Do the right thing for our kids

After reading about the right-wing's smear campaign against Graeme Frost, the 12-year-old boy who recently shared his story about being involved in a severe car accident and receiving medical care because of SCHIP, I've concluded that our children are not safe around most Republicans.

Thank heavens we still have bona fide "compassionate" people like Gov. Granholm speaking out for them. She urges everyone to do the right thing and protect our kids by overturning Bush's veto. You can do that by visiting JenniferGranholm.com/SCHIP to show your support for the compromise that garnered strong support from Democrats and Republicans across the country.

Here's some background from the governor's website:

Thanks to MIChild, we provide health care to 55,000 children in Michigan every month - but there are still 158,000 children without health care who desperately need it. [...]

The bill would provide Michigan with an additional $64 million in funding for children's health care in 2008. That's a 44% increase for Michigan's children compared to the President's proposal.

The funding would enable the state to provide affordable health coverage to an additional 80,900 low-income uninsured children in Michigan. [...]

We have a real opportunity to overturn Bush's veto. This legislation was supported by 67 senators and 43 of the nation's governors from both political parties. In the senate, it was passed with a "veto proof" majority - and we are only about 25 votes short of a veto proof majority in the House. In Michigan, Republican Representatives Upton, Ehlers, and Miller voted in favor of the bill. Representatives Walberg, Knollenberg, Rogers, McCotter, Camp, and Hoekstra were the Michigan members to vote against it.

Our children shouldn't suffer because their parents can't buy insurance through normal means. Please, click over to JenniferGranholm.com/SCHIP and ask your legislators to override the president's veto.

Where was this sentiment months ago?

From the Macomb Daily: Granholm's 2-cent tax doesn't look so bad now

Now that the Lansing budget battle has degenerated into bitterness and brinksmanship, it’s too late for lawmakers to pull back and retrace their steps.

But somebody has to say it: The 2-cent tax on services that was proposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm doesn’t look so bad now, does it?

No, it doesn't look so bad, and I said that way back in February. Of course, my opinion didn't count, not that it matters. Republicans never wanted a solution. They only wanted to make Granholm look bad.

So, here we sit seven months later on the verge of a state shutdown and this editorial comes to the conclusion that Granholm was right after all, and they give lots of solid arguments to back up their reasoning.

The prospect of an income tax increase has taxpayers up in arms and legislators cowering in fear. Yet, I think we all realize that we’re going to see an income tax boost to 4.6 percent when this melodrama ends.

Compared to the finger pointing and gnashing of teeth in Lansing over the past 10 days, I think the 2-cent tax would have been an easier sell to the constituency — and easier for lawmakers to swallow.

Which would you prefer, a bigger bite out of your weekly paycheck or an extra two cents on the dollar when you get your hair cut or play a round of golf ?

When Granholm proposed the services tax in February, she claimed it would cost the average family just $69 a year. That was probably low, but even if the price tag was $100, that’s about one-third the cost of a higher income tax. [...]

It was a broad-based tax on about 120 services, meaning it would have brought in a lot of money paid by tourists and visitors to Michigan. It would have better reflected the new economy, with service industries emerging as a large and growing sector. It probably would have had minimal impact on Michigan’s national reputation in the business community, since most states already tax a wide array of services.

Most importantly, it would have levied taxes on “discretionary” spending rather than hitting workers’ paychecks. Those who choose to pay for a health club membership or prime seats to a Red Wings game would know that a 2 percent levy was attached.

Anti-tax activists say that people in Michigan are hurting and can’t afford a tax increase. Well, those who are hurting don’t spend money on pedicures and tanning salons and expensive concert tickets. In fact, I suspect low-income families would barely feel the pinch of a tax on services.

In addition, the 2-cent tax would add some symmetry, some logic, to Michigan’s tax system. Why, when we go to a golf course pro shop, should we pay taxes on the purchase of golf balls but not on a round of golf ? Why, when we go to a salon, should we pay taxes on hair-care products but not on a hair cut? [...]

It’s important to remember that the 2-cent tax would have generated $1.5 billion, more than what’s now needed if cuts and reforms take hold. Some controversial levies could have been eliminated from the list of taxable services, or the tax could have been whittled down to a mere 1.5 cents.

But that’s now all hindsight, with our legislators flailing away and embarrassing our state. This whole budget battle could have been avoided if Granholm’s tax had been recognized months ago as a better alternative to a higher income tax.

The GOP failed the citizens of Michigan in their zeal to make Granholm look bad. Was it payback for her punishing win over DeVos? Possibly. Whatever the reason, they need to be held accountable for playing politics instead of working and booted out of office next time around.

Republicans two-faced about taxes

I wouldn't send a Republican to McDonald's with a $20 bill to pick up a hamburger for me. Not only would they keep the change, they'd probably eat my hamburger. How did I reach this conclusion? Follow along.

From Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, I learned that five MI GOP Members of Congress sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, House Leader Craig DeRoche, Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, Fred Upton, and Tim Walberg urging them to hang tough against a state tax increase. Michigan faces a government shutdown if the legislature doesn't pass a new budget by the end of the month. State Republicans want $1 billion in cuts; meanwhile, Gov. Granholm and Democrats called the cuts draconian and said they would hurt our citizens, schools, police, etc.

The Republicans are outraged that Granholm and the Democrats would put people and a decent quality of life ahead of tax cuts. How dare they waste tax dollars they ask? Well, what about Iraq? Where's the outrage about the amount of money we're spending there? We've spent over $500 billion on that lie so far, but according to Daily Kos that's just the beginning.

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop drawdown -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States [...] [emphasis added]

A prior CBO study estimated that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion. On top of that, under the reduced-force combat scenario envisioned in this CBO estimate, the U.S. will spend another $1 trillion by 2057 -- the lifespan of the U.S.'s Korean presence to date.

Kos says, "I'd respect the Republicans mishandling this war a tiny bit more if they actually worried about paying for this war rather than blather on about tax cuts."

To paraphrase Kos, I'd respect our state Republicans a tiny bit more if they were honest. They argue that no amount of money is too much to spend in Iraq, but when it comes to meeting the needs of people here at home - the ones who send their tax dollars to Washington to pay for their war - they snap their wallets shut and expect the rest of us to follow along. They know this war is based on a lie, but it's more important to stick to the party line than admit they were wrong.

So you see, it's okay for us to send money to Washington so they can continue their war indefinitely - a war that enriches Republican profiteers and CEO's of defense contractors - but we get nothing in return, not even some change to spend on our schools, infrastructure, health care, etc.

We're being robbed.

Budget wishes and realities

I read this letter-to-the-editor in the Freep and immediately thought "be careful what you wish for."

Our best hope now in this budget mess is for government to shut down in the state. We don't fear it; we welcome it -- the longer the better. The services we receive are easy to live without. In fact, I can't think of a thing they do for me or a thing I'd miss. Government shutdowns don't hurt any of us who pay the bill, only those on the public dole.

Jon Etnyre, Sterling Heights

So what is Jon referring to? Michigan legislators have till the end of the month to come up with a new budget or the state faces a shutdown. Republicans want $1 billion in budget cuts along with a state income tax hike from 3.9 percent to 4.4 percent. Gov. Granholm said the state can't sustain such high cuts without hurting people and has proposed $300 million in cuts. Democrats are also proposing a hike in the state income tax to 4.6 percent.

How did our state get to this point? Jack Lessenberry explains:

The present crisis has been a long time coming. The politicians have starved state government and set up the current crisis by slowly choking off public money through a series of tax cuts.

Stay with me for a minute while I explain how that happened: For many years, Michigan's income tax was 4.6 percent. That was cut to 4.4 percent in 1994, when Proposal A increased the sales tax to finance education.

That was fine and dandy. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in if they had just left it at that. But the Legislature then gradually cut the income tax rate from 4.4 percent to 3.9 percent — without replacing that money.

What that meant was that every year the state came up short. Those who wanted the tax cuts said, "Fine, that means we should cut spending." In fact, the Legislature did, gradually eliminating programs, some of which (sorry, liberals) probably deserved to be eliminated.

But those savings weren't enough to make up for the loss of money, and inflation and other factors (such as the growing prison population) meant the state needed more and more money for legitimate needs.

Things also have gotten worse as the dwindling auto companies threw people out of work, further reducing tax revenues coming in.

What did our lawmakers do about that? Ducked responsibility, that's what. They raided whatever savings and "rainy day funds" the state had. They shoved the problem over into future years. Last May, in a move that should have gotten the legislators all impeached or shot for dereliction of duty, they sold off money the state was due to get in future years for an outrageous fraction of its worth.

According to the national settlement against the tobacco companies, every state gets a pot load of money every year to compensate for medical expenses incurred by the millions of people tobacco kills. Michigan's irresponsible lawmakers traded $900 million in future payments for $400 million right then.

That was, again, to avoid dealing with this year's budget problem. They also shoved a lot of the deficit into next year's budget. Now, the party's over.

There are no more funds to loot — not enough, anyway, to come up with the money needed. Now, the cupboard is just about bare, and the state starts out with a deficit of $1.8 billion. Not million, billion.

Granholm has already reconciled more than $4 billion in budget deficits and state government is at its smallest size since 1973, but Republicans - and Jon - want more cuts that will increase class size in our schools, take police off the streets, take away health care from thousands, and possibly shut down the state. It's easy to say "shut it down," but are Republicans and people like Jon really prepared to live with the consequences? This letter-to-the-editor writer isn't:

I was fascinated by the Sept. 14 letter "Go ahead, shut the state down" (from a letter writer in Sterling Heights), which said shutting state government down would hurt "only those on the public dole."

One out of every three state employees works for Corrections, so I guess we can release all those prisoners; may I suggest Sterling Heights as a nice place to send them? Then there are the remaining state mental hospitals staffed by state employees; we can send those patients to Sterling Heights as well.

I guess the writer eats only at home, so he will not miss the state employees who survey restaurants to make sure they are compliant with public health requirements. And he must never go to the hospital or know anyone in a nursing home, so he will not miss the state employees who survey them for compliance with state licensure and Medicare and Medicaid rules.

The writer must never leave Sterling Heights to visit any of the state parks or forests, so he won't miss the state employees who work there. And he doesn't travel the roads that the Department of Transportation work on, so there is no need for those people. He must never visit the casinos, so he won't miss the state employees who need to be working for those to run.

Hopefully he is not a doctor, nurse or in any other type of job that needs a state license, because the people who process those licenses -- and those who investigate reasons why some doctors, nurses and other professions need to lose those licenses -- will all be gone.

He probably has never been unemployed, so he would not need the state workers who handle unemployment. And, of course, he would never need the state troopers for any reason, nor the Secretary of State's office.

Andrea L. VanDenBergh, Belleville

I side with Andrea on this, and she didn't even touch on the sick, poor or children, all targets of Republican cuts. And what about all the people who will lose their jobs because of the cuts? Our state needs more jobs and more revenue, so how does it help our economy to put people out of work? Those people pay taxes on their income and spend it in their communities.

Lessenberry sums it up best:

Taxes are the price we pay for a decent life. Restoring the state income tax rate to 4.6 percent would cost someone who makes $50,000 about five bucks a week. You blow more than that on vending machines. Failing to raise taxes might double college tuition, lower the quality of our schools at the same time, risk the public heath and raise license fees through the roof.

The cupboard is almost bare, and regardless of what the Republicans or people like Jon say, a majority of Michigan's voters support a tax increase combined with reasonable cuts. "Reasonable" is not throwing people under the bus for a few dollars.

Michigan connections in the news

As Rodney Dangerfield might say, I got nothing. I'm not inspired to write, but I've been doing a lot of reading, so let me share some links that all have ties to Michigan.

First, from Schools Matter, comes this little tidbit about All Children Matter, founded by Michigan's losing gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos:

What happens when someone like charter school kingin, David Brennan, wants to buy more influence in Ohio elections than state law will allow? You do what Tom Delay did--you simply launder the money through an out-of-state outfit like All Children Matter that turns your cash into campaign contributions for your preferred stable of candidates.

Wisconsin also filed a complaint, contending the group laundered money and failed to register, but the state elections board there refused to authorize an investigation.

Also related to the DeVos family name is this news regarding Alticor (formerly known as Amway):

Alticor Inc. has fired 15 long-term and highly influential Quixtar distributors who filed a class-action lawsuit against the direct sales giant last week.

The ramifications of the dust-up for the Ada-based parent company of Amway could be huge -- especially as the company faces increased regulatory pressure in India and the United Kingdom.

Seventeen distributors are named as plaintiffs in a scathing suit that says Quixtar operates as a pyramid scheme selling merchandise at prices so inflated it cannot be sold to anyone other than distributors.

Did the company really fire them or did some of them resign? Webraw reports that eight distributors posted their letter of resignation online the day before the Quixtar announcement.

The big news this week was Karl Rove's resignation, but did you know there might be a Michigan connection?

What Really Brought Rove Down?

When the Bush administration angered one of its most hard-right officials, he launched an investigation into Karl Rove's politicization of the federal government -- which may be what led to Rove's resignation.

Scott Bloch, director of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), may have been Rove's ultimate undoing. As you might recall, Bloch embarrassed the Bush administration in 2004 when he removed from his agency's website a notice of long-standing protections for gays and lesbians. Bush officials were forced to contradict Bloch's stance and Rove reportedly referred to Bush's religious-right supporters as "out of control." Shortly after this, Bloch demanded that most career attorneys in his office accept involuntary transfers or lose their jobs. Nearly all of these attorneys had challenged Bloch's decision to remove the nondiscrimination policy statement about gays and lesbians from the Web site and two were openly gay.

So, where's the Michigan connection, and how does this relate to Karl Rove? Read on:

One of the agency locations to which transfers were being made was a new office Bloch was opening in Michigan, even though the agency was dealing with very few cases in that region. However, the region was home to Ave Maria Law School, an institution founded by Thomas S. Monaghan, the Daddy Warbucks of new-right Catholics... Bloch ended the standard competition for law internships in his office and began hiring straight out of Ave Maria. [...]

Bloch may have thought that his brand of anti-union, homophobic loyalty to the Bush-Rove cause of misappropriating the taxpayer-funded apparatus of the federal government for partisan political purposes would win him some major kudos. But it was not to be. Apparently Bloch's Ave Maria-boostering and overtly anti-gay (hating both the sin and the sinner) antics were a bit over the top, as it were, so in 2005, Clay Johnson, the No. 2 at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) called on Bloch to resign, according to columnist Robert Novak. Then, wrote Novak, some mysterious, unnamed, Bush-loving Catholic was dispatched to Bloch to gently suggest the same.

When Bloch refused to tender his resignation, Johnson, according to Novak, set off an investigation of Bloch via a referral to the inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management. Bloch responded in kind, launching an OSC investigation into the administration's politicization of government agencies -- an investigation that landed at Rove's door.

Bloch's investigation led to the discovery of Rove's infamous PowerPoint presentation that "listed Democrats the White House has targeted for defeat in 2008" and to the discovery that Rove deployed officials from various government departments to appear with Republican members of Congress engaged in tough 2006 re-election fights (paid for by taxpayers). How ironic that a Bush appointee, one who was stereotypically loyal, hard-right and religious, might be responsible for Rove's resignation. It's too bad it took so long.

Finally, Romney says he could win Michigan if nominated. I don't think so. Romney is the wealthiest candidate in the race and isn't afraid to spend his own cash to get elected, but that didn't influence Michigan's voters when DeVos spent $35 million of his own kitty. He lost to Jennifer Granholm by a 14 point margin.

I don't think voters will be influenced by the fact his father, George Romney, was once our governor either. The voters bought that line of logic when they elected George Bush the son and look where that got us. Sorry, Mitt, but the Mitten says NO!

DeVos speaks, MIGOP listens

Why are state Republicans still listening to DeVos?

Republicans who control the state Senate got a pep talk Tuesday from GOP businessman and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

DeVos, who lost to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm in the November election and is rumored to be eyeing another bid, spoke for 20 to 30 minutes during a Senate GOP caucus meeting at the start of session. [...]

DeVos said Republicans outside Lansing support the GOP's stance that significant structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase.

I guess the party feels obligated because the man spent millions of dollars of his own money trying to unseat Gov. Granholm, but the fact that he was trounced should be a clue that the public finds him as irrelevant as George Bush.

Seriously. DeVos based his election on somewhat dubious, if not downright untruthful claims. He ran around crowing that, "49 other states are doing great. 49 other states are moving forward. 49 other states are adding jobs. And yet, Michigan is the only one lagging behind," and he placed the blame squarely on Gov. Granholm.

That's not how several papers saw it. As the Ludington News Daily said, "The near collapse of the Big Three is not the fault of the Legislature nor the governor. It’s in part the fault of the Big Three for failing to adapt to a global economy, work together with their unions to comply with that increased competition and changing consumer desires."

It wasn't how the voters saw it either. CNN reported that the economy nearly tied Iraq as the reason voters across the country came out to vote last November.

DeVos also ran a series of ads about our depressed housing market and the glut of homes on the market. The implication was that housing was doing great in 49 other states. Yeah, right. Foreclosures rates have been growing across the country since last spring, right about the time DeVos started running his first campaign ads.

From ABC News:

New data released this afternoon indicates that one in every 656 homes in the United States went into foreclosure during May. [...]

"The principal source of the slowdown in economic growth that began last spring has been the substantial correction in the housing market," said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a speech in late March. [emphasis added]

Michigan currently ranks eighth among states, with one in every 448 homes in foreclosure, but we're certainly not alone in our misery like DeVos wanted us to believe.

Aside from the misleading and disingenuous twisting of facts, why are state Republicans listening to DeVos on taxes? He supports the GOP's stance that structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase, yet he and his family are willing to let taxpayers help build a new stadium for their basketball team in Orlando. If they don't see this as a double standard, shame on them.

And what about the millions of taxpayer dollars that benefit his brother-in-law, Eric Prince, owner of Blackwater Security? I've never heard DeVos raise objections about that money, not even when it came to light that Rep. Henry Waxman wrote Sec. Donald Rumsfeld requesting answers as to why taxpayers paid exorbitant prices for Blackwater's services. Waxman is still waiting for those answers (and so is the public).

And why are state Republicans listening to DeVos when they should be questioning him and his family about Blackwater's lack of transparency and accountability: Blackwater Heavies Sue Families of Slain [Fallujah] Employees for $10 Million in Brutal Attempt to Suppress Their Story.

If taxpayer money provides funding for Blackwater Security, then taxpayers deserve to know if the company cut corners in order to maximize profit - and in the process jeopardized those mens' lives. Surely, Michigan's GOP believes in accountability and transparency, right?

Whatever their reason for listening to DeVos, there's an old adage they might want to consider: When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. They need to ask themselves if that's a risk they're willing to take. It hasn't worked out so well for many Bush loyalists and it just might not work out so well for them either.

Taypayer Money Helps DeVos

The Muskegon Chronicle had this to say about our state GOP naysayers:

State Republicans aren't letting a little thing like an election defeat end their ongoing blockade of Gov. Jennifer Granholm's attempts to stabilize the state budget. [...]

Probably, Dick and Betsy DeVos, and maybe John Engler, are cheering them on. Michigan voters didn't elect any of that trio to lead our state this dark and depressing year, but they sure seem to be in charge nonetheless.

I think the Chronicle is probably right. The DeVos family is one of the largest contributors to the Republican Party and they've been trying to influence politics behind the scenes for years. The fact that they and state Republicans are calling for even deeper cuts - instead of a 2% service tax to stabilize the budget - is kind of funny considering the fact that taxpayers are helping Daddy DeVos build a new stadium for his basketball team in Orlando.

Happytown is not too happy. Foul cried one journalist.

The only reason the city is building a new arena is that the Magic demanded it. Yet all they are willing to contribute is 10 percent. Someone should have called foul.

Is arena deal too good to Magic? asked another.

Critics charge that local taxpayers will get shortchanged in the pending $480 million deal. That's because the team stands to gain huge profits -- perhaps tens of millions more than it earns now -- from selling luxury suites, premium seats, advertising and more.

And Living in Fantasyland is how another journalist summed it up.

Yes, we all know that billionaire team owners have been raking taxpayers across the coals for decades in this country. But as most of your kindergarten teachers used to tell you: Just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean it's OK for you to do it, too.

As long as taxpayers keep letting them get away with it, rich Republicans will keep on trying, and DeVos is no different. The only time Republicans hate taxes is when they can't use them for personal profit.

Orlando taxpayers can take some solace from this fact though:

The Magic will control the construction of the new arena. This will enable them to cut corners so as to avoid any cost overruns for which they would be responsible.

Under the city’s contract, however, the Magic have to follow the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance. Which means Magic owner/fundie weirdo Rich DeVos can’t refuse to hire gays to build his new pleasure palace! (He also can’t refuse to hire blacks, Hispanics, midgets, Wiccans, atheists or disgruntled Amway customers.)

That's priceless.

A Dollar-A-Day for the State GOP, Nothing for the People of Michigan

The naysayers are determined to ruin our state. Senate Republican leaders said they will turn down Granholm's budget-balancing plan because they oppose a tax hike she proposed. How do they propose dealing with Michigan's $800 million-plus deficit? That can be entirely closed by making cuts according to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester. Naturally, he wasn't specific on where the cuts would be made, although he was clear school aid reductions are on the table. I'm so flabbergasted, I'm at a loss for words, so let me quote Wizardkitten:

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of the sad state of the MI GOP, the party that is continuing to hold your future hostage to their outdated and damaging fiscal policies. They are proud to say "NO" to your kids, to retraining displaced workers, to alternative energy, to creating jobs... well, proud to say "NO" to Michigan in general. And they still won't tell you what they would do instead.

The tax they're objecting to is the 2% tax on services that will cost the average family $65 a year - or 18 cents a day. Meanwhile, the MIGOP website asks Michigan Republicans to join the Dollar-A-Day Club so they can keep the party on the job every day fighting for America's future. What about fighting for Michigan's future?

You would think Granholm had been calling for tax hike after tax hike the way the GOP whined, but that's not the case. The Traverse City Record-Eagle recently addressed how our state got to this point:

For years now, as the systemic tax cuts created by Gov. John Engler have drained revenue streams and the auto industry has obliterated jobs by the tens of thousands and millions in income taxes, Michigan government has survived only through round after round of budget cuts.

Schools, local governments, bridges, roads and parks have all taken hit after hit, to the point that nowadays, all they can manage is to go through the motions. We're getting the minimum because that's what we're putting in.

And year after year other states have gained on us. Michigan's K-12 and higher education programs used to be among the best in the nation but now they're a shell of their former selves. Michigan has lost its reputation as a place where highly skilled workers helped innovation become reality.

To begin making the changes so necessary to compete in the new global economy Granholm has dared to speak the dreaded words: Tax hike. She has proposed a 2 percent sales tax on services, such as hiring a lawyer and getting a haircut, a five-cent hike on cigarettes and a 5 percent hike on liquor.

The paper concluded that the plan was fair and that Michigan must invest in itself to compete on the world stage. It also pointed out that her proposal was more than just a tax hike, it also included the following:

* Two years of community college education for free for displaced workers.
* Commuting the sentences of some elderly and non-violent prisoners. Michigan, incredibly, spends more on prisons than K-12 education and costs must be cut.
* Giving those who buy a new vehicle a sales tax break. Buyers could subtract the value of their trade-in from the cost of the new vehicle and pay sales tax only on the difference.
* Make more than $400 million in cuts from this year's budget.
* Cut next year's budget by more than $300 million.
* Schools and local governments will be expected to cooperate more in terms of sharing services and reducing costs. Those that do will be rewarded.

The Governor's plan was a chance to give Michigan a future, but we can't have that future unless we're willing to make an investment. State Republicans want you to invest a dollar-a-day for their Party, but they turn their noses up at 18 cents a day for Michigan. That tells me they don't care about Michigan or its citizens, they only care about politics.

Reaction to Granholm's Plan

Gov. Granholm delivered a powerful State of the State address last night. There wasn't anything I heard I didn't like. Her plan to turn Michigan around has lots of vision and innovation, but most of all it was fair and balanced. If you missed the speech, I recommend you click the link and read it. If you want reactions, the Conservative Media has some thoughts, as well as the bloggers at Michigan Liberal, and I'm sure as the day progresses other Michigan bloggers will be posting their thoughts as well (check out the sidebar).

I couldn't let one reaction pass by without commenting on it though. This is from the Freep:

State Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, called Granholm's agenda ambitious but lacking in specifics.

"Where we can agree, we'll work hard and we'll work together," Cassis said. "I want to know. Show us the money. It seems like a big price tag. Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does." [emphasis added]

That's not what this recent report from the Economic Policy Institute indicates:

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001. [emphasis added]

Cassis might want to check her facts before she makes statements to the media or risk being perceived as a naysayer.

UPDATE: Here's a little related reading from Media Mouse: $6.2 Million Awarded to Companies in West Michigan for Military Work in January.