The whole thing is just bizarre. If a Democrat did this, every Republican for a thousand miles would be screaming bloody murder about a liberal power grab, and about how the people should all have local control. And beyond the media argument, the proposed law itself gives some bizarrely broad powers. The governor can decide when a city is in distress, then appoint an "emergency financial manager" who has the power to disincorporate whole cities, dismiss their locally elected governments, and then play cartographer with local cities if he wants to, all while summarily ending any contracts the city has signed. That ain't nothing.
This is what I get the first time I vote Republican.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If a Democrat did this, every Republican for a thousand miles would be screaming bloody murder about a liberal power grab, and about how the people should all have local control.
And instead, those most ostensibly invested in championing the removal of big government abuses will instead shuffle their feet and remain adorably pliable.
World turns.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Snyder was supposed to be the moderate alternative to the Tea Party wackos. That was why he won the primary.
Pretty stealth of him.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Rules Abuse needs some serious public backlash, regardless of party. It is scarily common among the new 2010 crowd, it seems.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This is what I get the first time I vote Republican.
This same thing (all though perhaps to a lesser degree) happened in 1994 when the republicans swept the congress in the midterm elections. That was when I resolved to never vote republican ever again. Voting for any republican, even the most reasonable moderate wonderful candidate, gives more power to the extreme right wing. Until that dynamic changes, I will not vote for any republican candidate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That act was signed into law a long time ago, and by a Democratic governor. There've been some recent changes, but you can't pin this one entirely on the Republicans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa -
When?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa -
When?
In 1990. Here's the document itself. The new act changes some things, but the idea of an emergency financial manager is there already. Among the powers granted such a manager are "Exercise all of the authority of the unit of local government to renegotiate existing labor contracts and act as an agent of the unit of local government in collective bargaining with employees or representatives and approve any contract or agreement." And "Notwithstanding t he provisions of any charter to the contrary, consolidate departments of the unit of local government or transfer functions from 1 department to another and to appoint, supervise, and, at his or her discretion, remove heads of departments other than elected officials, the clerk of the unit of local government, and any ombudsman position in the unit of local government."
Honestly. This act was signed into law in 1990 by Democratic governor James Blanchard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those things, in and of themselves, don't appear to be particularly heinous.
The part that people find objectionable this time around is that those parts are being dramatically expanded upon, so that the EFM can not only re-open labor negotiations, but can unilaterally dissolve previous contracts. He could not only fire department heads, but now could fire elected officials as well, and could even dissolve the charter entirely.
People aren't objecting to the position of an EMF, they're objecting to the proposed dramatically increased powers of the EMF.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
To be fair, Snyder WAS the moderate candidate in the Republican primary. He went up against 2 considerably more conservative candidates that split that side of the vote between them. He was a populist candidate and a moderate, not a standard Republican. I did not vote for him in the primary, I did not and do not believe his conservative credentials were very good.
Michigan had a Democrat governor for 8 years whose policies pretty much destroyed this state. It was pretty much a given a republican governor was going to win this time around. IMO he's not a true conservative, he's more of a businessman.
To explain his motivations, one has to understand that things have drastically changed here in the last 10 years. We've lost a LOT of jobs, and there isn't exactly an influx of new business coming here. Property values are down drastically too because of the housing bubble bursting thing, and that means funding for education is down a lot. Education funding comes from primarily property taxes.
So with the loss of jobs, the loss of tax revenues, the loss of education funding, and the loss of people, and the loss of industry, the state needs to change and change quickly. The idea behind the emergency financial managers is that they can come in and cancel contracts and work around the burdensome heavy contracts with public unions and get spending, both at a local and statewide level, down. Cancel the contracts and rework things to meet the new reality.
It's pretty much the same thing Wisconsin wants to do, just different methods. I don't necessarily agree with it, as a conservative I would like less government not more. But something has to change, and change soon. All over the country, in this state, and locally. We don't have the money we did 10, 15 years ago. Spending has to get cut. Teachers and other union members need to be prepared to take pay cuts like every other job has, in response to the times. Otherwise, we're just going to flat run out of money and things will crash. It's coming either way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Michigan had a Democrat governor for 8 years whose policies pretty much destroyed this state. It was pretty much a given a republican governor was going to win this time around.
It was hardly Granholm's fault. It's not her fault she was handed a state so heavily dominated by a single industry, and it wasn't her fault that that industry tanked and took the entire state down the tubes with it. She slashed billions in spending, trimmed all the fat out of public expenditures, and brought in billions in foreign investments for the state.
People say that she wasn't business friendly enough, but several times she offered businesses tax-free status just to keep their jobs here, and they still left. The Maytag plant in Greenville is the best example of that. After the plant left, she got a solar panel making company to set up shop in the same plant.
With Michigan's economy in freefall, there was only so much she was ever going to be able to do, but she did a lot. Snyder's tax plan seems to be to just milk 2 billion out of the poor and elderly and give it away as a massive tax cut to businesses. I actually don't mind the idea of taxing pensions, though, that's particularly rough group of people to hit with a new tax. They're on a fixed income and can't readily adapt. It's something I'd rather see phased in.
I, hesitantly, don't even have a problem with EFMs having the power to renegotiate contracts. Autoworkers took a massive hit to get the Big Three on their feet again (well, the Big Two), and that worked out rather well for everyone I think. But if they expect the most heavily unionized state in the country to have its workers sit back and be dictated to, they're in for a rude awakening. I have a bigger problem with the EFM having the power to dissolve local governments, whole cities, and act as de factor dictator. Where's the oversight? Where's the mechanism for deciding when the city is out of trouble and can vote whoever into power? It seems to all be done at Snyder's whim. You might be able to get me on board with this if there's a decent framework in place for deciding what happens and when. Right now it's just too vague.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Agreed. I don't see how anyone can blame Granholm for what's happened in Michigan. But inevitably people will. It's just like how Gray Davis was blamed for the Enron-caused ruination of California.
quote:Snyder's tax plan seems to be to just milk 2 billion out of the poor and elderly and give it away as a massive tax cut to businesses.
Exactly. And the problem with it is, the other states we're competing with for those businesses are trying the same move. It's a race to the bottom, and the only net result will be a drop in overall revenue to the states.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
Teachers and other union members need to be prepared to take pay cuts like every other job has, in response to the times.
Every other job if you don't count bankers or other Wall Street princes whose banks were bailed out by tax payer dollars. Hey, they even got bonuses because, after all, they had contracts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The lower and middle classes must make sacrifices to atone for the sins of the wealthy.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
Teachers and other union members need to be prepared to take pay cuts like every other job has, in response to the times.
Every other job if you don't count bankers or other Wall Street princes whose banks were bailed out by tax payer dollars. Hey, they even got bonuses because, after all, they had contracts.
taking the bonuses AND the entire paychecks of the 'wall street princes' - whatever the hell that means - would only total in millions and wouldnt substantially (read: at all) help the multi-billion dollar debt crisis. finding someone to demonize is feelgood politics, so i understand the approach, but realistic cuts to spending need to be made.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The lower and middle classes must make sacrifices to atone for the sins of the wealthy.
luckily you didnt qualify or quantify wealthy so we're all off the hook. but the sin we are all atoning for is failed government oversight. sadly, the government failing still surprises some of population..
and where are the demands that the lower and middle classes atone for their sins? or do negative consequences only apply to 'rich' people?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The deficit exists because of SS and Medicare, no question.
It's fun and easy to demonize the "wealthy", but it won't get fixed until SS and Medicare are cut. They won't be. People will continue happily collecting their welfare checks while complaining that it is OTHER people who are bankrupting the country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What "sins" are you claiming have been committed by school teachers? Why on earth are they being demonized in the press? What makes it okay to break contractual agreements with them?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ... taking the bonuses AND the entire paychecks of the 'wall street princes' - whatever the hell that means - would only total in millions ...
Well.
quote:Goldman Sachs pay and bonus pool hits $13bn Goldman Sachs has so far set aside $13.1bn (£8.33bn) for pay and bonuses this year despite reporting a 40pc fall in earnings for the third quarter.
Edit to add: Although, in fairness, the "multi-billion dollar debt crisis" is more accurately described as a "trillion dollar debt crisis", assuming you're talking about the federal government. So you're just off by a few orders of magnitude on each point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's fun and easy to demonize the "wealthy", but it won't get fixed until SS and Medicare are cut.
Or we just take an additional 5% from people making over $1,000,000 in income a year and cap Medicare payouts for upper income levels. Why is this unreasonable?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or lift the cap on contributions. But we wouldn't want those old, sick people getting too giddy with all that healthcare (that they paid into for decades).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It wouldn't pay for it. We are in debt into the TRILLIONS.
I am not interested in arguing ideaology. I'm talking about money. It is not actually possible to pay for SS and Medicare without cuts. You definitely can't pay for it with a measly 5% tax raise on people making over a million.
I won't do your research for you, but your comments drive home what financial bloggers have been saying: Americans have NO IDEA how much they are in the hock for and expensive Medicare is and is going to be. "Balance the budget! Tax the heck out of the rich! But don't touch my entitlements!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
first, i agree that $13 billion is an unreasonable amount to pay out to the employees of a corporation buoyed by tax-payer dollars but, according to my understanding, this sum represents the pay and bonuses of all of goldman sachs' staff. as the article points out, that $370,000 for every staff member, no paltry salary to be sure, but their work deserves some pay and you cant lay the financial meltdown at the feet of some random GS staffer.
nor can you lay it at the feet of one banking institution or the banking sector at large. what of the housing bubble or the government sponsored sub-prime lending institutions like fannie mae and freddie mac?
when i said multi-billion i meant more in the hundreds of billions range. the federal debt is in the trillions, true, but that only makes GSs $13 billion seem less consequential. i think it was unwise for the US to blunder on, many trillions of dollars in debt before the recession, but at that time it wasnt as critical to the solvency of the federal, state and local governments. but this current level of debt is a crisis. its reckless and crippling and its time something was done to reduce it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How many investment bankers do people think there are in this country? How many people actually make THAT much money? Definitely not enough to fund 30 years of retirement and expensive health care for the entire rest of the country.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: first, i agree that $13 billion is an unreasonable amount to pay out to the employees of a corporation buoyed by tax-payer dollars ...
I didn't say it was unreasonable (technically, I didn't say it was reasonable either). I'm just pointing out the facts, which was that your figures were off by several orders of magnitude. I'm sure you'll agree that before tackling a problem, it's best to get a handle on the scope of the problem, and that was the extent of my comment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 5% from people making over $1,000,000 in income a year and cap Medicare payouts for upper income levels.
what is the estimated revenue this would produce?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or lift the cap on contributions. But we wouldn't want those old, sick people getting too giddy with all that healthcare (that they paid into for decades).
they paid into it but its not there anymore. the government appropriated the funds of SS to be used elsewhere. there's no money there. its not even honest to say its most solvent of the three because IOUs dont equal solvency - but perhaps it is the one most easily, but always painfully, brought back into solvency. still, all three are failing.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
The problem isn't the economy, it's the banks and the Federal Reserve just making it up... ----------------------------
To be more on topic, what constitutes as an 'emergency' there is a lot of leeway in there for instance... some count a big splinter as an emergency, others losing a finger in a table saw accident does.... this is one of the big things about this government that aggravates me, they're so in-specific when it benefits them but very specific when it screws someone over..
This could be abused by the government to remove businesses they don't approve-of.. afterall there are most-likely certain groups of rich-white-men who are in control of our government -Rockefellers- ......
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As far as I can tell, according to this guy, the increased revenue would be about $377 billion.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm sure you'll agree that before tackling a problem, it's best to get a handle on the scope of the problem, and that was the extent of my comment.
i think we agree on the scope of the problem. but the scope of the crisis (government shutdowns would be considered somewhat of a crisis in my book) and the reason for the measures - perceived by some to be drastic and unequal - is what may have been unclear at first.
cutting the salaries and benefits of public workers isnt going to make a drastic impact on the debt before the recession but neither are public sector salaries and benefits the sole contributors to those earlier trillions of dollars of debt. yet cutting those salaries can ease the pressure of the moment and make a jump-off point for real financial reform as its an essential way of bringing entitlements under control.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Capaxinfiniti, by squeezing the middle class, we are slowing down economic recovery. Business hire people, not because they have extra money from tax breaks, but because demand for whatever they provide increases and they have to hire more people to meet that demand. And buy stuff from other businesses who will have to hire people to meet that demand. So you want to put more money into the hands of middle class people so they can buy stuff.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is not actually possible to pay for SS and Medicare without cuts. You definitely can't pay for it with a measly 5% tax raise on people making over a million.
You'd be surprised. Right now, the rich are seriously under-taxed; as we spend more and more time trying to squeeze blood from stones, we're neglecting the most obvious source of revenue. Even a mild tax increase on the rich produces a surprisingly large amount of revenue, although not as much as a wealth tax would.
It's worth noting that a Medicare cap is a cut. Things aren't quite as dire as they necessarily appear, although I agree that they're pretty painful. Before we start slashing the government to ribbons for no good reason, though, going after the hoarders seems far wiser.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Right now, the rich are seriously under-taxed
Tom, would you mind spending some time explaining what you mean by this, and how know you it to be true?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure what Tom was going for, but there are few reasons I can think of:
1. The rich are being taxed at a historically low level for the US. 2. The rich are taxed low relative to similar income earners in other modern western nations. 3. There is a substantial delta between where the rich are currently taxed and where they can be taxed before they experience any appreciative effect on their standard of living. 4. The rich are better able to disguise their actual income in forms that cannot be taxed by present law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The rich are paying less as a percentage of income and far less as a percentage of wealth than they have at any time in the history of the income tax; this comes at a time in which they control more of the cash and more of the hard assets of the country than they have during any other historical period. Most problematically, the rich are currently sitting on their money more than they usually do; this takes it out of circulation at a time when liquidity is a major problem for the rest of the country.
Without getting into an argument about whether or not people "deserve" their wealth -- which is always a rather pointless exercise -- it's worth noting that the middle class has been the victim of a largely silent class war for the last thirty years. The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats is only an effective analogy if certain boats cannot succeed at hoarding all the water; this is, sadly, exactly what has happened.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you for answering my question.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The rich are paying less as a percentage of income and far less as a percentage of wealth than they have at any time in the history of the income tax; this comes at a time in which they control more of the cash and more of the hard assets of the country than they have during any other historical period. Most problematically, the rich are currently sitting on their money more than they usually do; this takes it out of circulation at a time when liquidity is a major problem for the rest of the country.
Without getting into an argument about whether or not people "deserve" their wealth -- which is always a rather pointless exercise -- it's worth noting that the middle class has been the victim of a largely silent class war for the last thirty years. The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats is only an effective analogy if certain boats cannot succeed at hoarding all the water; this is, sadly, exactly what has happened.
Do you have numbers on that? I absolutely believe you, but I'm interested in this, and would like to be able to chart the historical change over time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Also, look at this, from 1995. In light of the current crash, it's especially interesting to note the distinction these statistics make between assets mainly held by the wealthy vs. assets mainly held by the non-wealthy, and just which assets those are.
Thanks, I'm going to take a look at this tonight during breaks from writing my research paper. Should be a nice palate cleanser.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, Republicans created the deficit. I'm sure that there will be plenty of people lining up to claim it's unfair to say the Democrats weren't equally responsible, but whatever. They not only created the deficit, they did so (at least in some people's estimation) because they were worried Clinton's policies were 'Paying the deficit down too fast"
"I believe... that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets"
Or, rather than eliminate the federal debt and run the "risk" of having a sovereign wealth fund (like Norway or Singapore), it was best to offer a massive tax cut and squander the surpluses created by Clinton's fiscal policies.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The lower and middle classes must make sacrifices to atone for the sins of the wealthy.
luckily you didnt qualify or quantify wealthy so we're all off the hook. but the sin we are all atoning for is failed government oversight.
The SEC not just being asleep at the switch but actively holding it in the wrong position is certainly a sin, but it hardly excuses Wall Street from its own sins. Indeed, the root of the problem is the revolving door between the regulator and regulated.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Declining jobs, declining population, declining tax base, and a state pension system that relies on ever greater economic prosperity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm surprised it was only 25%. And, the best parts of these sorts of population exodus events comes when you look at the reasons why the people who are still there remain there. A larger and larger portion of them are there simply because it's economically non-feasible for them to leave.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm surprised it was only 25%.
Lol, that's because you hate Detroit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Detroit's an economic and cultural casualty which will take decades to patch up. I just don't think it's a city you should live in if you have any choice in the matter. The best you can do is live in more prosperous pockets that ring the gutted core and avoid most of what's depressing and flat-out dangerous about the city. But this is like orbiting a black hole rather than a star, in areas the most potentially sensitive to further economic turmoil.
And also, yes. I hate it. It bored the piss out of me. I'd rather live in cleveland.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've lived in both Detroit and Cleveland, and frankly anyone who wouldn't rather live in Cleveland is insane.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Detroit's an economic and cultural casualty which will take decades to patch up. I just don't think it's a city you should live in if you have any choice in the matter. The best you can do is live in more prosperous pockets that ring the gutted core and avoid most of what's depressing and flat-out dangerous about the city. But this is like orbiting a black hole rather than a star, in areas the most potentially sensitive to further economic turmoil.
And also, yes. I hate it. It bored the piss out of me. I'd rather live in cleveland.
The prosperous pockets are nice. Well, some of them now. In in the nether region between Flint and Detroit, caught between black holes as it were.
I suspect Bing and Pugh are right, to some extent, about the population being undercounted, but I don't know if the undercount will make up for as many people as he'd like. 35,000 is a big gap to make up.