Koss Country--On Hold

I write to regretfully inform my readers that Koss Country will be on hold from now through the 2010 election. As an employee of the Michigan Republican Party, I must do my best to refrain from commentary that may or may not reflect the views and official positions of the MRP and those associated organization. I will be working hard over the next year to organize and orchestrate a Republican victory in Macomb County. A Republican landslide in 2010 in my sole mission and focus for the upcoming months.

Please join the Macomb Fix Michigan Center group on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and visit our blog, Macomb Fix Michigan Center, for updates and information about how you can get involved and help elect Republican candidates in 2010. If there was ever a time to get involved in the political process, that time is now!

Election 2009: Read and Consider

Please read this election review written by my friend and political associate John Cruz of Mt. Clemens. John has got it right and I strongly urge everyone to give consideration to his perspective and preferences before your cast your ballot tomorrow.

With elections coming this Tuesday, I figured it’s as good of a time as any to make my election endorsements for the Metro area. Some of these people I’ll be able to vote for, others I won’t. But if I could, here’s the direction I’m heading.

Macomb County
All citizens in Macomb will be faced with a vote for a county charter. This document, like pretty much anything in government has it’s good points and it’s bad points. However, the Wayne County style of government is not what we need in Macomb. The proposed charter will:

Create Tax increases. There are going to be millage increases as a result of this charter. Maybe not right away, but they will hit with the allowable taxable millage increasing.

Give the County Executive Power. A lot of power. Too much power. This will make county government, a mostly invisible layer of government, the ones with all the power. It will shift away from your municipalities to a county. While regional solutions are good, more unnecessary power is not good.

No term limits for the executive. Prior to being elected executive, Ficano held county-wide office for around 20 years, it’s not hard to imagine he’ll be in charge of Wayne for a long time. In Oakland County, Brooks Patterson has been in charge for what seems like forever. This isn’t a county executive, this is for a king of Macomb county.

“Accountability”? I don’t think so. People who push the charter are claiming that it will create more accountability and transparency in government, but it makes little difference. We already have a leader of the county commission, so there’s already someone to blame or praise. The difference is, as it stands now, they are easily replaceable. It doesn’t matter if the county exec is held accountable, the odds of getting them out of office over anything short of a scandal is next to impossible.
I could go on an on about why it’s no good. But the facts speak for themselves: Vote No on the Macomb County Charter

City of Mount Clemens
I could make an endorsement for the office of Mayor, but realistically, there’s no point. While a lot of people like Steve Ferdig, he hasn’t run much of a campaign. But if you take a look at talking points and what they want to accomplish apples to apples, here’s what we get:

Candidate A
Strengthen Neighborhoods and the community
Balanced City Budget
Safe City with a hands-on approach to engaging citizens
Candidate B
Start neighborhood watch groups
Re-paint the fire hydrants in the city
Appoint more ethnic minorities to public boards

There’s little question that Candidate A has a better vision for the city, focusing on direction and building a community, while the other has some pet issues and simple fixes. While I’m not going to make an endorsement, I’ll say simply that Barb Dempsey is going to wipe the floor with Steve Ferdig. I don’t expect the election to be anything close.

For City Council on the other hand, I have 2 candidates that I want to support. The first is Roger Bunton, a man who has very much impressed me with his attitude. He has two things that I feel are very important for civic leadership: a desire to build communities and a focus on education. He is a very bright man and easily the most worthy of a council seat. The other endorsement goes to Mike Simmons. Simmons understands the need to get those storefronts on main street filled with businesses and making Mount Clemens an economic center again. Interestingly for Simmons, he’s receiving a lot of across the board support: supporters of the old guard (Hill, Dredger) and the challengers (Blash, Bunton) are throwing in Simmons as their third choice (as there are three seats available), so I fully expect him to win a seat on Tuesday.

The City of Detroit
For ballot proposals, I support them both. The current city-wide structure for council elections needs to change, and neighborhoods need to be represented. Vote Yes on Proposal D. And for the love of God, if you have any common sense, please please vote for proposal S. Give Robert Bobb the chance to succeed with his vision and allow the schools to flourish.

For Mayor, I have no reservations whatsoever endorsing Dave Bing for re-election. The man has the testicular fortitude to stand up for what he feels is right even if it isn’t popular and even if it involves going up against some of the most powerful people in Detroit. Give the man a chance to succeed.

For City Council, I’m only going to make two endorsements. First is Lisa Howze, who has so much of what Detroit needs right now: common sense, financial sense, and the ability to get things done. Second is James Tate, a lifelong Detroiter should help to strengthen communities and bring stability with his background in Law Enforcement. Do Detroit a favor and vote for them both.

Other Municipalities
Here’s who I like in other places around the area. If I could vote for them, I would.

Pete Rubino for St. Clair Shores City Council
David Magliulo for Mayor of Sterling Heights.
David Poulton for Royal Oak City Commission
Jeff Lamarand for Mayor of Taylor
Andy LeCureaux for Hazel Park City Council

Do more research for your own conclusions, and don’t forget to vote on Tuesday.

Macomb County Charter Promises Wayne County (not Oakland County) Results

Residents of Macomb County will be asked to vote on a new County Charter on Tuesday November 3rd, that among other things, will include the creation of a county executive. Macomb is the third largest county in the state of Michigan and is one of three major counties in metropolitan Detroit; the only without a county executive. Proponents of the charter suggest that it will give Macomb the political clout of Oakland and Wayne County.

A Detroit Free Press editorial supporting the charter suggest that passing the charter (by voting YES on Proposal 1 and 2) will create "more efficient, effective and accountable government" for the citizens of Macomb County. Here's what the editorial doesn't tell you: voting for the Macomb County Charter means less representation, higher taxes and a larger, less efficient county government.

Concerned citizens in Macomb County have been organizing to stop these proposals from being adopted. Bonnie Hayter, founder of Taxpayers Against Bloated Government (a group organizing to opposes the Charter), has voiced concern over the overwhelming authority placed in the hands of a new county executive. She writes in a letter to the editor:

The charter states, that if the executive vetoes something, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the commissioners serving to override the veto. That means, as long as the county executive has “5 friends” on the 13 member board of commissioners, the other 8commissioners cannot override any decision by the executive. Therefore, any appointments, new departments, directors of departments, officials, and so on and so forth, made by the executive are under the complete and total control of one executive and “5 friends”. A new level of bureaucracy without representation is created. There will be less accountability because there will be more appointees than elected officials. The county executive and “5” commissioners will now wield control of the county.

Another primary objection to the Charter is that the voters of Macomb County are being asked to vote on something they know little about. An article in today's Macomb Daily by Gregory Murray explains this concern:

Charter: Vote "No" If You Don't Know

By Gregory Murray

The proposed Macomb County charter, as written, has many of what I call “dead zones” that justify voting no on November, 3, 2009. So many people have not read this charter that the anthem should be, “If you don’t know, vote no.” If it fails this time, the charter commission can (within 180 days) submit it to the voters again with all the dead zones removed. Let’s do right by getting it right.

What’s a charter dead zone? Giving powers to the Governor to remove the county executive; the only problem with that is that the Governor, by law, has no power to remove a county executive. Yet, it’s in a charter written by many seasoned lawyers; go figure.

The size of commission districts will double. A 100 percent increase in district size will make access to a commissioner problematic. Right now, each commissioner represents about 33,000 citizens. With the increase in population since 2000, that will change to approximately 70,000 plus. Ed Bruley, who worked hard to create the 26th commission seat in 2001, stated in an April 19, 2001 Macomb Daily article that, and I quote, “County commissioners are supposed to be close to the people they represent….If you have big districts, you get away from that.” Made sense then, and it makes sense now.

A huge dead zone is that the proposed charter does not clearly state that the 13 commissioners “shall be part-time,” There is no law preventing charter commissioners from attaching those four words. The county commissioners can later claim their districts are so large that they need to be full time AND need a staff. They should re-write that part.

Another dead zone is that there is no term limit attached to the county executive position. Three terms might be more than some can stomach, but to not put a limit on it means a politician could possibly hold that position forever (Ed McNamara comes to mind).

The charter creates a Public Defender’s Office. The PDO is in the charter without budget details. Where is the money coming from for the administrators of the PDO when the county is laying off workers, slashing services, and cutting county department budgets? If you don’t know, vote no.

The biggest dead zone is the power to adjust the property tax millage up from 4.56 to 5.19. There’s some slippery language in Sec.8.5.2 that everyone should read. Property owners beware: If you don’t know, vote no.

The charter also allows the commissioners to adjust the county executive’s salary 60 days after the charter goes into effect. Wait for it. There goes those so-called savings right out the window.

Again, voters can demand more clarity by voting no. A no vote does not doom the charter: it sends it back for more fine tuning. There are serious flaws in this charter that scream for attention. It can be re-submitted when it is fixed.

The only way to go, if you don’t know, is to vote no on November 3, 2009.

I am not a citizen of Macomb County, but the restructuring of their county government to adopt the content of this Charter is not in the interest of Macomb County taxpayers. The Oakland County model works because it includes political representation (with 25 county commission districts) and it has an dynamic and responsible leader like L. Brooks Patterson. If the Macomb Charter could produce Oakland County results, it would be a good decision; but it will not. The Charter promises to more closely resemble the bloated and inefficient government in Wayne County and possibly worse.

Politically speaking, the primary beneficiaries of the Charter will be Macomb County Democrats; who will likely dominate the commission and take the new county executive office. Voting for the Macomb County Charter is not only bad for Macomb County taxpayers, but likely destructive for Republicans in the county.

An Open Letter to the Residents of Sterling Heights by David J. Magliulo

Candidate for Mayor of Sterling Heights Mayor David Magliulo released this statement on his website just yesterday. We could use more candidates for public office who are open, honest and speak directly to the people they seek to represent. All citizens of Sterling Heights who care about the future quality of life in their community should cast their ballots for David Magliulo next Tuesday November 3rd.

Here's what he wrote-

To the residents of Sterling Heights:

Here in southeastern Michigan we do not need to be told times are tough. We see our neighbors out of work, homes being foreclosed, businesses large and small going under and taxpayers baring the brunt of government mismanagement. I am a citizen of Sterling Heights, Michigan and I am running for Mayor because I believe I can make the tough decisions necessary to address the coming budget crisis and create new economic growth.

Even in once vibrant suburban communities, like Sterling Heights, there are grave concerns about the financial sustainability and quality of life we as residents have taken for granted these many years. The federal government’s extended role in the restructuring of the Chrysler Corporation has made the closure of plants and dealerships difficult to predict. There have been decisions that have been made that will have a drastic impact on the livelihoods of thousands of citizens here in the city of Sterling Heights. For many years, Chrysler was the cities largest taxpayer, paying nearly five percent of the cities total budget. While Chrysler Sterling Heights Assembly Plant has been scheduled to close in 2010, there still remains a possibility that it may remain open.

Should I become Mayor, I will do everything in my power to incentivize the plant’s continual operation in Sterling Heights. Should the plant’s closure be beyond our jurisdiction, we must have a plan of action to stimulate growth and attract new business to Sterling Heights. As the only candidate in this race with a business background, I am prepared to declare that should I be elected Mayor I am prepared to create one of the most business friendly cities in Michigan. I understand that real economic growth comes from the private sector and that government must be more efficient (at all levels) in order to adapt to changing economic conditions.

If elected, I will create a Sterling Heights Business Roundtable, where leaders of all Sterling Heights businesses can meet on a regular basis to discuss ways in which the city can improve the regulatory environment for local businesses and allow them to grow. As Mayor, I will also open my office to Sterling Heights citizens on a scheduled weekday afternoon, for open discussion about issues facing our city. I believe it is my obligation to the taxpayers of Sterling Heights to have a fully transparent administration.

If elected, I pledge to the citizens of Sterling Heights do serve no more than three terms as mayor (six years) and will introduce term limits for all city elected officials. Mayors will be limited to three terms and council members will be limited to five terms (ten years). These term limits will ensure that this “culture of complacency” is removed from Sterling Heights politics for future generations.

I have lived in Sterling Heights for over seventeen years. It has been a great city to live in and to raise a family in. However in these past few years we have experienced unprecedented economic challenges. We cannot rest on the laurels of the past. Moving forward requires leadership, vision and a plan. With that we will be able to lay the foundation to move forward into a more prosperous future. The first step begins on November 3, 2009 and I am looking forward to building that foundation with the residents and businesses of Sterling Heights.


Warmest Regards,

David J. Magliulo

2009 Gubernatorial Elections May be a Good Barometer for 2010

On November 3rd, the state of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Virginia will vote for their next governor. While each state has their unique differences, the outcomes of these elections could be viewed as gauge of the mood of the electorate toward the Republican and Democratic Party.

In the case of New Jersey, Democratic Governor John Corzine is seeking re-election. Corzine, former Goldman Saks CEO and US Senator, has gotten his way back into the race with help from national Democratic figures like President Clinton and President Obama. According to a RealClearPolitics polling average, he is running almost even (+0.1%) with Republican challenger Chris Christie. Christie is running on a fiscally conservative platform of lowering taxes, cutting spending and reforming regulation; Corzine is running on his record according to his website, "a fiscally responsible, progressive agenda."

In Virginia, Republican candidate Bob McDonnell has a significant advantage over Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds (+10.9 according to RCP Average). If McDonnell wins, he will be the break the 8 year trend of Democrat Governors (VA is the only state that does not allow governors to hold consecutive terms) and perhaps put the breaks on the state's trend toward the Democratic Party. In 2008, Barack Obama was the first Democratic Presidential candidate to win the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Virginia's shift the the left in recent years has most everything to do with the growth of the DC suburbs in the northern part of the state; most of the state state is culturally Southern and politically conservative.

Not only will next week's elections be important for the citizens of New Jersey and Virginia, but these elections will also have an impact of the direction of the country going into the 2010 mid-term election. The 2009 election can also be seen as a referendum on Obama's first year in office. Republican victories in these two state would suggest that Obama's popularity has significantly shrunk since winning them both in the 2008 election. This would be particularly true in deep blue New Jersey, but also in Virginia, where the Democrats have increased their strength in recent years. President Obama has been on the campaign trail for both candidates and the President's ties to each can be seen as both a blessing and curse.

In Virginia, Deeds has been in conflict with the White House and the DNC over political strategy, according a Washington Post report. Candidate Ceigh Deeds has had President Obama come in to campaign on his behalf, but has also suggested he would have his state opt-out of health care legislation that includes the "public option," a centerpiece of Democratic legislation. Deeds mixed signals on the campaign trail reflect the difficult position he faces a Democrat running in a "purple state" with a liberal Democratic President in office. Virginia's current Governor Tom Kaine (DNC Chairman) and previous Governor Mark Warner, both ran to the center and were elected during the Bush years. Virginia also elected Republican governors during the Clinton years (Allen and Gilmore) and may just be a state that has developed a unique electoral pattern.

In New Jersey, the support of President Obama may have boosted the support for Corzine up to a competitive level. Corzine and Christie are engaged in a highly competitive and negative campaign, each accusing the other of corruption, bribery and coercive tactics of operation. Obama won New Jersey with 57% of the vote in 2008 and according to a Time article his the Garden State was in effort to "rub off some of his political magic" on Governor Corzine.

The real question will be, how much "political magic" does President Obama have? Republican victories in both states may carry some serious momentum into the the 2010 mid-terms and will most certainly be viewed as a reflection on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. Perhaps next week will be a good barometer of what the American electorate is thinking.

Bing Represents Real Hope for Detroit

After a series of elections following the scandal and jailing of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, former Detroit Piston and NBA Hall of Famer Dave Bing was elected Mayor of Detroit. On November 3rd, Detroiters have an opportunity to re-elect Mayor Bing to a full term as Mayor, a decision they would be very wise to make.

It is no secret to anyone that the city of Detroit has been in decline for now over a half century. After the riots of the 1960s, the grand exodus of the white middle class from the city, the Coleman Young Administration, the decline of the auto-industry, the Kwame fiasco and the win-less season for the Detroit Lions, the leadership of Dave Bing represents real oppertunity for the city of Detroit. While Time magazine is busy writing articles suggesting the future of Detroit rests in the hands of federal energy policy, Bing is on the front lines of a showdown with the city employees unions (who refuse budget cuts) and trying to lift the city out of financial ruin.

Bing, a former CEO of a successful manufacturing company, understands that private sector growth is essential to the city's recovery. He understands that a bloated and inefficient public sector can prevent the private sector from thriving. Bing also understands that repairing a broken relationship with the suburbs is essential for recovery. In many regards, the city needs to the suburbs more than the suburbs need the city. But, as a suburbanite, it is nearly impossible to escape the impact city has on its surrounding communities.

As suburbanites we should treat Detroit with the "tough love" it deserves. We want to city to succeed, simply because we want to entire region to succeed. We want the problems of Detroit to be solved, because the city's problems are effecting suburban communities as well. We want the cities business climate to thrive, so we entertain ourselves there. If we want any oppertunity to see some these things become a reality, we must support leaders who are committed to making serious structural changes. Dave Bing is that type of leader. Detroiters would be wise to re-elect him on Novemeber 3rd.

Conservatives Must Explain the Path to Prosperity

The pioneer of collective bargaining and founder of the American Federation of Labor Samuel Gompers once said that "the worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit." Today, the current crop of labor leaders and their allies on the political left have led "workers" to believe the essence of class conflict theory; that the success of some comes at the expense of others. This largely drives the campaign rhetoric and policy initiatives of politicians like Obama, Pelosi and Granholm who claim to represent the interests of "the people over the powerful."

In a country with over 9% unemployment and in a state like Michigan with over 15% unemployment, the main issue on the minds of voters in 2010 will be economic growth. The American people need to be engaged in a serious discussion about what types of policies grow an economy and what might hinder economic progress. This is an opportunity for conservatives to explain how jobs are created rather than using the empty campaign rhetoric of "we need jobs." Conservatives must explain, in terms that everyone can understand, that jobs are a byproduct of expansion in the private sector. When companies, small and large, make profits they can afford to invest internally. When companies spend more of the money they earn on research & development, expanding their production or services, this means that ultimately more jobs will be created to perform the expanded tasks the company has a result.

The government can create jobs as well, but they come at the expense of the taxpayer. Government jobs do not contribute to the overall prosperity, but simply act as a means of sustainability. Conservatives should once again begin to talk about reigning in the size of government and putting government employment in line with comparable work in the private sector. In other words, the message must be communicated that expanding the private sector is the answer to economic growth and the answer to the unemployment problem. The more people who are employed in the private sector means that more people will be paying the taxes that go to the public sector. Growing the public sector just means more government bureaucrats to administer the programs that sustain those who unemployed in the private sector.

Milton Friedman once said that the social responsibility of business is to make a profit for their shareholders. This is often mischaracterized by the political left as a ruthless and inhumane practice. Conservatives know, however, that profit contributes to the greater prosperity of all. In recent months, Democrats have attempted to convince the American public that more government will contribute to greater efficiency and overall greater prosperity. They use divisive rhetoric to attempt to turn employees against employers and champion themselves as "protectors of the people." Republican candidates running for office in 2010 must be prepared to explain to the virtues of private sector growth as the true path to prosperity for all. Those who simply use the rhetoric of "creating jobs" leave a too much room for interpretation about how jobs are created.

Economics professor and business owner Ralph Reiland explains the path to prosperity (better than I) in yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. This must be the centerpiece of the debate for the coming year.