Rick Perry and the house of Reps in Texas and put his people in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 1: Only? Did I do that? *Looks* Nope. I know you know it's not as cut and dried as that -- but I also know that you know the cost of unions to industry. 2. Smaller government is exactly what this bill results in. It forces local governments to be efficient. 3. Using a crisis to advance a broken idea of "social justice" is quite different from, "We're broke and your overspending is one of the reasons. Our last few decades really haven't worked out well, and you're gonna have to either become solvent or go away." Failure has consequences. No sane argument can be made that where Detroit and Flint are at right now is good, and no sane argument can be made that it's conservatives who put them there. Fixing this is going to be hurtful to socially-minded folks, and there's no anesthesia. When this happens in the corporate world (ok, my bad -- in the business world outside of the 'too big to fail' realm), it's seen as just desserts. Great employees are hurt by businesses being run badly and folding. Teachers, as amazing as they are and as much respect as I have for them, are paying the price for the last decades of government mismanagement. I feel that any anger should be aimed at the people and ideology that created the mess, not those who are forced to eliminate positions due to economic realities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Why work with those that have already failed?....or continue contracts you cannot pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Good so if the Feds do this to states I will remember this tread. Oh an social justice bad, helping the rich get ticher by using public funds is good gotcha. It is interesting watch the so called tea party folks actually becoming Benedict Arnolds coming to the defense of the government becoming more centralized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Good so if the Feds do this to states I will remember this tread.Oh an social justice bad, helping the rich get ticher by using public funds is good gotcha. It is interesting watch the so called tea party folks actually becoming Benedict Arnolds coming to the defense of the government becoming more centralized. the feds already do so with directed spending,hell even the cali prison system was put in receivership by federal order social justice my ass,the state is having to provide the needs ....you should be thrilled Buncha dimwitted Dems running the place in the ground then whining over who controls the help:beatdeadhorse: provided btw I ain't a Tea Partier,nor a fan of bailouts:ols: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Do you guys know what killed Detroit, Flint, etc.? Globalization (which, as painful as it is for some, is inevitable). But blame city councilmen and unions if you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Do you guys know what killed Detroit, Flint, etc.? Globalization (which, as painful as it is for some, is inevitable). But blame city councilmen and unions if you prefer. Failing to adapt to globalization killed them,and yes I consider the councilmen and unions a large part of that failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 The very idea that a supply side republican can now simply sweep away any elected official in the state that gets in the way of what he wants is shocking. How long before we hear about poor neighborhoods getting targeted in which corporations want to build things the council doesn't support? Bet it's soon. Heh. If you want a good look at liberal media bias, check out the above links. Rick isn't doing anything beyond his office, and he's attempting to fix the mess that's been left after so many years of liberalism has destroyed the state. Hard cuts have to be made by someone with authority to make them. This bill is well within the scope of the governor's authority, and it's incredibly necessary. Pretending that the local governments are capable of fixing themselves would require totally ignoring the past 30 years of blue incompetence. The reason Michigan, specifically Detroit and Flint, have been so hard-hit is very easy to see. The public sector and unions have advanced their own interests with complete disregard for industry. You can't be in charge for so long, ruin one of America's most successful cities, and then weep and gnash your teeth when the Piper comes 'round the bend. Yes, things are changing. A lot. I don't expect libs to be happy about it. It's pretty much the opposite of what they want. But if Detroit is to have a chance in heck, we've got to get every township financially straight. Your friendly Detroit taxpayer (that got *crushed* with state tax) with multiple state and federal financial licenses. So THIS is what conservatives meant by SMALL GOVERNMENT. They meant LESS PEOPLE with MORE POWER. Thanks DTDrums! ---------- Post added April-21st-2011 at 02:12 AM ---------- Failing to adapt to globalization killed them,and yes I consider the councilmen and unions a large part of that failure. So the solution is to concentrate power? Great plan if you really trust government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Des, I really respect you, so I'm not sure where to go here. The state government's relationship to local governments is completely different than the federal gov's relationship to the states, and I think you realize that. I also think you realize why this legislation is exactly the type of government using its granted power to cut unnecessary portions of itself that we were discussing in other threads that will (hopefully) make it possible to have our taxes address the deficit instead of the interest and unnecessary expenditures. So I'm not really sure what to make of your post. The only thing I can think of is that you may actually think that Nation is to State as State is to Township. Like I said, I very seriously doubt that you think that because you're pretty well-informed on this sort of thing. I dunno. Really not sure where to address the disagreement here. And if the Feds were to try something like this with the States (which *is* actually unconstitutional, which you obviously know since you brought it up), feel free to bring this thread back up. I probably won't be reading it, though, because I'll be hunting dingos and hanging out with my Australian Shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 So the solution is to concentrate power? Great plan if you really trust government. The solution to failure is to change direction....and those that drove you in the ditch. You are complaining about the wrecker driver not letting someone that requests a tow to drive the wrecker......don't need a tow and there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Des, I really respect you, so I'm not sure where to go here. The state government's relationship to local governments is completely different than the federal gov's relationship to the states, and I think you realize that. I also think you realize why this legislation is exactly the type of government using its granted power to cut unnecessary portions of itself that we were discussing in other threads that will (hopefully) make it possible to have our taxes address the deficit instead of the interest and unnecessary expenditures. So I'm not really sure what to make of your post. The only thing I can think of is that you may actually think that Nation is to State as State is to Township. Like I said, I very seriously doubt that you think that because you're pretty well-informed on this sort of thing. I dunno. Really not sure where to address the disagreement here. The problem I have is simple, I don't think human beings to operate in almost any capacity without oversight when there is money or power to be gained. The governor just gave himself power to OUTSOURCE (and this is important) financial stress testing on which his super powers depend. The company will no doubt earn money based on how many stress tests they have to do... meaning the governor needs to be "satisfied" with their performance. He has donors and republicans to please in the state, those will be seen as more important interests than the towns and neighborhoods he targets (which will no doubt NOT be those that voted for him). What is the oversight the governor that can unilaterally dismiss elected officials has to face? The entire system at play here won't work. No system that depends on human beings to act in any way other than their own interests can ever be relied upon. ---------- Post added April-21st-2011 at 03:49 AM ---------- The solution to failure is to change direction....and those that drove you in the ditch.You are complaining about the wrecker driver not letting someone that requests a tow to drive the wrecker......don't need a tow and there is no problem. I'm not interested in changing away from elected officials and checks and balances, to consolidated power and "trusting" politicians. No thanks... rather be stuck in a ditch in my car, than stuffed into the trunk of a limo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 Des, I really respect you, so I'm not sure where to go here. The state government's relationship to local governments is completely different than the federal gov's relationship to the states, and I think you realize that. I also think you realize why this legislation is exactly the type of government using its granted power to cut unnecessary portions of itself that we were discussing in other threads that will (hopefully) make it possible to have our taxes address the deficit instead of the interest and unnecessary expenditures. So I'm not really sure what to make of your post. The only thing I can think of is that you may actually think that Nation is to State as State is to Township. Like I said, I very seriously doubt that you think that because you're pretty well-informed on this sort of thing. I dunno. Really not sure where to address the disagreement here. And if the Feds were to try something like this with the States (which *is* actually unconstitutional, which you obviously know since you brought it up), feel free to bring this thread back up. I probably won't be reading it, though, because I'll be hunting dingos and hanging out with my Australian Shepherd. The only people getting their taxes cut in Michagin are the rich and the corporations, it went on up on the middle and lower class. So you have people getting paid by groups with an agenda and collecting a government check to over see that this agenda is made to happen ---------- Post added April-21st-2011 at 07:55 AM ---------- The solution to failure is to change direction....and those that drove you in the ditch.You are complaining about the wrecker driver not letting someone that requests a tow to drive the wrecker......don't need a tow and there is no problem. What destroyed Detroit was poor decisions on the part of the big three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 The Big 3 ran Detroit?....maybe you are right and the people were just along for the ride...like fleas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 The Big 3 ran Detroit?....maybe you are right and the people were just along for the ride...like fleas What drove the Michagin economy? The big three and the people they employed the taxes they paid the money they spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Like I said....just along for the ride No warning signs at all or responsibility if you are a bloodsucker,simply find another host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.