Could you imagine if a Democratic majority in another state had done the same thing? Glen Beck's head would still be in the process of exploding as we type. Fox News would be completely ablaze with batshit.
Could you imagine if a Democratic majority in another state had done the same thing? Glen Beck's head would still be in the process of exploding as we type. Fox News would be completely ablaze with batshit.
I've debated this with a person from Michigan, and suprisingly, dems in Michigan are actually pretty much in agreement with the Republicans in Michigan.
From what I understand a lot of localities in Michigan actually do have truly and deeply disfunctional governments and goverments that have been unable to fix budget problems for literally a decade or two until the cities are not just bankrupt, but truly broke, like local schools shutting down and police and firemen not getting their paychecks for the last month of the year broke.
Many republicans and democrats agree these problems need to be fixed and agree on the emergency manager law, but disagree specifically over how they should be fixed.
It's damned near impossible to keep up with state politics in MI these days. The last few weeks its seemed like Snyder might actually be on track to fix some of these problems, but the way he does politics is leaving many people pissed off.
One example. With schools across the state in trouble, laws were passed that mandate that some services be bid out for contract. The union I work with (I'm not a full member, but my father is) AFSCME, is furious about this. Next month, my district is making a final decision on whether to privatize, and who all will be affected. Custodians, bus drivers, campus monitors, etc, are all likely to lose their current salary and benefits (between $20-30,000 a year, health insurance, retirement, and a reasonable amount of sick leave) and instead earn between $9-11 an hour, no benefits. They did already take a 2% pay cut this year, I do believe. The only silver lining is that even if this does go through, my dad (a member of the union being busted) won't necessarily lose his job and pay, because his job is fundamentally different from everyone else's. He runs the districts print shop. And turns a profit.
The worst part of this is, it's still not going to save the district any money. Your average custodian does a hell of a lot more in a building than most people realize (along with the four or five guys in the Buildings and Grounds department). It is incredibly rare that the district has to pay outside companies to come in and do any sort of maintenance or repair. It's all done in house. The only exception is that four years ago, substitutes (the job I do) were moved off of the schools payroll and onto a private companies. No idea why, as it isn't likely it saved any money, and were still managed in house. Though technically, it means that I don't have a boss.
Now, many districts across the state, including neighboring cities, have already privatized. Some years before Snyder even took office. But because of the 2008 crash, and the fact MI has been in a terrible economic state for decades, no one seems to know if the move ever turned out to be cost effective overall. Some cities have been happy with the move, some haven't. I can't recall which districts off hand, but there are at least two that did privatize, but then switched back.
Things like this hardly get any attention, even at state and local levels. But next month, dozens of people I work with might very well lose their jobs. People with kids, grandkids, mortgages, health problems, etc. I know a lot of people think they earn more than they should for a job like this, but I don't. Everyone deserves a decent life.
Last notes, in the interest of fairness and disclosure. The teachers union has been accepting pay freezes, as has the superintendent and some other administrators. But we're still paying the people at the top over $200,000 a year. Our football coach earns $35k for coaching on top of his $140k for being an assistant principal. A few people also get $10k a year for an auto allowance, and can hire assistants. All told, I think administrative costs annually are well over $10 mil, not including school principals. Granted, it's a rather large school district. Over 2,500 kids in our high school alone. I've heard the argument that if you want an organization to run well, you have to pay enough money to attract the talent you need. So I'll let it slide the superintendent is making, all included, probably $300,000 a year. But we have half a dozen administrators earning at least half that much in various departments where I will tell you with complete conviction, they are not needed. Useless positions.
Sorry for the massive rant, but maybe someone will find this interesting.
Notably this seems to have been common practice in Michigan for both sides, but only now is a judicial challenge being brought. Which is complicated because this is a judicial branch ruling on how a legislative branch handles it's internal rules. Under normal circumstances that would be a breach of the separation of powers (and arguably is here) except that these 'internal' rules are laid down in the constitution.
The Michigan House seems to be playing this as if the SCOTUS decided to rule on how the US Senate handled filibusters, while to me it looks more like the Senate trying to admit a 25 year old.
I've debated this with a person from Michigan, and suprisingly, dems in Michigan are actually pretty much in agreement with the Republicans in Michigan.
Yep, the dems are just as willing to sell out off the public sector and end democracy as the Republicans, doesn't make it any better for it. They're all scumbags in the process.
From what I understand a lot of localities in Michigan actually do have truly and deeply disfunctional governments and goverments that have been unable to fix budget problems for literally a decade or two until the cities are not just bankrupt, but truly broke, like local schools shutting down and police and firemen not getting their paychecks for the last month of the year broke.
How, in any way, does this justify taking away my right to vote? The point of broken government is that in the liberal-democratic system it can be ended and fixed. Once you appoint a autocrat, you've nullified all of your legitimacy.
Many republicans and democrats agree these problems need to be fixed and agree on the emergency manager law, but disagree specifically over how they should be fixed.
Consensus amongst the two parties that are practically the same when it comes to economic issues doesn't make it okay. I don't understand how this is even a defense you can actually make. "Sure, we're both all ready in power, we agree that we should have the power to take away the rights of the people when we feel like it."
Simply put: fuck that noise. This is a program that is designed to suck any bit of money left from the public sector and so that those who are close to the Governor and the GOP can make bank on lucrative privatization contracts, nothing else. They're using an economic crisis to prey on the public system and fuck over the average citizen in the process, but we have people like your friend who are willing to defend this action because "OMG ITS CONSENSUS!".
It's despicable what the Snyder administration and those in Congress are doing in Michigan. Not something that should be commended.
In reply to BigBen, #1055: How, in any way, does this justify taking away my right to vote? The point of broken government is that in the liberal-democratic system it can be ended and fixed. Once you appoint a autocrat, you've nullified all of your legitimacy. .
Where is your intrinsic right to vote for every individual at every level of government found? Why don't you vote for the postmaster? or the dog catcher? or police chief? Why do you vote for a county clerk and sherrif, but not the judge (assuming judges are appointed, some places elect them).
If a state wanted to, why couldn't it just state that all official government administration will be handled at the county level and any municipal or other claims shall be by private agreement only?
While I think as a matter of principal and policy these things should be the case, there's no intrinsic right to elect a particular given administrative official.
Cites are created under the law of the state. if a particular cty is so horribly inept at governing itself that it is causing harm to the state as a whole, why can't the state pass laws affecting the government of the city?
Where is your intrinsic right to vote for every individual at every level of government found? Why don't you vote for the postmaster? or the dog catcher? or police chief? Why do you vote for a county clerk and sherrif, but not the judge (assuming judges are appointed, some places elect them).
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you wanted to return to the Spoils system of the late 1800s, only make it worse.
In fact, the Spoils system has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Having non-elected administrative positions at some levels has absolutely nothing to do with whether those positions are pure political appointees, and not regulated civil service positions.
I'm not arguing *for* anything, I'm attacking your notion that the state taking over management of a broke city to ensure that governmental services don't get interrupted somehow violates your right to vote.
Municipalities are Creatures of statute until less than 100 years ago they were often nothing more than corporations with special monopoly rights to collect certain taxes and provide certain services. In England, cities were established by Royal charter and were answerable to the crown under the terms of that charter.
Cities can't generally contravene the laws of the state, nor can they legally declare independance from the state. If they have particular privileges, it is because state law allows them to do so.
You do't like it? maybe you should start a drive to change state law or the state constitution to say that local municipalities have a fundamental right to self governance that can't be abridged by the state.
sorry, I accidentally edited your post rather than responding to it, that was some screwup on my part.
It's funny how limited government always feels like it's an excuse for the states to be tyrannical on their own time and dime.
Need I remind you that as originally written, the bill of rights had no application to state governments, indeed the United States probably would have never been formed if the drafters of the constitution insisted on this. The extent to which states chose to protect those rights was up to the states and their citizens. The constitution only required that states have a republican form of government.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the bill of rights has been incorporated by the 14th amendment, both as a matter of law and policy. But you can't make up rights out of whole cloth.
You do't like it? maybe you should start a drive to change state law or the state constitution to say that local municipalities have a fundamental right to self governance that can't be abridged by the state.
A new banker super-PAC is pioneering a more cost-effective method of dealing with legislators who stand in their way. Instead of long-term investment in the purchase of a lawmaker, this new method is much more direct and immediate. The super-PAC lets it be known that it has gathered a large sum of money. If a lawmaker dares to side with the public (the 99%) against the banks (the 1%), the super-PAC can threaten to unleash unlimited funds to destroy that candidate, run millions of dollars of smear ads on local TV stations, spread rumors on right-wing internet sites, sic Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck on them, etc.
The key to the cost-effectiveness of this approach is that they will rarely have to actually follow through on the threat, and spend the money. Just the threat is sufficient. Few elected officials will be able to stand up to a threat of unlimited millions spent destroying him or her. If anyone actually does resist, making an example by publicly destroying that lawmaker will serve as sufficient warning to the rest.
Until the last few months of job growth kicked in, the United States had seen no net private-sector job growth at all over the course of a decade (despite growing by 30 million people), which has never before occurred on such a long time frame on record. That's not the only measure that lags past levels, and many point toward the decline of the American worker. One statistic, however, has done fabulously: productivity.
The same number of jobs, and 30 million more Americans. Splendid.
This doesn't surprise me at all. But I doubt a vote on that would actually pass in Michigan right now as it is. It's a anti-Obama voting cycle, like 2010.
And, to add a shade of complication, most of the EFMs have been put in place in predominantly poor and predominantly black areas. The libertarian voters who would be against the EFM laws are mostly white, and not surprisingly, have no pitty for those being forced to deal with the EFMs based along racial lines.
They only begin to care when it means their area might be affected by it. But the state seems to have no issue with defunct rural cities that are behind economically, of which there are many.
