LSJ Blogs: Capitol Journal by Scott Davis

Another Hitler smear: The new political normal

A week of incivility at the State Capitol ended on the most uncivil of notes.

L. Brooks Patterson, the Republican who serves as Oakland County’s executive, likened fellow Republican House Speaker Jase Bolger to Adolph Hitler Friday after Bolger summarily suspended some committee assignments following a tiff with Democratic leaders. Patterson made the comment during a taping of “Off the Record,” and even highlighted the point by using his black comb to resemble a Hitler mustache.

In a previous column, I made sport of Bolger’s shakeup of Democratic committee assignments, saying he was confusing political theater for all-out political warfare. But Hitler? I’m think an inference to genocide in Capitol politics is a tad over the top.

In recent years, calling one's opponents 'Hitler' or 'Nazis' has been the rise as our politics have become more polarized. It happens on both sides of the aisle, and often, the zealots actually mean it. President Obama is Hitler for pushing gun control! Former president George W. Bush and his staff were Nazis in pursuing enhanced interrogation techniques!

The truth is, Hitler has become such a monster in our collective mind that no person, friend or foe, can really be compared to him – certainly not Bolger. It’s a place in history that Hitler has earned. He did, after all, order the deaths of 6 million Jews.

Aside from a coarsening of the political culture, the real danger with the repeated Hitler-smears is that over time, Hitler, and all he represented, begins to seem less threatening. If everyone in politics is like Hitler, perhaps the idea subconsciously permeates that Hitler wasn’t all that bad. Awareness of the atrocities slowly fade.

Surely, we can agree that Hitler’s victims deserve better than that.

Bolger's political theater: Off with their heads, 11th-hour reprieve

House Speaker Jase Bolger apparently needs a few lessons on political theater vs. all-out political warfare.

Bolger was apparently livid last week after House Minority Leader Tim Greimel called for the removal of four Republicans from the Insurance Committee after they left the committee on proposed auto insurance reforms when persons adversely affected by the legislation began to testify.

Greimel, of  course, didn’t expect Bolger to remove any fellow Republicans. It’s what is known as political theater.

Bolger either didn’t know this, or really wanted to bring political theater to a whole new level. Shortly after Greimel’s announcement, Bolger announced he was kicking eight Democrats off of their assignments to other committees because they had missed an entire meeting that week.

In some sense, this comes across as righteous indignation at lawmakers skipping meetings. In another, it comes as disingenuous, because Bolger took no action against Republicans who also missed committee meetings (and there must have been at least a couple.)

In the spirit of true theater, there came a juicy plot twist today. Bolger, in what his staff described as a bipartisan gesture, decided to reinstate four of the Democrats to their committee posts after he had “one-on-one” conversations with the four.

The other four, presumably, remain in the doghouse.

That Bolger really knows how to put on a show.

Does right-to-work lower wages or not? MEDC 'profit' claim underscores need for honest debate

Right-to-work is a slippery beast, with ever-changing narratives and false poses among both its proponents and detractors.

Many proponents of Michigan’s new law now insist that it wasn’t done to curb union power and give business owners greater power over benefits and wages – and thus higher profits.  In their narrative, the law was merely intended to create a better partnership between companies and employees by giving workers the right over whether they wish to join a union.

And union leaders have insisted the law poses no threat to them, and they don’t expect membership to diminish significantly.

Both narratives are a smoke-screen. Michigan’s new law was designed exactly to lure more industry to Michigan by enticing companies with limits on union power and higher profits. There can be no other reason why this law was such a high-priority among the business-friendly Republican majorities in the Legislature and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.

And make no mistake, Michigan unions are terrified of right-to-work. How else to explain the 12,500 protestors, mostly union members, who picketed outside the Capitol the day it was signed into law.

Because right-to-work affects nearly all unionized workers in Michigan, there should be at least honest, clear discussion about its intent and its expected impact. The law’s true intent showed through recently when my colleague, Kristen Daum, noticed that the Michigan Economic Development Corp. made the claim on its website that right-to-work will mean "higher potential profits" for businesses investing in the state.

A grand, sweeping statement, to be sure, and great for any business that wants to increase profits (what business doesn’t?) Kristen called the MEDC to inquire about the basis for the claim. Was there data from the 20-plus other right-to-work states that supports the claim?

Her inquiry was met mostly with silence, and within a day, most references to the claim were removed from the web site for further “fact-checking,” according to MEDC officials. They may indeed be fact-checking, but more likely, they are wondering how blatantly the MEDC should imply that right-to-work will drive down employee wages in Michigan.

Meanwhile, Snyder continues to stand behind own earlier claim that right-to-work will lead to greater profits; asked by Kristen to support the statement, his spokesman replied that’s just what the governor believes.

Beliefs are great, but facts always trump them. We’ll continue to ask for the facts.

Flamethrowers, finger biting and broken skulls.........

Enter at your own risk. A few samplings this week from the invigorating world surrounding Michigan politics.....

Rambo-style: State employee unions are still getting their bearings today after a Republican-controlled House panel took a flamethrower Tuesday to the state Department of Human Services budget for next fiscal year, slashing 1,000 positions that handle welfare, food assistance and child abuse investigations.

The panel also voted to close the state’s three juvenile facilities and send youthful offenders to private facilities.

All of this comes at a time when the state still is struggling to meet a federal court mandate to improve conditions for children needing foster services.

Very rarely in Michigan’s recent history has a House committee taken a meat cleaver like this to a major state department.

Apparently, the state Senate realizes this. Later Tuesday, a Republican-controlled Senate panel approved a less stringent budget than the House version, slashing only 270 positions. Union leaders seem more amenable to the Senate proposal -- mostly because the job casualty rate seems far less.

At the end of the day, the Senate and House may work out a compromise falling between the two numbers. One hopes it’s a compromise that Michigan’s foster children and poor can live with.

Born to be a Statistic: One year after the repeal of Michigan’s mandatory helmet law, the research is in. A new study by the University of Michigan showed that 26 fewer riders would have died last year if they had worn helmets.

This falls into the category of the painfully obvious. Of course, helmet use is going to reduce the risk of death. How could it not?  The push for repeal was never about safety. It’s about freedom. The freedom to feel the wind in your hair on your Hog. The freedom to die.

A Laughing Matter? Detroit TV news reporter Charlie LeDuff was on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” Tuesday to promote his new book, “Detroit: An American Autopsy.”

Was it my imagination or did the jovial LeDuff make Stephen Colbert slightly nervous when he took the host by the hand while chatting him up about Detroit’s demise?

Last month, LeDuff allegedly made a security guard far more than nervous when the guard claims he bit his finger during a St. Patrick’s Day party brawl in Detroit. LeDuff denies the charge.

Agema in hot water over anti-gay Facebook posting

After an unexpected dismal showing in the November elections, Republicans nationally have been working to improve their image and veer closer to the mainstream. Former state representative Dave Agema apparently didn’t get the memo.

Agema, now a Republican National Committeeman, has found himself in hot water nationally this week after posting a anti-gay article on Facebook that portrays homosexuals as promiscuous substance abusers who are responsible for the spread of AIDS in America. The article, written by “Frank Joseph, M.D. and titled “Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals,” holds a coveted place in the bigoted and backward thinking of today’s America.

Agema has received condemnation from Democrats and his fellow Republicans, and even state Republican chairman Bobby Schostak distanced himself from Agema in a statement.

 "Our party remains in support of traditional marriage but that should never be allowed nor confused with any form of hate or discrimination toward anyone," Schostak said in the statement. "Any statement or message in contrast undermines our party's platform and our common sense conservative message.”

Despite calls for his resignation, Agema said he has no plans to step down. Agema insists he was not commenting on gays himself, but merely posting an analysis by a medical doctor.

Newsflash: Michigan Republicans favor fed control of healthcare

Yes, you read the headline correctly.

Really, that’s the only explanation for the Republican-controlled Legislature failing to meet today’s deadline to partner with the federal government in setting up a health insurance exchange in Michigan. If it had met today’s deadline, Michigan would have a say over setting up the federally-funded exchange, a federally-mandated network authorized by Obamacare to allow consumers to more easily shop for health insurance.

Now, it will be set up entirely by the feds. And Michigan will have no voice in it.

Why is this a big deal? It’s all about bringing sanity to a confusing, maddening health insurance market in America. Many workers must chose from two health policies as part of their employer-provider coverage, and that choice is maddening enough. I typically get a major headache within two minutes of trying to compare the two policies side-by-side to figure out which one better suits my needs.

Now multiply that confusion by a thousand, as you consider the poor soul who must navigate a private health insurance market with several dozens of providers and policies – some with misleading pricing points.

Michigan’s needs, of course, are different from Arkansas, and residents here would have been well served by leaders who tailored an exchange for them. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder endorsed this approach.

In explaining today's failure by the Michigan Senate to partner with the feds, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville said the Republican caucus felt the feds weren't prepared to set up the exchange in Michigan.

Actually, the feds have been planning exchanges with great care since the legislation was passed in 2010. One might argue it is Michigan Republicans who aren't prepared for the inevitable.

Medicaid expansion gets cold reception in Michigan House

Despite a strong last-minute push by Gov. Rick Snyder, a proposal to expand Medicaid in Michigan under the federal Affordable Healthcare Act appears to be going down the drain.

Along with it, so goes the hopes of nearly a half-million low-income residents who would qualify for affordable healthcare benefit under the Medicaid expansion.

The state House Appropriations subcommittee handling the Department of Community Health budget passed Snyder’s budget today without the expansion. Snyder had argued it made sense for Michigan to join in the expansion since it is fully federally funded through 2017; ultimately the state would pay only 10 percent of the costs.

In fact, the state stood to take in a net profit this year of $200 million from the feds because the Medicaid expansion would pay for mental health services already funded by the state. Failing to expand means the state would pay that $200 million costs itself.

However, Republicans, who control the House, are worried that the feds will fail to meet their commitments and eventually leave the states holding the bag to fund an expanded Medicaid.

The expansion proposal is not yet dead, however. It could be added back later during the budget process.

One thing remains clear. Unless the Legislature does something, hundreds of thousands of people will continue to go without healthcare in Michigan.

Blasting that wascally wabbit: Republicans place biodiversity in crosshairs

I’m no Michigan native – I’ve only lived here since 1989 – but many long-timers have told me stories of the days of yore in Michigan. Tales of corporations polluting rivers with impunity and parents forbidding their children from swimming in the waterways amongst the two-headed fish.

Luckily, the state came to its senses, empowering its environmental agencies to enforce new regulations for industry and giving the environment and its wildlife the respect it deserves. By all accounts, the rivers in Michigan are much cleaner than they were in the 1960s, giving rise to the state’s prideful slogan: “Pure Michigan.”

Unfortunately, the Michigan Senate took a major step backward today.

In a move that critics say could make Michigan the laughing stock of the nation, the chamber approved a measure preventing state regulators from considering wildlife biodiversity when designating state forest land. More shockingly, it nullified a former legislation finding that seems obvious: most losses of bio-diversity are the result of human development.

“Biodiversity is the principle behind successful efforts to restore Michigan’s forests after years of clear-cutting,” Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, said in an Associated Press report. “It has also been used to help recover wildlife populations enough to move them off the endangered species list.”

However, proponents, including state Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba,  say  the measure is needed to prevent big tracks of state-owned land from being declared off-limits to logging and motorized recreation.

The vote in the Republican-controlled Senate was mostly along party lines.

It’s not uncommon for Republicans – or Democrats – to tinker with environmental policies to reflect their agendas, but the Senate’s action seems to be taking a chainsaw to nearly a century of state environmental policy.

One hopes that Republican champion for biodiversity will emerge from the brush.

Michigan Republicans are own worst enemy on Obamacare

Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger took credit today for effective leadership after asking the House to adopt a $30 million federal grant to implement a health insurance exchange in the state.

Regrettably, that leadership came about eight months too late, resulting in the very outcome he was trying to fight.

Ever since Congress passed the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010, state House Republicans have been looking for ways to gut the legislation, including putting the brakes on a federally mandated health insurance exchange, largely funded by a federal grant.

Exchange proponents say the goal was to give states great autonomy in setting up the exchanges. Despite what critics claim, the exchanges were not designed to install confusing layers of federal bureaucracy, but to allow consumers to navigate a bewildering, often predatory, private health insurance market that had a history of reducing many to tears.

Gov. Rick Snyder endorsed an exchange, and the Michigan Senate passed the measure. But House Republicans remained steadfast in their opposition, embracing the wild hope that the U.S. Supreme Court would throw out the entire law last year. In June 2012, the high court largely upheld the federal law, including the exchanges.

If Bolger wanted to be an effective leader, that would have been the time to act. The exchange was a virtual certainty, much like death and taxes. Michigan still had a chance to approve the exchange and exert great control over how it is structured.

But the House Republicans dithered, continuing to grumble about Obamacare. And sadly, the window for Michigan’s autonomy on the exchange closed.

Remarkably, however, the light bulb clicked has lit over Republican leadership’s head. On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee finally approved the health exchange measure, and the House approved it Thursday. It would allow Michigan to retain a small measure of autonomy in structuring the exchange – basically its last chance to do so.

So now Michigan is left with this farcical outcome. Because Michigan Republicans have spent months blocking the exchange because of concerns about federal control, they have actually brought about the very thing they were fighting – federal control of the makeup of the health exchange.

Thanks for the leadership.

Snyder signals support for Medicaid expansion: Now comes the hard part

It only took a half-a-year of study. But Gov. Rick Snyder today will finally say he’s on board with a proposed expansion of Medicaid for Michigan, which will inject $6 billion in Medicaid funding into the state for the first three years.

That’s the easy part. Putting aside December’s curveball over right-to-work, Snyder is a moderate at heart, so it’s no surprise he finally embraced a Medicaid expansion to provide medical services to those who can’t afford them.

The expansion, authorized under Obamacare, would be fully federally funded in the first three years, and after that, the state ultimately would pay 10 percent of the cost.

Now comes the hard part. Getting Michigan Republicans – particularly House Republicans – on board with the expansion. Any Medicaid expansion would need legislative approval, and House Speaker Jase Bolger already has said he has serious concerns about an expansion, including a fear most costs will eventually shift to states.

That’s a legitimate concern, though diminished somewhat by the fact that states can pull out of the expansion any time they choose.

For many, what lies at the heart of opposition to an expansion is ideology – fear of a federal boogeyman with ever-expanding arms propping up death panels, denying treatment to grandma and removing personal decision-making from every aspect of health care.

Of course, that boogeyman bears no resemblance to the market-driven Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2009.

Remarkably, that doesn’t seem to matter.