Koss Country

Koss Country--On Hold

2009-11-24T10:25:00.006-05:00

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

2009-11-02T22:34:00.004-05:00

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

2009-11-01T21:17:00.005-05:00

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

2009-10-29T11:31:00.004-04:00

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

2009-10-24T21:02:00.013-04:00

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

2009-10-15T09:46:00.010-04:00

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

2009-10-12T20:33:00.012-04:00

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.

Meet the Candidates (Sterling Heights, Michigan): The Case for New Leadership

2009-10-02T08:30:00.010-04:00

Just as in the debate over the state budget in Lansing, some of our elected leaders are simply in denial over the reality of our economic circumstances. These leaders exist at all levels of government. These are the types of leaders who believe that public money is their own personal bank account that government officials can use to create any programs or provide any services they please; and if that money runs out, they can simply levy new taxes from citizens to pay for their promises. After attending the "Meet the Candidates" forum in Sterling Heights (Michigan) last night, I have come to realize that Mayor Richard Notte is one of those politicians.

In last night's discussion, challenger candidate David Magliulo put the city's problems in simple terms; the city has been running a deficit for 3 years and the mayor and council want to raise property taxes next year to raise revenues. Mayor Notte did not deny that the city was running in the red, nor did he deny that he would be willing to raise taxes, or levy new fees in order to increase revenues for the city. While Magliulo talked about pay freezes for city employees to reflect those in the private sector, cutting travel expenses, city vehicle expenses and enacting furlough days to trim the bloated budget; Notte said that the city has already cut too much and that he was unwilling to make any reforms to city contracts, services or programs.

Magliulo, who has spent his entire career in the private sector, wants to take a "business approach to government." He expressed an understanding for economic growth and said that "government is not in a position to decide what the next industry is, but we can provide stepping stones to make easier to do business in our city." Among Magliulo's ideas are establishing a "Business Roundtable" to talk openly with current business owners in the city about thoughts and concerns they have about the city's business climate. He also wants to work with local businesses and city officials to create a real marketing package for the city to solicit businesses to relocate to Sterling Heights.

Notte described his role as mayor as more of a celebratory position--show up to meetings, cut ribbons and look presentable (he actually said these things). Notte said particularly "I cannot see us doing things any differently." Magliulo agreed to a certain extent that vital city services must be maintained, while recognizing it is necessary to make cuts and reforms on the non-vital services. He also said it's not about the experience on the council, but the experience of meeting a budget and reading financial statements is what Sterling Heights needs. Notte said he's relying on his experience and contacts to save the city from financial collapse.

Dave Magliulo said citizens of Sterling Heights must "choose active leadership rather than passive by-standers." David Magliulo appeared sharp, far-sighted and full of ideas to reform city government, Richard Notte appeared out-of-touch with reality and seems to be looking to Lansing and Washington to bail him out. Notte says he's doing everything in his power to keep the Chrysler plant (16 & Van Dyke)from closing, knowing well it brings in large revenues to the city and it's loss would be devastating. But, what happens if that decision is beyond his jurisdiction? What happens if it does close, what then?

Do Notte, or politicians like him, have the fortitude to make difficult decisions about the gravy-train budgets they've grown accustom to? Do they have the foresight, education or relevant experience regarding what it takes to create economic growth and prosperity? Do they have concern for the taxpayers who provide them with the funds to run the programs and services they so vigorously defend?

The answer is that these are difficult times for everyone. The private sector is not making money, therefore, the public sector recieives less revenue. City budgets also suffer because politicians like Richard Notte are short-sighted and unprepared to face hard times and overcome difficult challenges. Cities, towns, states and our federal government needs fewer politicians like Richard Notte and more citizen patriots like David Magliulo. If the citizens of Sterling Heights re-elect Mayor Richard Notte, they are putting their city's future in greater jeopardy.

Time Simplifies Detroit's Problems

2009-09-30T09:03:00.014-04:00

Last week's cover of Time magazine reads "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a Great City Fell and Can Rise Again." As I sank my teeth into what I thought may be an insightful piece of journalism by Daniel Okrent (although I should have realized it was Time), I hoped I would learn something about the city I grew up near. While to the uninformed observer of 20th Century Detroit history may learn a fair amount from the article, those who know the city and the region have a much more complex view of the situation.

The main culprits of Detroit's downfall, according to Okrent, was the sole reliance on the auto industry and the tension between the cities and suburbs. Okrent is rightfully critical of the alliance between the automakers, the United Autoworkers and the political class. He points specifically at one politician, John Dingell, who best represents this alliance. Dingell has served in Congress since 1955 (in a seat prerviously held by his father) and has been famous for voting with auto interests. The author says this:

In 1956, when I was 8 years old, my Congressman was John D. Dingell. There are people in southeastern Michigan who are still represented by Dingell, the longest-serving member in the history of the House of Representatives. "The working men and women of Michigan and their families have always been Congressman Dingell's top priority," his website declares, and I suppose he thinks he has served them well — by resisting, in succession, tougher safety regulations, more-stringent mileage standards, relaxed trade restrictions and virtually any other measure that might have forced the American automobile industry to make cars that could stand up to foreign competition.

While Dingell can be blamed for many faults, particularly by conservatives, representing the interests of his constituents (employees of the automakers) is not one of them. The role of a US Congressman is to reflect the will of the people in his district; the federal government placing mandates on automakers were not in their interest. On the other hand, Dingell can properly be defined as a labor Democrat, voting time and time again with the UAW leaders who pushed the automakers toward accepting unsustainable pay and benefits packages, along with hindering advanced technology that would threaten jobs.

The other issue addressed by Okrent is the adverse relationship between city and suburb. Following the riots of the late 1960s, middle-class white residents engaged in a grand exodus from the city. Okrent is deservedly hard on former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, for his corrupt and incompetent governance that took place during Detroit's deterioration. He brushes over some of the issues that face both the city and suburbs, but suggests that cooperation and coexistence is essential to the regions future. He both praises Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson for being "exceptually able" while at the same time criticizes his approach to disregarding the city as being tied to the region's success. Okrent misinterprets Patterson's "lead by example" approach, that is more or less "tough love" for the city rather than blatant disregard. Detroit's new Mayor Dave Bing is likely to improve the relationship between the city and the suburbs.

Finally, the article concludes that Detroit's greatest hope is to become the center of "renewable" energy technology. Okrent leaves this "plan" for Detroit's future largely up to federal government policy, which would be contrary to the way Detroit was built. Government subsidies did not create the mass production of the automobile. Furthermore, we can hardly expect that windmills and solar panels are going to revolutionize the way we live and create an new era of prosperity.

The answers to Detroit's problems are likely local solutions, not policies handed down from Washington in an act of desperation. Cooperation among the city and suburbs will depend on whether the city can prove itself a worthy partner. Economic growth will depend on whether the city (and state) can make difficult budgetary decisions, reform the tax structure and repeal the regulations that hinder entrepreneurship and innovation. There are answers to the city (and regions) problems, but they are going to come from the people who know the region best; not from media pundits and Washington bureaucrats.

Does the Mackinac Straw Poll Matter?

2009-09-28T09:33:00.008-04:00

The Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference is truly one of the most unique and entertaining political conferences. My first experience at the conference was in 2007, when candidates for President of the United States and their volunteers flocked the island hoping to gain attention in the eyes of the national media. In 2009, the focus was primarily on the state of Michigan and the candidates who will hold our state's highest offices in 2010.

One of the longstanding traditions of the Mackinac Conference is the Straw Poll that asks conference attendees about their preferences in the proceeding year's election. In 2007, Michigan native Mitt Romney won the Straw Poll of Presidential candidates, mostly due to superior organizational support. In 2007, only the Romney and McCain campaign had been entrenched in Michigan long enough to make a serious impact by September. One may argue that Romney's strong organizational support in Michigan is what won him the Michigan primary the following February.

At the top of the ticket in the 2010 election, in Michigan, is the Governor's office. Each candidate assembled a team of volunteers to support them in the straw poll and recruit for them on the Island this past weekend. There were 1,244 votes cast in the poll. Emerging at the top of the field was Ann Arbor businessman Rick Snyder. The results were as follows:

Rick Snyder (386 votes/31.03%)
Mike Cox (300 votes/24.12%)
Mike Bouchard (298 votes/23.12%)
Pete Hoekstra (219 votes/17.6%)
Tom George (41 votes/3.3%)

It is commonly known that volunteers at the conference who come with candidates generally receive free hotel rooms and registration, in exchange for a vote in poll and campaigning on the island. But, given the results released last week by Inside Michigan Politics poll, an organization run by the renown Bill Ballanger, the results of the Mackinac Straw Poll were quite surprising. The poll had Mike Cox ahead (27%), Hoekstra (23%), Bouchard (15%) and Snyder and George (2% each); leaving over 30% of GOP primary voters undecided. 600 Michigan voters were polled.

The question then remains, how does Rick Snyder jump from 2% (Inside Michigan Politics) to 31% (Mackinac Straw Poll) so quickly? The only real explanation is that there was a concentrated effort (along with the financial capability) by the Snyder campaign to win in Mackinac, hoping it will send a message to Michigan Republicans that he is a serious contender. Furthermore, based on observation alone, the poll results seems to line up entirely with the degree of organization strength each candidate displayed on the island; much as it had in 2007.

The question will be whether support at the conference translates into support in the election next August. The question for Snyder is whether he can harness this momentum to increase his name identification problem and whether he will use it as a platform to begin to tie himself to any specific policy ideas that can remedy our states ails. While the straw poll may have been a good indicator for Romney in 2007, only time will tell if the straw poll mattered in 2009.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Bouchard Lands Big Boost With Lt. Governor Pick, Cox Releases Plan

2009-09-20T22:55:00.007-04:00

GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Bouchard made a big announcement last week with his selection of Secretary of State Terry Lynn Land as his running mate . The selection is likely to create a bit if a media frenzy at this week's Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. The Land pick is no big surprise, given her early endorsement of the Oakland County Sheriff, however, announcing a Lieutenant Governor selection so early is an interesting strategic move.

While some have said the news was a sign that the campaign is struggling, the strategy behind the Land pick likely had several major considerations. First, Land brings state-wide name identification to the race. It could be argued that if Bouchard wins the election (in August and then November), Land may be the most famous LG in Michigan history. Winning two statewide elections by large margins helps counterbalance the stigma that Bouchard cannot win state-wide, based on his failed Senate run in 2006; where Cox hopes to capitalize. The Bouchard/Land ticket also helps unite the state's two wealthiest counties (Oakland and Kent), which are models of economic growth for the rest of the state. Land gives Bouchard access to her fundraising base (which may help him compete with Rick Snyder's money) and helps him on the west side of the state; where Pete Hoekstra hopes to capitalize.

Picking a running mate well before recieiving the nomination can be seen as a bold and risky move. It is unlikely that any of the other candidates in the race will select a running mate prior to next years August election; although this could change things. However, in Bouchard's case, selecting such a big name in Michigan politics as his running mate seems to only serve to his benifit in terms of electability statewide and attracting much needed financial contributors in a struggling economy. While bold moves in politics may be big risks, they may also yield big rewards.

Also recently, Attorney General Mike Cox released a 60 page, 92 point strategy he calls Putting Michigan Back to Work: The First Steps. The Cox plan includes a $2 billion tax cut (cutting the Michigan Business Tax in half and repealing the income tax increase of 2007) and a $185 million increase in higher education spending. The plan addresses a number of budget cuts including saving 10% in state contracts. The entire 60 page plan is available on his campaign website. Cox is the first gubernatorial candidate to release a fully detailed plan of what he would do to address the problems facing the state of Michigan.

Both the Land selection and the Cox plan should generate some excitement heading into this weeks festivities on Mackinac Island.

The Decline of Monday Night Football

2009-09-15T08:47:00.006-04:00

From 1970-2005 ABC broadcast Monday Night Football in primetime. The Monday Night Football schedule was composed of the best teams from the previous season, often times division rivalries and an genuine excitement surrounding the game. Monday night stood alone from the crowded NFL schedule on Sunday afternoon (and evening) and in many ways was the standard bearer in the football world.

Since MNF moved to ESPN and Sunday Football Night in America began on NBC, the MNF tradition has been in steady decline. Growing up, there was a clear distinction between Sunday Night Football, broadcast on ESPN following the great highlight show NFL Primetime (hosted by Chris Berman and Tom Jackson), and Monday Night Football, broadcast at 9pm on Monday night. Monday Night Football had three commentators in the booth; Al Michaels along with Hall of Famers Frank Gifford and Dan Dierdorf. Outlaw Country star Hank Williams Jr. rewrote the words to his classic party song, "All My Rowdy Friends (Are Coming Over Tonight)" into "Are You Ready for Some Football?" There were big games, big names and MNF was a big deal.

Since MNF moved to ESPN and NBC received the contract for the Sunday night game, the prestige of MNF has been diluted. For at least the second year in a row, opening week for Monday Night Football included two games; one at 7pm and the other at 10pm. And Sunday Night Football hardly has the excitement that MNF once did. A pre-game show with Keith Olbermann and a theme song by Faith Hill, makes the Sunday night festivities "the worst idea in the world" (to borrow and alter a phrase from Olbermann). No other combination could make me less enthusiastic about watching a football game.

It also seems as if by Sunday night, loyal football fans, who have spent Saturday watching college games and Sunday afternoon watching the NFL, are ready for a break. It's difficult to get excited about another game when watching games is how you've spent your last 48 hours. Monday provides that much needed day break and could get fans excited, once again.

The reality is that things change and sometimes only fond memories remain. For me, Monday Night Football was the gold standard of weekly regular season sporting events throughout all of the sports world. It is unlikely it will ever regain the prestige it once had and there currently seems to be nothing of comparission to replace what it once was.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Tom George

2009-09-07T17:50:00.004-04:00

Name: Thomas George
Age: 53
Hometown: Texas Township (Kalamazoo County)
Elected Office(s): Michigan State Senate (2003-Present), Michigan House of Representatives (2001-2003)
Website: www.georgeforgovernor.com
Strengths: As a member of the Michigan legislature since 2001, George has a sound understanding of the issues that are being debated in the Michigan legislature. He is Chair of the Senate Health Policy Committee and sits on the Appropriations committee.
Weaknesses: As a State Senator, and not a Senate leader, he does not have the star power and reputation as household names in Michigan politics. He may also have difficulties raising the money to compete with the other four candidates.
Opportunities: As a state senator, he may be able to command a greater inside understanding of the legislative process and current issues facing the state of Michigan. As a physician, he may also have an edge on health care issues.
Threats: Lack of money, lack of name recognition and lack of traction for his candidacy thus far makes George a long-shot candidate.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Rick Snyder

2009-09-06T12:45:00.003-04:00

Name: Rick Snyder
Age: 51
Hometown: Ann Arbor (Washtenaw County)
Elected Office(s): None
Website: www.rickformichigan.com
Key Endorsement(s): Rumor has it, Ford Chairman Bill Ford Jr.
Strengths: Snyder is a successful corporate executive and venture capitalist, who understands what it takes to create economic growth in the private sector. He should be able to raise a lot of money, which would give him an advantage in terms of buying media time.
Weaknesses: He has never held an elected office, which makes him vulnerable to the harsh realities of political process. Snyder also has little to no name identification.
Opportunities: The 2010 election should be a year that is unfriendly to the political class and as a guy who’s never been an elected official; this can play well for Snyder. He can blame the politicians for screwing things up and market himself as the savvy businessman who knows what it takes create economic prosperity.
Threats: Snyder has very little record of participation in Republican politics. Accusations of him having moderate-liberal views on social issues and his lack of political record leaves room for questions for GOP activists. He will also have to overcome the compassions to the other businessman turned gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, who lost handedly in 2006.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Pete Hoekstra

2009-09-04T09:36:00.003-04:00

Name: Peter Hoekstra
Age: 55
Hometown: Holland (Ottawa County)
Elected Office(s): United States House of Representatives, Michigan’s 2nd Congressional District (1993-Present)
Website: www.hoekstraforgovernor.com
Strengths: Hoekstra is the only candidate in the race from the heavily Republican west-side of the state. He is also the only candidate with experience at the federal level. Prior to serving in Congress he Hoekstra spent his entire career in the private sector working for Herman Miller and raising through the ranks to VP of Marketing. Business experience could be an asset in this state, particularly in 2010. His early announcement may have given him a jump start on securing donors and supporters for his bid.
Weaknesses: Being from the west-side of the state can also be seen as a disadvantage, given that key undecided voters in a general election come from southeastern Michigan. Also, having never been a statewide candidate, his name identification may be fairly low outside his district. As a United States Congressman, he could also be seen as being out of touch with state issues and be tied to his federal voting record.
Opportunities: Hoekstra has an opportunity to profess that his combined experiences in the public and private sector make him best suited for the job. In a state struggling for leaders who understand either, his background could very attractive to voters. He can also claim to have an advantage, being a federal legislator, in knowing how federal legislation impacts the state.
Threats: His biggest threat is probably his decision to vote for the second version of the banking bailout bill in 2008. This decision may be weighing in the back of the minds of conservative activists throughout the state. Breaking his pledge of term limits, six terms in the House he made while running for Congress in 1992, may also be something GOP primary voters may consider.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Mike Cox

2009-09-03T17:35:00.003-04:00

Name: Michael Cox
Age: 48
Hometown: Livonia (Wayne County)
Elected Office(s): Michigan Attorney General 2002-Present, formerly a Wayne County Prosecutor 1990-2002
Website: www.mikecox2010.com
Strengths: Cox has been a relatively active and visible Attorney General and is by-in-large a household name in Michigan. He is also the only candidate in the race who has won a state-wide election, most notably, a strong victory in bad election year for Republicans in 2006. Being a Metro Detroiter will also play to his advantage.
Weaknesses: Although an important position, as AG he has little opportunity to impact too many areas of public policy. He is most noted for taking on Blue Cross insurance over raising rates on senior citizens. Although a vocal opponent of tax hikes and reducing spending, a lack of a record on such issues leaves room for question.
Opportunities: Visibility and electability work to Cox’s favor. He has an opportunity to convince Michigan Republicans he is the best suited to win the general election because he’s won statewide and people know him. He also has credentials with conservative activists, much based on his willingness to support the successful Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in 2006, despite the GOP establishment’s opposition.
Threats: One of the biggest threats to Cox is that he’s the only major candidate with a lack of private sector experience. In a year where the economy will be at the forefront of the electorate’s mind, Cox has to prove he has a sound understanding of economic issues and a real plan to improve the business climate in the state. The other obvious threat to his candidacy is some personal baggage, having admitted to an extramarital affair back in 2005; it remains unclear as to what role, if any, this will have in the decision making process of GOP primary voters.

Pre-Mackinac GOP Candidate Review: Mike Bouchard

2009-09-02T11:10:00.010-04:00

Name: Michael J. Bouchard
Age: 53
Hometown: Birmingham (Oakland County)
Elected Office(s): Oakland County Sheriff (1999-Present), Michigan Senate (1991-1999), Michigan House of Representatives (1990), Beverly Hills Village Council (1986-1989)
Website: www.bouchardforgovernor.com
Key Endorsements: Secretary of State Terry Lynn Land
Strengths: Bouchard is the Sheriff of one of the largest county sheriff departments in the country and a former state senator with a proven record of conservative reform. Having had the opportunity to see him speak and answer questions recently, I was reminded how well he understands public policy and interacts with his audience.
Weaknesses: The major weakness Bouchard faces is instilling the confidence that he can win statewide. He must overcome the image as the guy who lost handedly to Debbie Stabenow for United States Senate.
Opportunities: Bouchard seems to have the record and the personality to convince the people of Michigan that he can make the difficult decisions to turn the state around. Having a candidate from Metro Detroit, particularly a swing county like Oakland, where Bouchard has one countywide multiple times, could be a major advantage. The Terry Lynn Land endorsement will boost his credibility in Kent County and instill greater confidence that he can win statewide.
Threats: His decision to jump in the race after Cox and Hoekstra could have given him a disadvantage with financial donors. Not winning Oakland County in his 2006 Senate bid might also be a criticism his opponents toss his way.

2010 Michigan Republican Gubernatorial Election (Pre-Mackinac Review)

2009-09-01T08:35:00.006-04:00

After two terms of Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, bankrupt automakers and the worst economy in the country for almost the past decade, 2010 is beginning to look like a good year for Republicans in Michigan. The race for the Republican nomination for Michigan’s highest office has attracted a crowded field of interesting candidates. While minimal attention has been given to the candidates for Governor thus far, by the time the 28th Biannual Michigan Republican Leadership Conference takes place September 25-27, the campaigns should be running full throttle.

There are currently five candidates on the Republican side who have formally announced their intentions to pursue the office. Attorney General Mike Cox (Wayne County), Congressman Pete Hoekstra (Holland), Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, Ann Arbor Businessman Rick Snyder and State Senator Tom George (Kalamazoo County) have all made their announcements and have begun touring the state discussing their plans to revitalize Michigan.

The major issues surrounding the 2010 race will be almost entirely focused on the economy. The central question will essentially be, what is the best recipe for economic growth is a state that's been in recession longer than any other? How does Michigan create a competitive environment that not only attracts outside businesses to the state, but more importantly encourages a culture of innovation from within? These are broad questions that must be addressed not only with broad responses, but with specificity and percriptions for problems that plague the state. Issues of taxation, education, regulation, budgetary matters, labor, criminal justice, health care, infrustructure and other matters of concern to the economic and cultural health of the state must be addressed by our candidates.

Each candidate seems to bring to the race their own set of strengths and weaknesses that must be weighed before making the selection next August. Koss Country will be doing a pre-Mackinac profile of each candidate, analyzing each of candidates closely. It is my goal to inform fellow Republicans about each of the candidates and help them make an educated decision regarding who our next potential governor.

It is my belief that we should not only elect a Republican to the office, but be sure we elect the right Republican. Michigan needs the type of person who can make the difficult decisions about the economic conditions of our state and can inspire the next generation of Michiganders to live, learn, work and create a prosperous future in this great state.

On Reform

2009-08-29T08:50:00.007-04:00

In his 1922 autobiography My Life and Work, the great industrialist Henry Ford wrote of extensively on the role of change in society. Ford considered himself, an agent of change, but believed the type of change he was creating, was a natural progression toward creating opportunity and prosperity for all. His views on the role of government were stated clearly. Ford wrote:

As long as we look to legislation to cure poverty and to abolish privilege we are going to see poverty spread and special privilege grow.

Ford refused to call himself a reformer, however, he professed their were two types of reformers. He wrote of the first type:

The man who calls himself a reformer wants to smash things. He is the sort of man who would tear up a whole shirt because the collar button did not fit the buttonhole. It would never occur to him to enlarge the buttonhole. Experience and reform do not go together. A reformer cannot keep his zeal at white heat in the presence of a fact. He must discard all facts.

He wrote of the second type:

The radical has no experience and does not want it. The other class of reformer has plenty of experience, but it does him no good. I refer to the reactionary—who will be surprised to find himself exactly in the same class as the Bolshevist. He wants to go back to some previous condition, not because it was the best condition, but because he thinks he knows about that condition.

Ford’s writings on social change draw a striking resemblance to the works of the great English statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke’s strain of thought, according to conservative historian Russell Kirk, was based on a “politics of prudence” that embraced reform that was consistent with principles of ordered liberty—which according to Burke included acknowledging private property, the rule of law, individualism over collectivism and adherence to tradition and the wisdom of experience.

Conservative talk radio host and former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin stresses the work of Burke in his best-selling book Liberty and Tyranny. Levin writes that “the Conservative does not reject change,” but explains the distinction Burke makes regarding the role of change. Levin writes:

For Burke, change as reform was intended to preserve and improve the basic institutions of the state. Change as innovation was destructive as a radical departure from the past and the substitution of existing institutions of the state with potentially dangerous experiments.

The type of reformer of which Ford refers to as the “radical,” who wishes to “smash things” can still be found today; those arguing for national health care come to mind. While some leaders such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey have offered viable alternatives, conducive with Burke’s style of “prudent reform,” the President and Congressional leaders have suggested those who oppose their plan are more like the second type of reformer (the “reactionary”) of which Ford describes. This accusation of course comes from those who so carelessly wish to just “tear up a whole shirt” rather than enlarge the buttonhole.

The Landscape of the Fourth Republic

2009-08-24T10:00:00.003-04:00

Several months back, an American Enterprise Institute journal The American, featured a thought provoking article by James DeLong, who describes the current state of public unrest as part of the dissolving the Third American Republic, or what he calls the Special Interest State; and the emergence of a new political order.

According to the author, the debate surrounding the First American Republic about the role of the federal government was settled by the end of the Civil War. The Second Republic was that of the era of industrialization and the government’s response to its impact on modern life. The Third Republic, DeLong suggests, emerged with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal which he claims “radically revised the role of government.” Each republic resulted in a reorganization of the relationship between the people and their government.

The Special Interest State, as described by DeLong, operates under the “combination of plenary power combined with the seizure of its levels by special interests.” He suggests that the reality of the Special Interest State has resulted in the mass influx of lobbying at the federal level, dealing with every issue and working to effect lawmaker’s decisions in every possible way. This he suggests has been reflective in the coalitions of the major political parties; particularly the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party to some extent as well.

DeLong’s thesis runs in contention the with popular campaign rhetoric, but remains mostly consistent with reality. Today, whichever party gets elected to governing majorities, the interests within the coalitions they represent have their concerns addressed. For example, with Democrats in charge of Congress and in the White House the issues concerning the environmental movement will take priority in regard to regulation. This is evident with the recent “cap & trade” legislation. Democrats might say that during Republican controlled eras, laws regarding regulation were written favorably toward energy companies.

In regards to campaigning, the party out of power generally blames the party in power for being beholden to “special interest.” One would have to look no further than the 2008 election, where Obama ran as a “post-partisan” candidate who was going to stand up to the special interests. Once elected, Obama appointed lobbyists to his cabinet and pursued a highly partisan agenda. In other words, anti-special interest rhetoric tends to win elections, but seldom has any credence once the governing process begins. This could simply be a result of the sheer size and scope of the federal government and what it is expected to do, in this Third Republic.

The author suggests that public sediment may be suggesting that America is in a “crisis of legitimacy” and that legitimacy (or “the right to rule”) is the “single most important factor in political life.” One of the biggest problems DeLong identifies is a general lack of “limiting principles” in the Special Interest State; in other words “special interests try to convert themselves into moral entitlements to convince others to agree to their claims.”

So, what does this all mean? And, if a new political landscape is formulating, what will the Fourth American Republican look like?

DeLong hypothesizes that the Fourth Republic will share elements of all three previous stages (history is after all, cumulative), but the new reforms will come about in a “bottom-up” grassroots nature. For example, he points out that the Constitution allows two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention. While it is unclear what such a procedure might be used for, it is important to reference that the Constitution allows for many ways in which citizens can petition to reform their government. One way in which state legislatures are now acting to limit the federal government’s power is through state sovereignty legislation (the “10th Amendment bill”); which have successfully passed in seven states (and legislation has been introduced in 37 states).

If the goal of these reforms is to set some limiting principles to the Special Interest State, citizens may want to revisit some of the Progressive Era reforms that were aimed at restructuring government in a way that was more representative. Representation might be addressed by reconsidering the way in which our elected officials are elected.

For example, the 17th Amendment changed the way United States Senators were elected; thus “transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state.” If the sediment of the Forth Republic leans toward reigning in the power of the federal government, the original process for electing Senators would place more importance in the outcome of state legislative races. Another reform worth considering might be increasing the size of Congress to reflect the population increases. It is not only constitutional, but would also give the American people greater representation in Washington.

In short, there are many ways in which the political movement behind the Fourth Republic could take shape, however, as DeLong notes, this does not mean the Special Interest State would go away (nor should it). Lobbying the federal government for “redress of grievances” is in the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, the public’s desire to reign in the Special Interest State would best be addressed by finding ways in which power granted to the federal government can be brought back to the state and local levels of government. This would perhaps solve some of this “crisis of legitimacy” and give active citizens more of a stake in the political process.

Reconsidering Term Limits

2009-08-17T08:41:00.007-04:00

In 1994, when Republicans took a majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years, they did so by outlining a set of priorities based on conservative principles famously known as the Contract with America. Arguably, the Contact with America was such a success on Election Day (and in many instances legislatively) because it clearly stated a list of objectives that could be easily understood by the American people. Another reason for the Contract’s success is that it addressed a number of concerns brought forward by nearly the 20% of the electorate who cast their votes for Reform Party candidate Ross Perot, including issues such as a balanced budget amendment and term limits for federal legislators.

The drafters of the Contract recognized there was a growing distrust of the political class among the electorate in 1992 and that Republicans could benefit from adopting several of these ideas that were consistent with conservative principles. In 2009, the “Tea Party Movement” has emerged as a grassroots citizen led effort to send a signal to politicians they are tired of reckless spending and massive bailouts; and also oppose increased taxes, costly regulations that will greater restrict personal liberties, confiscation of their hard earned wealth, among other things. This movement embodies the redress of many grievances and each organizer and participant has their own agenda; but one common theme among them is frustration with the political class.

This frustration with elected leaders has (once again) prompted many citizens to express support for term limits to restrict the existence of what they often call “career politicians.” Common criticism of career politicians often include that by being in a House or Senate seat for a long period of time, these politicians become complacent with their positions and lose touch with “real people” in the private sector. Other critics suggest that these same politicians become “bought” by particular interest groups and work simply to advance special interests rather than the public interest at large. These critics often sight quotes from the Founders about the concept of a “citizen legislator” who has another profession, but is called to duty, for a period of time, to serve his country in the interest of the people of his district or state.

In 1992, Michigan adopted an amendment to the state constitution with the overwhelming approval of Michigan voters (through a ballot proposition) to limit state representatives to three terms (6 years) and state senators to two terms (8 years). According to US Term Limits, a political advocacy group favoring term limits for all elected officials, 15 states have adopted term limits for their state legislatures and 8 of 10 of the nation’s largest cities have place term limits on city council members and mayors. At the federal level, the 22nd Amendment was adopted in 1951 to limit the President to two, four year terms; a tradition set by George Washington that was broken by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran and was elected to four consecutive terms. All these measures were adopted with the intentions to restrict the power and ambitions of elected officials and to preserve the concept of the citizen public servant.

Arguments against term limits generally revolve around the concept that, although well intended, term limits tend to create new power centers; particularly among lobbyists and bureaucrats. Critics suggest that because politicians are restricted in their time in office, they lack the institutional knowledge of how the legislative process works; therefore they rely on professional lobbyists and government administrators to write legislation. The counter to this, however, is that many lobbyists complain that terms limits have made their job more difficult because they cannot develop the long-term relationships that they had with incumbents who served for many years. Making the lives of lobbyists and bureaucrats more difficult and “de-professionalizing” elected representatives is exactly the sediment behind term limits.

The Citizen Legislature Act, introduced as part of the Contract with America, would have restricted House members to six terms (12 years) and Senators to two terms (also 12 years). To put this into perspective for Michiganders, had these term limits been in place for the last half century, Carl Levin would have been retired from the Senate in 1991 and John Dingell would have been retired from the House in 1967.

The Democratic Party has made a mockery of the Tea Party Movement and dismissed it as an “astroturf” movement forged by GOP stooges and industry lobbyists. After attending several of these types of events (as someone who is admittedly an active Republican), I can testify that these disgruntled citizens are not being paid by any political party or industry lobby and have genuine grievances with the actions of political class (Democrats and Republicans). In 2010, Republicans would be wise to revisit the idea of legislative term limits, an idea that can help restore the GOP as the party of limited government and respond to the publics growing anti-politician sediment.

The Impact of "Boulwarism"

2009-08-06T12:39:00.016-04:00

Modern conservatives generally rally around one figure as the pinnacle of the movement's accomplishments in the past quarter century, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. While many conservatives may have heard that as a young man Reagan championed the politics of FDR's New Deal liberalism, but few know the story of Reagan's philosophical conversion. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left him; this was a political savvy stretch of the truth. Throughout his eight years as a spokesperson for General Electric, Reagan underwent a personal and political transformation largely with the inspiration of GE's VP of Employee and Public Relations Lemuel Boulware. The story is explained by former Reagan Administration official Thomas W. Evans in his book The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years and the Untold Story of His Conversion to Conservatism.

Reagan would describe his 8 years at GE as his "post graduate education in political science." Throughout these years he read the works of great thinkers like Mises, Hayek and Kirk, was particularly inspired by the Wall Street Journal writer Henry Hazlitt and was often heard quoting exerpts from the Founders. Reagan's new academic education was also combined with his practical education learned from Boulware and his own philosophy of labor negotiation which was coined as "Boulwarism." Boulware's philosophy could be summarized as follows:

Boulwarism was not a narrow agenda for bargaining with labor. Boulware's program went over the head's of union officials directly to the blue-collar workers, their families and their neighbors. It had two main components: an ideology that set out in the same detailed what America should be and a methodology that prescribed how these goals could be achieved."

Boulware took his message of free market capitalism, his opposition to overbearing taxation and regulation and communicated with workers about how these issues impacted their lives, their families and their communities. Boulwarism was not without it's opponents; most famously UAW President Walter Reuther. The Boulware-Reuther conflict of visions began at the end of the the Second World War, when business and labor has the common cause of building weaponry for war. At the wars end, the two leaders had separate visions for what the American economy would look like. It was Boulware's vision of free-market capitalism that he believed would lead to the prosperity of the masses, versus Reuther's vision of democratic socialism that he believed would provided for the common good.

For Boulware, the threat of international communism from the USSR was not much different than the threat of socialism within the United States. Reuther, rejected the Soviet version of communism he saw within the ranks of organized labor on patriotic grounds, but would conspire to create his own version of national socialism within the United States. Boulware's 1949 speech to Harvard Business School explains his position:

"Let's keep in mind that communism and socialism have only recently--and erroneously--come to be taught by the public as two different things. Communism is just a slight variation of socialism, as were fascism and Nazism, and is now the British type which is just communism but a little less brutal, a little more gentlemanly yet, and in not so much of a hurry.
Our great problem in this country--and in the world--is to learn the economic fallacies of the whole socialist theory--and then to act accordingly to keep people from being fooled and pauperized and silenced and enslaved, and to keep our nation great--as we know and love it--from going to the ash-heap of history."

It's difficult today, to imagine a business leader like Boulware speaking so openly and honestly about his views on the political economy. Today's business leaders seem preoccupied with political correctness and often have a general lack of philosophical belief in capitalism. Reagan, a former union leader, came to understand Boulware's philosophy and approach and would later apply these principles in public life. Politically speaking, Reagan was able to tap into independent and traditionally Democratic voters by speaking over the heads of liberal elites and directly to the people. The greatest challenge the Republican Party has today is exactly this. GOP leaders must be able to explain to the American people that conservatism is a philosophy of prosperity, not privilage; as "progressives" would have people believe. We must be able to do so by speaking over the heads of our left-wing elected officials and a hostile media. The inability to do so will be our peril.

The Blue Dog Myth

2009-07-29T16:58:00.011-04:00

With the talk in recent months about the direction of the Republican Party and the media's obsession over Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, little attention has been given to (perhaps on purpose) to the inner dynamics of the Democratic Party. After all, they are the party who currently occupy the White House and have majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives. In the last week, at least some fuss has been made about the so-called Blue Dog Democrats who have voiced opposition to the Obama/Pelosi health care bill on groups that it may be too expensive and too much of a radical overhaul of the existing system.

So then what is a Blue Dog Democrat? According to their website:

The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States

The reality is that they are Democrats representing center-right districts that ran for office as conservatives knowing the national reputation of the Democratic Party in their districts. Many of them won their seats in 2006 and 2008 and were recruited to run by then DCCC Chairman Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel understood the nature of the districts and found candidates who culturally fit them in order to construct a Democratic majority in Congress. Below are the listed members of the Blue Dog Coalition:

Blue Dog Leadership Team

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip

Blue Dog Members

Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Marshall, Jim (GA-03)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)

While Emmanuel's plan to build a Democratic majority played fine in the 2006-2008 elections, the reality is that candidates are elected to govern and a Congressman often has to reflect the views of the people in their district. But, while Blue Dogs have positioned themselves as moderate-conservatives, the leadership of their party in Congress and in the White House, tilts heavily to the left. So the question remains, do these so-called Blue Dogs buck their party leaders to represent the views of their districts, or do they comply with their party leaders knowing that if they don't they will never get the committee chairmanships and leadership positions they may wish to pursue?

The votes of the Blue Dogs on the signature pieces of the Obama/Pelosi agenda including the Stimulus and Cap & Trade would be a good indication of where these Congressman stand in relation to their "fiscally conservative" claims. As it turns out only 11 Democrats in total voted against the Stimulus, or "Economic Recovery Act" that contained $787 billion worth of the so-called pork barrel spending these Blue Dogs claim to oppose. There were only 7 Democrats who voted against the final version of the Stimulus including:

Bobby Bright of Montgomery, Alabama
Peter DeFazio of Springfield, Oregon
Parker Griffiths of Huntsville, Alabama
Walt Minnick of Boise, Idaho
Collin Peterson of Fergus Falls Minnesota
Heath Shuler of Asheville, North Carolina,
Gene Taylor of Pass Christian, Mississippi

The list of Democratic Congressmen that voted against Cap & Trade is much longer, but does not include all members of the Blue Dog Coaltion. According to OpenCongress.org the following Democrats cast their vote against the legislation:

Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10]
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12]
Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper [D, PA-3]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]
Rep. Bill Foster [D, IL-14]
Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick [D, AZ-1]
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Eric Massa [D, NY-29]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3]
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D, WV-1]
Rep. Glenn Nye [D, VA-2]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Charles Wilson [D, OH-6]

When it's all added up there are only a handful of Democratic Congressman that live up to the Blue Dog mission these include Bobby Bright (AL-2), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Walt Minnick (ID-1) and Gene Taylor (MS-4) and perhaps a few more. The reality is that all four of these Congressmen represent center-right districts in solid Republican states. But, the Blue Dog Coaltion currently stands with 53 members, many of whom voted for both the Stimilus and Cap & Trade, both bills of which deal primarily with fiscal issues. On their website, the Blue Dogs keep a running count of the national debt in the righthand corner, to suggest to their supporters that they are concerned with this issue. The reality is (for most of them) this is nothing more than political posturing to get elected, so that they can pretend to put up a fight and then cave to the wishes of Pelosi and Hoyer. According to a recent analysis of Blue Dog voting from Michelle Oddis at Human Events:

When calculating 16 of the most important votes so far in the 111th Congress of the 52 members in the Blue Dog Coalition 78% have voted in lockstep with ultra liberal Rep. Steny Hoyer.

Republicans should start to assess priorities of district to target for the 2010 and 2012 elections, starting with those Blue Dogs that continue talk one way and vote another.

Dr. Gates, the Cambridge Cop and Obama's Character

2009-07-28T14:29:00.006-04:00

Bernie Quigley, of The Hill's Pundits Blog poses the question of whether or not Obama's knee-jerk reaction to the arrest of his buddy Dr. Henry Lewis Gates in Cambridge, Massachussetts was insight into the President's cultural posturing.

After July 21, when the Boston papers first reported the arrest of Professor Gates, there was plenty of time for the public to sense that whatever else happened and whatever we would learn in the next three days, this was a classic contretemps between the Two Bostons: Harvard Yard and Fenway Park. And as a classic form of single-combat psychological warfare, there could not possibly be a more unequivocally perfect symbolic representation of Harvard in our time than Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. And there could not be a more distinguished representative of Fenway Park than Sgt. James Crowley, an honest cop who taught classes on racial profiling and who supported the president “110 percent” but refused to back down to him.

Quigley asses that by taking this immediate position on a situation he knew little about:

Obama instantly alienated himself from the vast world of common folk he so hopes to save.

Maybe the Budweiser he will drink when he has his sit down with Gates and Crowley on Thursday will help the President recapture the heart of the common man?

The Final Push to Destroy Michigan's Economy

2009-07-24T11:15:00.007-04:00

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer has been expressing support for attempting to place a number of statewide ballot proposals on the Michigan ballot for the 2010 election. The following ideas for proposals have been expressed by Brewer:

* Hiking the minimum wage to $10 an hour for all workers.
* Imposing a blanket moratorium on home foreclosures for 12 months.
* Cutting utility bills by 20% across the board.
* Requiring all employers to provide health care to employees and their dependents.
* Hiking by $100 a week -- and extending for six months -- unemployment benefits, while expanding eligibility.

Brewer suggests that should the Democratic Party support these proposals in 2010, it will place itself on "the side of the people." The problem is, as today's Detroit News editorial points out, that should ideas like a $10 minimum wage increase take place, there may not be any jobs left. A state with over 15% unemployment should be looking at ways to make it's economic climate more competitive, not creating an island of entitlement and socialist schemes that promise the state's down-and-out permanent dependency and further destruct the small business and entrepreneurial sector of the state's economy. Mandating health care coverage to employers and hiking the state's minimum wage to $10 will place more Michiganders in the ranks of the unemployed to receive more generous benefits to be subsided by their neighbors, if they haven't already lost their job or fled the state.

If Brewer has his way and somehow President Obama does not fulfill the needs (at the federal level) for people like the hysterical woman in Florida (during the 2008 campaign) who said she didn't have to worry about filling her gas tank or paying her mortgage, she could always pack up her bags and move to Michigan.