It seems you're using an old browser. In order to view this site correctly, we advise you to upgrade your browser, or try the free Mozilla Firefox.
About | Advertise | Contact | Store | RSS
11/4/2009
Bookmark and Share   Email this Story Print-ready version leave a comment
[16]

Politics > Politics & Prejudices

Dear Gov. Granholm
Jenny nears the disappointing end, a political invertebrate

 

SEE ALSO
Politics & Prejudices ARCHIVES
More Politics Stories

Motown gunslingers (11/18/2009)
When the council comes packing, it sets the tone for our favorite crank

Education's last chance (11/11/2009)
How to prevent many Michigan school districts from being utterly ruined

Getting youth-enized (11/4/2009)
Organizers exude energey as the 2010 U.S. Social Forum draws nearer

More from Jack Lessenberry

Perils of ignorance (11/18/2009)
Vietnamnesia: Why it's dangerous that today's kids don't know their history

Education's last chance (11/11/2009)
How to prevent many Michigan school districts from being utterly ruined

Make them fix it (10/28/2009)

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed off on the last of this year's state budgets last week, avoiding, for now, a government shutdown.

Unfortunately, in the process, she sold out our future, doomed vast numbers of schoolchildren, and betrayed the people who elected her. Then, naturally, in classic fashion, she attempted to escape blame for what she had done. Putting down her pen, she proclaimed: "This is the budget we have, but it is not the budget we need. It is a budget I don't agree with and don't support."

To which any sane person would say, huh?

You signed it, lady. You didn't have to. You could have gone on television and said that you weren't going to allow the Legislature to break its promise to 96,000 students now in college. You and your government promised them college scholarship money.

You not only signed off on an agreement to cut funding for public school students by $165 a child, you then arbitrarily cut a longtime "special appropriation" for those districts that have traditionally spent more to try to give their students a better chance.

Then, to everyone's shock, you cut spending for all students again. In Harper Woods, a working-class to middle-class district, educators will have nearly $600 less per student to work with.

That's what you did, governor.

Most of us thought this was some sort of clumsy attempt to force the Republicans, who control the state Senate, into agreeing to raise a little more revenue to save education. But they just laughed.

This will mean that some school districts will close early or have to be taken over by the state, or both. Proposal A took away the ability of communities to save their schools through assessing themselves higher millage rates. The promise was that the state would do that.

Another promise betrayed.   

Yes, you signed on to all of this, governor. You agreed to cut Medicaid payments to nursing homes that take care of the poor and the sick. You signed on to cut revenue sharing to already-desperate local governments. That means the odds are that more cities will go the way of Highland Park and Pontiac, meaning you will be appointing emergency financial managers to run them too.

When you signed the final budget bills that did all that, you bleated that the document you just approved "makes cuts that are too deep and painful for kids going to college, families keeping their families healthy and keeping their streets safe."

Yes, it does all that. But you know something? You could have avoided all these cuts — all of them — by getting the Legislature to raise the state income tax from 4.35 percent to 5.1 percent. That's the calculation of the top expert on the state's economy, Michigan State University's Charles Ballard, a professor of economics.

That would have cost a taxpayer making, say, $52,000 a year maybe an extra $300 bucks, or a little less, after deductions. Actually, it would have been a good deal for everyone in our state, since those getting hit with more tax would recover about 20 percent of it as a federal income tax deduction.  

Yes, I know what you would say to that. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop would never agree to it. Yes, that is probably so.

But you never even asked the Legislature to do that.

You could have gone on television and appealed to the people. You could have said, accurately, that a small band of 21 Republicans in the state Senate were holding our future hostage. That they were willing to destroy our schools — elementary, high school and college — and our kids' chance at education instead of raising taxes for all of us by maybe five or six bucks a week.

You could have said what Speaker of the House Andy Dillon said when it was all over, after you signed this budget: "The Senate has chosen to put tax breaks for oil companies and loopholes for the tobacco industry ahead of education for our kids, police and fire protection, and health care for our families."

You could have pointed out to the voters that a sizable majority of them voted for a Democratic state Senate three years ago, but that the GOP kept control thanks to gerrymandering and a couple of close races where Green Party candidates tipped the result.

But you didn't do that. You could have told the truth about Mike Bishop, which is that he's determined to stop any increase in revenues at any cost for one reason: Term limits means he needs a new job, and he wants the GOP nomination for attorney general. That nomination is awarded, not by voters in a primary, but by right-wing party activists. He has to be as right-wing as possible.

But, governor, you did none of that. History will scratch its head at your weakness. Think: Three years ago, you were re-elected by a landslide in which a record 2,143,513 of us voted for you. You had enormous political capital and no reason not to spend it. You can't run again. You can't run for president or vice president, because you weren't born a citizen. Democrats control both U.S. Senate seats, so you can't think about going there.

Your career as an elected official is probably over. You had a golden opportunity to try to make major reforms. You had a chance to refocus the state on the future, to change the way we do things, levy taxes, plan our budgets. We live in a service economy now, but we don't tax services. Manufacturing is rapidly shrinking, but the state still relies on taxing it, which is a large part of the problem and much of the reason why we have such an enormous deficit.

You have done virtually none of that. Yet the worst is yet to come, and is coming soon.

Bad as this budget is, it would have been far worse if it hadn't been for the federal stimulus dollars. You and the Legislature threw about $1.5 billion of what was left into the deficit hole. Next year, the budget deficit is likely to be just as bad. But there will be no, or almost no, stimulus money left. What will you do then?

What will we do then? Add to the economic difficulty the fact that this will be an election year. Politicians running for office hate making hard decisions when they have to face the voters.

You will essentially be a lame duck. You won't be running for anything, and have nothing to lose. This will be your final chance to lead us — and may be Michigan's final chance to avoid having our education and infrastructure damaged beyond repair.

I hope you will finally try to do the right thing. But I won't hold my breath.


Fair and balanced:
Annetta Miller, a member of Wayne State University's Board of Governors, reports that Comcast, her cable TV provider, is dumping the mildly left-leaning MSNBC from basic cable, but leaving the right-wing propaganda outlet Fox "news."

"We've always had the least expensive plan. We are told rates are going up, to $38.99 a month, and the next plan will give us Fox, but not MSNBC. We called and they say to receive MSNBC we must buy the $59.99 plan, starting Nov. 15." She is rather indignant.

"What they are doing is not offering fair and balanced opportunities to hear the news," she said. As of this writing, Comcast hasn't returned my e-mail asking for an explanation.

Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times. Contact him at letters@metrotimes.com.

Comments

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 10:07:24 AM, JLCGULL said:

Re: MSNBC. Liberalism always costs more. It's like a tax.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 10:09:22 AM, Detroit Isotope said:

Granholm never had an idea of her own or a spine. This was certainly her last opportunity to demonstrate resolve, and instead she demonstrated resignation. I can't wait to see this place in my rear-view mirror.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 11:35:06 AM, TigersLoseAgain said:

"Liberalism always costs more"... what does that mean? It fits nicely on a bumper sticker, but what does it mean? Explain yourself.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 1:08:26 PM, Doc d20 said:

"...mild left-leaning MSNBC..." Pah! They're practically a media wing of the Obama administration. Comcast is dropping MSNBC because NOBODY IS WATCHING it. It's costing Comcast more (in viewership, and thus, in dollars) to carry the channel. The piss-drinker, Olbermann, and the pseudo-intellectual, Maddow, get their asses handed to them DAILY (by FNC) in the ratings. There's no wondering why Comcast would charge their patrons more to stick with a loser. TLA ties all this in nicely with his/her comment: A debate (that is, the struggle to win the convictions of your fellow man) cannot be won with sound bites. There is rarely a single retort that magically slams the door on an opponent's argument. I'd argue that wall-to-wall coverage and the 24-hour news cycle--both inventions of cable news services--have essentially killed both debate (TRUE debate) and in-depth/feature reporting, which (in my opinion) were the two best tools available for producing informed voters.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 1:11:31 PM, JLCGULL said:

It's like a tax.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 3:03:14 PM, Doc d20 said:

On the other hand, sometimes you've gotta fight fire with fire. You can't rationally debate with a near-indigent mob screaming shit at you like "No justice, no peace!" and "Free Mumia!"

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 3:19:44 PM, Jeff said:

Fox & MSNBC are the same. Screaming is not news casting. CNN is a shell of what they once were. As far as TV goes, you have the CBC and the BBC. Everything else is just MTV. Didn't really get to know Granholm much as I've just moved here. But I watched Bill Mahr one time and she was on as a guest. Aside from being pretty cute, she SEEMED pretty smart. But I guess you need a spine to support a brain and it looks like she lacked one of those

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 4:08:24 PM, doable said:

I love how Jack just dismisses Granholm as pretty much a spineless joke and in turn, he just accepts any argument that any state funded operation cannot possibly function on less money. Hey the vested interests wouldn't lie, would they? Many households cannot function on less money Jack yet you have determined that it is their duty to do with less because a state funded organization demands it. Why would anyone freely take away from their family to give to the state? Especially this state.

Report this comment On 11/4/2009 9:05:30 PM, bethmartin said:

BRILLIANT column. Granholm was playing a twisted game of chicken with my kids' futures. Who would think that slashing school funding could get republicans to raise taxes, rollback tax cuts, or increase service fees? Thanks to GOP dogma gone bad, it's political suicide if they do. How dare Granholm bet it all on such a lame and irresponsible strategy. It's truly a dereliction of duty.

Report this comment On 11/8/2009 10:35:00 AM, Mr. Anonymous said:

Jack if you need an explanation about why a cable provider might dump MSNBC from a basic package, it is this; MSNBC appeals to people who are former officers of Americans for Democratic Action, which describes itself as "the nation's oldest liberal political organization." Which describes Annetta Miller, who really is a former officer of the ADA. Cable providers supply the most popular channels as part of basic packages. MSNBC is about as popular as The Ferrett Channel. Still nobobdy is censoring anything. If you want a tiny, niche cable channel, you can get it; you just have to pay for it. Unlike the Wayne State-sponsored and -supported left-wing newstalk radio station, WDET. It is astonishing; the gall and the arrogance of a WSU Governor like Annetta Miller, griping about content on a commercial cable outlet, when her state university, along with state and federal tax support, is being used to prop up liberal talk radio in the form that is presented by WDET. Complain about "Fox 'News'" all you want, Jack. At least Fox, like Rush Limbaugh, pays its own bills without reliance on state support. And in the process, gets ratings that would make MSNBC blue with envy.

Report this comment On 11/8/2009 5:47:03 PM, Mr. Anonymous said:

I need to apologize, to all ferret-Americans. I misspelled "Ferret" above.

Report this comment On 11/9/2009 1:41:39 AM, kb8vid said:

Dear AmnesiJack: In case you forgot, Granholm shoved massive tax increases through the legislature JUST LAST YEAR. These were supposed to fix the problems once and for all. This year the Republicans, with no turncoats (RINOs) in their midst, stood up for the taxpayers and said HELL NO! Good for them! Remember the classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. $300 here and $300 there and pretty soon you're talking REAL MONEY to us beleagured taxpayers...

Report this comment On 11/9/2009 2:21:56 PM, ValerieM said:

I know Lessenberry would never, ever admit it, but I'll bet a large number of people are now wishing we elected a Green party governor who's not afraid to get confrontational.

Report this comment On 11/9/2009 5:51:40 PM, jlessl said:

Doc wrote - "Comcast is dropping MSNBC because NOBODY IS WATCHING it. It's costing Comcast more (in viewership, and thus, in dollars) to carry the channel." Oh pullleez! Since when does Comcast base its lineup on viewership? Since NEVER! There are a gazillion crap channels that NOBODY watches, and just try to get those off on ANY plan you have with Comcast. The only thing Comcast is concerned with is the PREMIUM channels, e.g., HBO, Showtime, etc., for which it can charge you more money. So, your argument is baseless.

Report this comment On 11/10/2009 1:29:13 PM, Doc d20 said:

jlessl: Right, what was I thinking? Why would Comcast ever base the content of their product around what consumers want? This is freaking Obama bizarro-land, where up is down, and whatever the liberals want is right. Until you can get Pelosi and Reid to pass you a Fairness Doctrine, supply and demand rule.

Report this comment On 11/11/2009 9:10:25 AM, Jim48043 said:

There is too an office for which Jenny will run: the Michigan Supreme Court. Count on it.

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Leave a comment on this article.

User:
Password:

By posting a message, you agree to our Posting Policies No account? New users sign up here.
Forgot your password?

  • Events
  • Eats
  • Drinks

Keyword search

Detailed search

Preferences

Critic's picks

Non-recurring

All ages

Keyword search

Browse restaurants

Search by:

Cuisines (1781)

City (1780)

Neighborhood (79)

Reviewed (501)

Critic's pick (175)

Open 24 hours (25)

Late dinner (392)

Brunch (154)

Takeout (652)

Delivery (142)

Outdoor dining (226)

Kid friendly (411)

Serving

Food (1185)

Microbrew (237)

No alcohol (88)

Featuring

Dance floor (849)

Darts (625)

Billiards (698)

Games (759)

TV (1075)

Outdoor seating (402)

Wheelchair access (852)

Keyword search

Detailed Search

> PLACE CLASSIFIED AD

Untitled Document
MECHANIC: Full time, Part time
COLLEGE GRADS!: Full time, Part time
LAW ENFORCEMENT: Full time, Part time
View all TOP JOBS ads
ROOMS FOR RENT: Homes & Apartments Available
View all TOP HOMES/RENTALS ads
RASOR LAW FIRM PLLC.: Sharp. Agressive. Responsive.
BANKRUPTCY: Criminal Defense, Family Law, Firearms
View all TOP ATTORNEY ads