P.O. Box 116, Tawas City, MI 48764  www.ioscorepublicans.org  e-mail: mail@ioscorepublicans.org 

WHAT'S NEW?

For further information on these and previous articles, visit the Archives.

 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WON'T FIX MICHIGAN'S PROBLEMS
By Joseph G. Lehman, April 13, 2010

Proposal 1 will be on the ballot because the current constitution, passed in 1963, requires the question to appear automatically every 16 years, starting in 1978. That year, 77 percent of voters rejected the constitutional convention and 72 percent did likewise in 1994. Recent polling indicates voters may be more open to the idea this year, but they disapprove by more than 2-to-1 when told the cost could be as much as $45 million.

Nevertheless, a few convention proponents have organized around specific reform ideas. Examples include lengthening legislative term limits, converting to a part-time Legislature, modifying selection of judges, altering the budget process, expanding water regulation, increasing taxation and more.

Others who have long sought specific changes in Michigan law are considering supporting a convention for the sake of their single issue. Some in the highly energized Tea Party movement wonder if a constitutional convention might let them effectively open the hood of state government and fix what's broken at a time when the state seems unable to cope with its alarming economic decline.

The problem is, that's not the way it would likely work. A constitutional convention is not like handing your car to a certified mechanic; it's more like giving it to 148 trained and untrained mechanics and letting them do anything a majority of them can agree to, including replacing your car with something much worse. After a lot of time, trouble and expense, you and fellow voters collectively choose between the mechanics' handiwork and exactly what you started with.

The passage of Proposal 1 would set a process in motion. Two elections — a partisan primary and a general — would be held by May 2011 to elect the 148 convention delegates, one from each state House and Senate district. They would convene by October, select their own officers and create their own rules. They'd meet in Lansing and could continue through July 2012. Whatever they produced would go to voters for approval within 90 days. If it passed by a simple majority, the new constitution would take effect.

Nothing about this process would address our problems any better than the current legislative system. Our most serious economic problems involve chronic overspending in the face of weakening state revenue, which is worsened by rising levels of taxation and regulation that drive people and businesses from the state.

If our current lawmakers can't fix that, it's not because the constitution prevents them from doing so. More likely it's because voters haven't yet held individual lawmakers responsible for reckless spending (although this may be changing). If voters aren't yet holding legislators accountable for spending, it's not clear how they would hold convention delegates accountable for potentially bigger decisions. The fundamental purpose of the state constitution is to limit government's ability to infringe on people's rights. Where constitutional changes are needed, the voter initiative process is a better alternative than a convention, which could be unlimited in scope and cost millions of taxpayer dollars.

Neither is there a convincing reason to believe convention delegates would be more capable than current legislators. Delegate elections would be highly partisan and influenced by the same special interests that dominate regular elections.

The prospect of rewriting a constitution could attract some truly exceptional, public-service minded candidates, but it would probably attract even more of those who would typically run for the Legislature, along with term-limited former lawmakers. It might especially draw highly charged, single-issue candidates whose priorities could make the convention agenda read like the contents of Pandora's box.

Michigan has serious problems, but they should be fixed without a constitutional convention. The problem with Michigan government isn't so much what's under the hood, it's what we're letting the driver get away with. If your teenage driver is irresponsible, no mechanic can change that. Instead, you need better control and accountability of the driver.

Joseph G. Lehman is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.  http://www.mackinac.org

HARRY REID PULLS A FAST ONE TO SABOTAGE SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT
Ed Lasky, August 03, 2010

Shale Gas has the potential to bring manifold benefits to Americans: cheap and plentiful, relatively green and clean burning, located in vast swaths underneath our feet (and not offshore or in foreign lands filled with people happy to take our money but who also hate us and who can who can turn the spigot off at will).

All good reasons in Majority Leader Harry Reid's mind to sabotage our tapping of this vast reserve of energy:

The fight over the Senate offshore drilling "spill bill" shifted Wednesday from the Gulf of Mexico to the mountains of western Pennsylvania, as Republicans slammed the last-minute inclusion of language to regulate a controversial technique to extract onshore natural gas.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added the language last night requiring natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground as part of the hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking, process.

Republicans are wary of the addition, which comes on page 404 of the 409-page spill response bill Reid wants the Senate to take up before the recess. GOP objections to any portion of the larger bill could stall its progress, since it appears likely that Reid will not allow any amendments to be offered.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the new requirements could effectively end onshore natural gas production. He noted that some states already have hydro-fracking safety and disclosure regulations, but that taking the requirements national would freeze the industry.

Why does Reid have to pull these un-democratic stunts? Because he can? Because powerful Democratic donors (including the Democratic party Sugar Daddy George Soros) wants to kill off carbon and spend tens of billions of dollars on green schemes that reward their "clean" energy ventures . These ventures only "work" (i.e., become profitable for their investors) when carbon energy becomes very expensive (hence cap and tax); or when billions in taxpayer dollar subsidies are funneled to them; or when government-ordered mandates require utilities, companies and consumers to buy "renewable" energy. And when powerful Democrats pull fast ones behind closed doors to sabotage the tapping of a treasure our nation has been blessed to have in abundance.

A primer on the benefits of shale gas appeared in the Washington Post ("Shale Gas: Hope for our energy future").

A quote from the column:

Until recently, scarce U.S. natural gas reserves suggested increasing dependence on expensive foreign supplies of liquefied natural gas. No more. Also, natural gas emits about 50 percent less carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- than coal. Substituting gas for coal in electricity plants could temper emissions. Finally, shale gas in Europe and Asia has huge geopolitical implications. It could reduce dependence on Russian natural gas and frustrate any gas cartel mimicking OPEC.

How much shale gas exists is unknown, but estimates are huge. The Potential Gas Committee is a group of geologists who regularly estimate future U.S. gas supplies. In 2000, the group's estimate equaled about 54 years of present annual consumption; by 2008, it was almost 90 years. "This isn't the end," says Colorado School of Mines geologist John Curtis. Globally, one study estimated the recoverable supply at 16,200 trillion cubic feet, more than 150 times today's annual world gas use).

Page Reprinted from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/harry_reid_pulls_a_fast_one_to.html

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR -- ADAM HUME

At the County Convention held at the Iosco County Building on August 12, 2010, some vacancies in Precinct Delegate spots were filled.  Adam Hume and Larry Zucal were appointed to vacancies  in Oscoda Township, Cal McLaren in AuSable, and Dave Nelsey and Roger Houthoofd in Plainfield.

The delegates to the State Convention in East Lansing at the Breslin Center on the MSU campus were:  Adam Hume, Maureen Rudel, Eugenia Ulrich, Judy Fritz and Pat and Carol Copland.  The alternates, in order, were Marv Engelmann, Mary P. Smith, Billie Wright, Gary and Debbie Adams and Richard Fritz.

At the State Convention on August 28, all of the delegates and Mary P. Smith, Billie Wright and Richard Fritz were present.  Despite an inauspicious beginning, it was an exciting convention.

The choice of the venue was not ideal, since the convention was scheduled to run from 9 to 5, and the Breslin Center provided bleacher seats for many of the delegates and alternates.  The convention started about 2 hours late because for most of the time, credentials were only being issued at one location.  With more than 2,060 delegates and almost as many alternates attending, plus guests and campaigns, between 6,000 and 7,000 persons had to pick up credentials.  While we were waiting in line to get credentials we had a chance to meet many of the delegates around us.  Many were Tea Party people and many were first-time delegates or alternates.  It seems many of the county conventions had robust contests for the choice of delegates and alternates because of the unprecedented interest in attending.  Many counties had record-breaking attendance at their conventions, and it appears that the number of attendees at the State Convention was the highest in the memory of those who attended.

However, once underway, the business of the convention took place.

One of the first items was the nomination of the Lt. Governor.  While Brian Calley, a state representative who just won a nomination for state senate had been chosen by Rick Snyder, Bill Cooper, a state representative candidate was nominated from the floor and was a favorite of the Tea Party delegates.  Because no challenge had been anticipated, the vote was by a show of hands (which had been approved by the candidates) and over some loud "discussion" by the delegates, Bill Cooper withdrew his name from consideration and thanked his supporters.  Therefore, Brian Calley was nominated.

Then came the uncontested seats for university boards and the State Board of Education. Andrea Fisher Newman and Andrew Richter  were nominated for University of Michigan Regents, Diane Dunaskiss and Danialle Karmanos were nominated for Wayne State Board of Governors, and Eileen Weiser and Dr. Richard Zeile for State Board of Education.

The nominations for the contested races came next followed by voting by written ballots.  In the Secretary of State contest, two ballots were necessary.  Brian Breslin and Mitch Lyons were nominated for Michigan State Trustees, with incumbent Don Nugent being eliminated.  Bill Schuette narrowly defeated Mike Bishop for Attorney General, and Judge Mary Beth Kelly and Justice Bob Young  were nominated for Michigan Supreme Court, eliminating Judge Jane Markey.

On the first ballot for Secretary of State, Sen. Cameron Brown received 454 votes, Ruth Johnson, 625, Michelle McManus, 234, Anne Norlander 412, and Paul Scott, 335.  In the run-off between Brown and Johnson, Johnson received 115 votes more than Brown. 

In the remaining vote before the convention, the delegates were asked whether or not they supported a Constitutional Convention to rewrite our State Constitution, a vote that comes before the electorate every 16 year.  By over 16 to 1, the delegates were against such a convention.

The convention ended after 6:30 p.m. after a long, but rewarding day.

NOTABLE QUOTES

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

--Benjamin Franklin --

SUNRISE SIDE REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CLUB