LSJ Blogs: Capitol Journal by Scott Davis

Miss American Pie: Judgment Day

What’s an apple pie in the face get you these days (besides a laugh)?

Roughly four days in jail per slice.

A year after the crust-less crime, protesters Ahlam Mohsen and Max Kantar were each sentenced to 30 days in jail for lobbing the pastry at U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, during a public event in Big Rapids.

They were protesting Levin’s support of Israel in its ongoing military conflict with Palestinians.

In the end, 30 days in jail seems a much more reasonable punishment than the several years in prison that each recent college graduate originally faced for the crime.

What’s unclear is whether Mohsen’s attempt to lessen injury mitigated punishment. She told authorities she removed the pie’s crust to soften the blow.

Let that be a lesson to pie-throwing dissenters everywhere!

Obama's falling support, Republicans serve up Tea, and more revenue for the 'family budget'

Ramblings and loose rocks in my head, before I begin a week’s vacation…

-- Polling released today shows that President Barack Obama’s support is continuing to drop in Michigan, meaning he could have real trouble in 2012 in a state where he had rock solid support in 2008.

Of 600 likely voters in Michigan, three quarters think the country is on the wrong track, compared to 62 percent just last month. Moreover, Obama’s job approval slipped from 39 percent to 34 percent in just a month’s time.

What’s likely of more concern to Obama is that very few economists are predicting major gains in employment over the next year. That makes Obama's re-election bid much more dicey.

-- What is perhaps of greater concern to many voters is who will take Obama’s place. Right now, the Republican field has three top contenders;

      -- Michelle Bachmann, a Tea Party champion who apparently wants to retract federal spending to what it was in the year 1787, without adjusting for inflation. (No, I don't believe she's "crazy-eyed." But some of what she says is plain nutty.)

      -- Rick Perry, a Tea Party champion, who tries to look thoughtful in flannel with one leg propped on a bale of hay, while he calls on Obama for a moratorium on government regulations, gives creationism the same weight as evolution, and quietly threatens Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with a Texan mob if he chooses to print U.S. currency.

      -- Mitt Romney, who has fled so far from his own progressive (and successful) record as Massachusetts governor that his picture is now in Webster’s next to the term “hollow man.”

One hopes more Republicans will enter the race….

---  Even after the debt ceiling crisis debacle, the rhetoric over slashing federal spending to the raw bone has not subsided. I’ve always thought (along with many economists) that some level of deficit financing of government programs was fine during a time of recession. But I’ll concede the point that the federal debt is too high, and the government should either restore late 1990s taxing levels and/or cut federal spending.

One thing I’ve never understood is the insistence by conservatives the federal government’s budget should be treated like a family budget. I’m not sure I buy into that; the fed budget is not like a family budget; like a real family in financial crisis, the feds can’t sell their house and move to a trailer park across town.

But OK, let’s adopt that conservative analogy of the family budget. What would a real father or mother do if their household was suddenly strapped with enormous debt, and they were committed to making good on that debt?

Sure, they'd have to cut out luxury purchases (not food or healthcare, one hopes). Most likely, spending cuts alone would not put much of a dent in the enormous debt. Without major assets, the family’s options would be limited.

Common sense says that either Mom or Dad, or both, would have to get a second job to make more money.

Or in other words, they’d have to get more revenue.

So thanks, conservatives, for that analogy. You’ve convinced me! I now see the need for higher taxes.

See ya in a week……

Snyder is not Moses: It will take time to part the sea of unemployment

These days, as we know, President Barack Obama has taken a beating from Republicans on the economy. Part of that is justified; he’s been the guy in charge for two years and eight months; his $787 million stimulus package didn’t lift the economy as he had hoped.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder took a similar beating from Democrats yesterday on Michigan’s rising unemployment rate. That was less justified.

The Republican governor, afterall, took office only last January, and his business tax reform package passed only last spring. No one can expect a governor to have such an immediate impact on a state’s economy – especially at a time when the national economy seems poised for a double-dip recession.

That didn’t prevent Michigan Democrats from pouncing, though.

"I remember when earlier this year Governor Snyder said 'Job number 1 is jobs.' However, it looks like his decision to give big corporations tax breaks has led to higher unemployment in Michigan," state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, an East Lansing Democrat and Senate minority leader posted on Twitter after new unemployment figures were released Wednesday.

July’s unemployment rate of 10.9 percent was .4 percentage points higher than the June rate.

Gerayln Lasher, spokeswoman for Snyder, noted to Gongwer News that some of the major changes approved this year, such as business tax reform, don’t take effect until January.

Snyder is silent over 'Sharia law' bill in Michigan

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has done many courageous things since he took office in January. He’s mapped out a vision to revitalize the state, standing up both to progressives outraged over his focus on business growth and to conservatives over his push for higher pension taxes.

That courage seems absent this week.

Rep. Dave Agema, a Grandville Republican, is proposing a bill that could fan the flames of hysteria against Michigan Muslims by making it illegal for “foreign laws” to be imposed in Michigan.

It’s similar to a number of bills introduced in state legislatures that are intended to stem what is supposedly a rising tide of communities adopting Sharia law in this nation. Didn’t you hear? Dearborn is now under Sharia law.

Of course, all of that is nonsense. While some judges may consider religious beliefs of litigants in deciding divorce cases and such, there are no Sharia laws in this country. No man in this country has a right to beat or subjugate a woman; we (thankfully) already have laws against that in this country.

Other governors have taken a stand against these idiotic bills. Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, called a similar bill in his state “crap.”

As reported by Mlive, Snyder was asked his thoughts on the bill.

“The Governor hasn’t seen, our office hasn’t done an analysis of the bill,” said Geralyn Lasher, Snyder’s spokeswoman. “Obviously, when the Governor was sworn into office, he swore to uphold the Constitution. He certainly believes in upholding state laws and believes local officials do the same. But again, we haven’t looked at the bill nor [do we] have a formal opinion on it.”

Please governor, you have a lot of Muslim constituents out there (who incidentally are outraged by this bill.) Take a moment, and look at the bill. Let us know what you think.

Schuette claims victory over (once Republican) health mandate

Our attorney general, Bill Schuette, was quick to pound the drums of victory today at a federal appeals court ruling that declared unconstitutional the individual mandate in national healthcare reform.

“This is a huge victory in the fight to protect the freedom of American citizens from the long arm of the federal government,” said the Republican, who as attorney general has filed his own suit against the mandate, which is pending in a Michigan federal court district.

The recent decision was a victory (for conservatives), but doesn’t exactly turn the tide. So far, three federal judges and an appeals court have upheld the mandate, and two have invalidated it.

Most likely, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the matter.

In a 2-1 ruling this week, the judges in the Atlanta federal court said the mandate is “unprecedented” and unlike any commercial regulation upheld in the past

Unprecedented? For many decades, Americans have been accustomed to the government mandating that they buy insurance, and nearly all take it for granted without a second’s thought.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that auto insurance is not a mandate because owning a car is a luxury that many Americans could live without. Unless you live in downtown New York or Chicago, you MUST own a car to function as an adult in this country. Therefore, buying car insurance is not optional. End of story.

And while I’m no expert on the federal commerce clause in the Constitution, it seems to me much of the battle comes down to a state’s rights issue. The argument roughly goes likes this: When the state does something, it’s fine. When federal government does it, it’s evil.

What makes the conservative assault on the mandate laughable is that it once was the linchpin of healthcare reform plans offered by Republican powerhouses Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and John McCain.

That makes sense, since the mandate is all about individual responsibility – which folklore tells us was once a cornerstone of conservative thought in this country.

Ah, the good ole’ days.

Redistricting means Clinton County has voice in new "Super Congress"

Clinton County residents really lucked out in the recent redistricting.

In the Congressional district reshuffling that occurred, Clinton County switched over to the 4^th Congressional District, stretching into north and central Michigan. That means the county didn’t pick up any ordinary Congressman; it picked up Republican Dave Camp, a “Super-Congressman.”

That’s right, Camp, a champion for his party’s tax-cutting and small government ideology, was handpicked this week for the 12-member “Super Congress” tasked with coming up with $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by Thanksgiving. Whatever the group comes up with, both the Senate and House must vote up or down on it.

That’s a lot of power for the Midland Republican. And since Camp now must answer to Clinton County residents in the 2012 election for whatever spending cut plan he adopts, it gives a lot of power to those residents.

So Clinton County, pay attention out there. Take careful notes. Tivo C-Span. If Camp pushes deep cuts or privatization for Medicare or other entitlements – and you’re not happy about that – let your new congressman know.

According to our Constitution, the power really is all yours.

Reality check: Stimulus spending works (yes, I said it)

My most recent blog about the “end of government” in Washington (OK, perhaps that was hyperbole) touched off the expected notes of outrage among my devoted conservative readers.

In the back and forth that ensued, one comment I made seemed to particularly stick in the craw of some readers: That major cuts in government spending outlined in the debt ceiling agreement will further hurt the economy during a recession and lead to higher unemployment.

Apparently, I’m a crazy liberal for saying such a thing. How dare I?

Apparently, most major economists in this country are as crazy as I am. They’re saying now that retracting government spending is the absolute worst thing you can do in a recessionary economy. Once the economy starts to grow again, they say, the government then can reduce spending, and look toward deficit-reduction.

For the past century, the idea of increasing government spending to lift the nation’s economy out of recession has been a central pillar of U.S. economic policy. It was the approach of most U.S. presidents, with the exception of President Reagan, who pushed supply side economics, or the trickle-down theory of cutting taxes for the rich (which his then-opponent, George H. W. Bush, derided as “voodoo economics.”)

The stimulus approach was adopted by most presidents for a simple reason. It worked. In some cases better than others. But it generally lifted the economy.

So why didn’t Obama’s stimulus substantially reduce unemployment, like other stimulus packages have? That’s a fair question. Afterall, it was the biggest stimulus package in history.

Except for two things. It was trying to fix a very deep recession inherited from George W. Bush – by far the worst recession since the 1930s. And it wasn’t really a true stimulus package.

At the insistence of Republicans, one third of the 2009 stimulus package was tax cuts, which basically watered down the job-producing power of the overall package. Economists will tell you (not me, the crazy guy) that the spending must be injected directly into job creation to be effective (not placed into savings accounts by the rich or middle class.)

At any rate, many economists believe the stimulus package helped prevent the country from falling into a deep abyss (conservative economists disagree with this assessment).

So how crazy am I? I’m not crazy enough to think what I’ve written here will change one mind out there. We live in a time when pure ideology drives debate. Nothing else. That's maddening.

May I have that strait-jacket now, please?

The end of government...

It was a good 224-year run. Except for that hiccup in the 1860s.

For awhile anyway, we were almost like a beacon of democracy.

That pretty much came to an end today.

Today, the U.S. Senate approved a debt ceiling bill that will trim more than $2 trillion in spending over the next decade. The House already has passed it. Obama has now signed it.

The bill itself is not noteworthy. The country has cut spending before. What’s troubling is that the country approved the bill in the most anti-democratic way possible.

At the point of a gun.

It’s clear now that President Obama is no longer in charge, anymore than the Democratic majority is in charge in the Senate. The only thing driving the agenda now in Washington is a Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that, in their zealotry, has made clear they are prepared to drive the economy off a cliff if they don’t get their way.

That’s essentially what happened this week. Republicans made no compromises and, as Speaker John Boehner said, received “98 percent” of what they asked for in spending cuts. Democrats, who control the executive branch and half of the legislative branch, received nothing.

To avoid a worldwide economic crisis, Democrats blinked and gave in.

That’s what our government has been reduced to. Hostage taking. Crisis manufacturing. Kami-kaze politics.

Those grand traditions of American politics – compromise between the major parties, leadership, statesmanship – forget about all of that stuff.

Meet the new boss.