Quo vadis, conservatives?

By Michelle Malkin
February 7, 2008 06:06 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/07/quo-vadis-conservatives/

I filed an extra, post-Super Tuesday syndicated column this week. Felt like we needed a pep talk. Ignore John McCain.

Don’t “calm down.” Get fired up

“Quo vadis,” conservatives? It’s the ancient, apocryphal question the apostle Peter asked Jesus while fleeing persecution in Rome. Where are you going? Where do we go from here?

The contest for the GOP presidential nomination is over. The conservative movement is not. Sen. John McCain’s campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right—from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents—dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat.

On Wednesday, wielding his olive branch like a schoolmarm’s ruler, Sen. McCain told conservatives to “calm down.” My advice is exactly the opposite: Get fired up.

Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders—no matter who takes the White House in November.

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions?
Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base.
Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (vetsforfreedom.org) group for their endorsements.

Opposed to the amnesty bill?
Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well.

Don’t sit and wait for the fence to get built.

It won’t be finished under the Bush administration or a McCain administration or an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration. What you can do is pressure mayors and police chiefs and city councils to rescind dangerous sanctuary policies.
What you can do is alert county sheriffs that you want them to work with the feds to end illegal alien catch-and-release policies in your neighborhood..
What you can do is stop patronizing businesses that you know are knowingly employing illegal immigrants using fake Ids and stolen Social Security numbers.

There are other vital issues on the ballot this fall that need conservative backing. Conservative stalwart Ward Connerly is leading a “Super Tuesday of Equality” drive in November to end racial preferences in five states. He has not only battled the race demagogues on the Left and the affirmative action apologists in the media, but also spineless GOP establishment leaders who would rather pander to the “diversity” lobby than fight for true equality under the law.

Connerly spearheaded resounding victories in California, Washington, and Michigan. The new campaign is targeting Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Support his organization, the American Civil Rights Institute (http://www.acri.org/).

Twenty-six years ago at the Conservative Political Action Conference, President Reagan rallied conservatives:

“We must ask ourselves tonight how we can forge and wield a popular majority from one end of this country to the other, a majority united on basic, positive goals with a platform broad enough and deep enough to endure long into the future, far beyond the lifespan of any single issue or personality.”

Get involved. Don’t calm down. Get fired up.


AMEN Michelle

Time for all the lamenting, hand wringing, and hate fest to stop. It is what it is but it doesn't have to be that way in your neck of the woods.
Don't give up or give in, give your time, your money, your support to local and state conservatives.

How about Tim Walberg http://www.walbergforcongress.com/for one;

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen has named Walberg as one of the top targets in the House for the upcoming 2008 elections.
On August 23, 2007, State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer announced he would be challenging Walberg in the 2008 election. Schauer is the fourth Democrat to enter the race, along with 2004 and 2006 nominee Sharon Renier, attorney David Nacht, and former Adrian mayor and former state Senator Jim Berryman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walberg

The Unvarnished State of the State

The Unvarnished State of the State
By Michael D. LaFaive
http://www.mackinac.org/print.aspx?ID=9229
2-4-08

Since my job as fiscal policy director of a think tank requires me to watch the State of the State address every year, I have often wondered what I might say if I were governor. After a decade of analyzing state budgets and Michigan’s economy, I think my remarks would go something like this:
It is a pleasure to be here to deliver my very first State of the State address to this full chamber. My remarks will be different from my predecessors’ in two ways. First, I did not craft these remarks around pithy quotes that could be easily extracted by the media. Too many speeches by too many politicians are designed to solicit good press coverage rather than convey substantive ideas.

Second (and related), my speech is void of applause lines. It has, in recent years, become customary to place invited guests of heroic stature in our gallery and then dramatically recount the ways they have saved kids from ignorance, created jobs or served honorably in a theater of war. This omission will prevent legislators from leaping to their feet in raucous applause with the predictability of Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of a bell.
In exchange for meaningless but clever turns of a phrase, I will offer the troubling but blunt truth:

Michigan is dying.

The Great Lake State most of us remember from our youth is being replaced by a poorer, less competitive one. Consider just a few economic measures.

First, Michigan’s rank among the 50 states in per capita state Gross Domestic Product has tumbled from a high of 16th in 1999 to 39th in 2006.

State GDP is simply the value of all goods and services produced within the geographical borders of a state. This ranking is important to us because Michigan has typically done better during national booms and worse during recessions. But starting in 2002 something changed.

With a growing national economy we should have been climbing in the GDP rankings, yet we continue to fall. This is not a simple, cyclical event.

Second, Michigan’s per capita personal income is 7.8 percent below the national average, a rate worse than during the Great Depression.

Let me drive this point home. If present trends continue, the people of Alabama will on average have higher incomes than the people of Michigan in just three years.

Lastly, Michigan has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation at 7.6 percent. If the Great Lake State has another year of net job losses as is expected, it will represent the largest string of year-over-year job losses since the Great Depression.

Now, I ask you: Does anyone think any of these numbers will improve as a result of last year’s $1.4 billion tax hike?

The economic law of demand is clear. If you raise the price of anything — wheat, jobs or work, for instance — you get less of it. When the state hikes the cost of laboring and living in Michigan they will get less of it. We must reverse these trends and do so with dramatic reforms.

For starters, Michigan must become the 23rd right-to-work state, which is perhaps the greatest economic development tool in the state’s reach.

Between 2001 and 2006, states with voluntary unionism enjoyed state GDP growth of 18.1 percent. Michigan grew by only 3.4 percent during the same period. From July 2005 to July 2006, nine of the top 10 states in terms of population growth were right-to-work states. The numbers suggest that this is no coincidence.

We must repeal the hated Michigan Business Tax — which repealed the hated Single Business Tax — and we must offset revenue losses by reducing the size and scope of state government. The Mackinac Center has compiled a list of spending reductions that would save the state $1.3 billion without cutting any core government functions.

The good news is that Michigan is a great state with abundant natural resources, such as water and human talent. Moreover, opportunity can spring from crisis. Someone once said that politicians will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted every other option. Michigan may have reached that point. Let us move forward.
#####
Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at 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.


As I read this I had two emotions, one of grief, that Michigan has absolutely the worst choice of a govenor at such a critical time in her history. And the other is anger, at how this governor is destroying her. However its a anger with resolve.
By all means available to me I will fight for my Michigan.
I hope you will join me....

Follow the Money

This just came to my attention.

The liberal news media is crying about "President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks." based of this "independent study"


But of course with the liberal media you ALWAYS must do some investigating of your own. In this case the first thing I wondered, just who are the Center for Public Integrity,and the Fund for Independence in Journalism?

Call me suspicious but somehow I knew there was more there than what their titles implied.

Sure anought after limited research I found this post from Fausta's blog
http://faustasblog.com/2008/01/whos-paying-for-study.html

Associated Press, this morning:
Study: False statements preceded war

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
...
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
The Fund for Independence in Journalism mission, in their own words:
The Fund's primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity

According to AP, that makes them two nonprofit journalism organizations, when in fact it's one organization with a legal branch to shield it from lawsuits.

Ed Morrissey takes a look at who's behind the Center for Public Integrity:
the Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as "independent". It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004....Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation. The FIJ shares most of its board members with the CPI, which hardly makes it a separate entity in terms of its political direction.

Big Lizards explains How to Lie About Lying:
One notes that "Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members" -- isn't that a lovely grammatical construct? -- do not deny that Iraq was "trying to... obtain" WMD, even though they appear to include such claims under the category of "false statements."Nor do they deny the administration's claim that Iraq had "links" with al-Qaeda. They merely dispute the meaningfulness of those links... and dub that another "false statement" by the president and his administration. If you look at the Wikipedia entry on the Center for Public Integrity, you'll find more on the sources of funds.

By the way,
Mr Soros was the man reported to have made $1bn profit in September 1992, betting correctly that the British currency would have to be devalued and leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Now, "I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the US in particular and a shift in favour of the developing world, particularly China."

So, before you descend into further APDD (Associated Press Deficit Disorder), it's worthwhile asking, "Who's paying for the study?", and take it from there.

First Tom, then Hunter, now Fred

Not a conservative of any degree left

Its' terrible isn't it when the "best" option is someone like McCain?

Even Electable? McCain has 2 emotions, he's either angry or smug & arrogant and he can't cry like Hitlery can

Maybe the Republican party will get a clue and realize that it is when we present a clear contrast (conservative ) to the Democrats that we win

"President Clinton" will do to this country what her buddy, Governor Granholm has done to Michigan

Maybe it will take a Hiltery to almost destroy this country to usher a new Reagan era? History repeating itself, 1976 then 1980?

But on the other hand is America REALLY ready for a woman president? Especially someone like Hiltery?
I mean we aren't talking Margret Thatcher here
If Hiltery is the nominee will lots of blacks sit it out in protest?
Will lots of men?

But then again if McCain is the nominee will lots of conservatives sit it out?

2008 is going to be a defining moment for the Republican Party and for this country

God help us

Why not Duncan Hunter?

Why isn't Duncan Hunter, who is admittedly a true conservative, doing better?
And why do I support Fred Thompson?

Looking at the results so far for Duncan Hunter
In Iowa 1%
In Michigan 0% with 2,823 votes
In New Hampshire 0% with 1,220
In Wyoming 8% to Romney's 67% and Thompson's 25%

As I write this Nevada and South Carolina are still voting
Nevada with 79% reporting has Hunter with
2% or 608 votes

I have several reasons. First off, it is obvious the Republican Party is fractured.
The congressional losses of 2006 resulted in, in my opinion a large portion of the Republican Party willingly to pick a candidate that is perceived as being able to win as opposed to a candidate who best represents the party's conservative principals.
For example, who would have thought only a few years ago that someone with a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual stance would never be a candidate for the Republican Party?
The pro-choice political action organization NARAL believes a win by Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race would be a boon to pro-choice forces

John McCain represents a moderate wing of the party. Mike Huckabee is a curious mixture of a Christian who supports liberal policies. In addition, Ron Paul is the first Republican/Libertairn candidate to receive more than 3% of votes. Mitt Romney is good looking the (Kennedy factor) and fiscally conservative but with a suspect recent conversion to social conservative principals.

So what do these candidates all have in common? Grassroots and moneyed backers who BELIEVE that their candidate CAN WIN

Sad to say this is evidently that Duncan Hunter, respite conservative credentials lacks.

Quite frankly it is a gloomy state of affairs that the party of conservative principals has seemly turned its back on the two true conservatives in the running, Duncan Hunter and until recently Tom Tancredo. To me it speaks volumes about the current state of the Republican Party.
Fred Thompson was right when he said, "The future of the Republican Party is at stake"

If the 2008 Republican nominee is selected on mostly elect ability as opposed to consistent conservative principals than the party will drift even closer to the middle and our conservative values will be minimized in the party.

On the other hand, could it be that a loss to a scorched earth liberal like Hillary or Obama would be the very thing that would usher in a true conservative candidate in 2012?

Let's look back to 1976. Ronald Reagan was running for the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party; however, he lost in the Primaries to Ford

Yet, his loss proved to be a mixed blessing; when Ford lost the 1976 election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. The disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency helped Ronald Reagan secure the party nomination and go on to win the 1980 presidential election.

But getting back to Fred Thompson. In my opinion out of all the candidates still running who have a chance of the nomination, Fred Thompson is the most conservative.

More conservative than McCain, Huckabee, Romney. (Giuliani goes with saying, a liberal with an "R" by his name)

That is why I am supporting Fred, process of elimination. I want the most conservative candidate who still can win, to win the nomination

Is Duncan Hunter and was Tom Tancredo first choices. Yes, absolutely

Since Tom Tancredo has dropped out, does Duncan Hunter have a chance of winning the nomination?
In my opinion No.

I do believe he will do better out West where he has more name recognition but a candidate has to do
better than 0-4% in the rest of the country

In addition, perhaps this just is not a time for conservatives. Perhaps history must repeat itself
and 2008 is 1976 and 2012 will be a 1980

I only hope that conservatism survives the cycle.

"Our basic rights come from God"

Fred "Comes Alive"

Some of us remember that phrase referring to Peter Frampton.

Well Fred came alive last night and showed the Fred that his supporters already know. Last night he hit it out of the ball park!

GO FRED!

Fred Thompson on O'Reilly and List of Supporters

Current list of Fred Supporters Courtesy of Flopping Aces http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/01/07/list-of-fred-thompson-supporters-update-ii/#comment-10700

Including;
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Former Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY), Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), California State Sen. Tom McClintock, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), former CA State Senator Dick Mountjoy, California State Senator George Runner, Tom Tancredo’s former Iowa State Chairman Bill Salier, and Pat Buchanan’s former Iowa campaign director for his 1996 run and current Republican Iowa Third District State Central Committee member, Loras Schulte.

Iowa Caucus and Jenny-Fraud?

Well the results of the Iowas Caucus are in and the pundits are giving their opinions so here's mine;

Its seem that quite a few Iowans paid more attention to the fact that Mike Huckabee is Christian(from what I have read, a moderate one) than the fact he borders on moderate to socialists on the issues.

Quite frankly I think it makes the "religious right" look stupid, i.e all a candidate has to do is proclaim Christianity

Now don't get me wrong I would love a Christian candidate and president but Christianity can't be the only qualification for the president of the United States. Of course as a Christian I need a pro-lifer. Huckabee isn't the only pro-life candidate in fact Fred Thompson recieved the National Life to Life endorsement. However I also need a candidate that has a conservative stance and record on strong national security, protecting our borders, limited government,and cutting taxes.

And that isn't Mike Huckabee, in my opinion. I base it on all the research, on all the debates and reading, reading, reading I have done on the candidates.

But its still early.. and many Christians still haven't made up their minds....I just pray it will be with all the facts that Christians have taken the time to find out
To "find out" about Fred http://www.fred08.com/

However the real big picture I see is that people want someone different
Someone they see as not establishment. Both Huckabee and Obama fit the bill, relativity unknown and a newcomer

In addition Ron Paul got 10% which means there are a lot of newly independent voters out there tired of both parties.

How Ron Paul will not win the election but who will his voters vote for?
Or perhaps will some not vote at all or vote for a Dem
as a statement vote? i.e maybe 4 years of a Dem will clear the way for a real conservative
Will Ron Paul endorse any of the other candidates or the final winner of the GOP? I know, I know to Paul supporters he will be the next president.

This is still a wide open race but no candidate should take the "natives are restless" lightly
But after the Iowa results, how could they?

So NOW is the time to choose your candidate if you have not done so already. Please don't get caught up in the ball and chain of "electability"
Support your candidate with your money and time and help him BECOME electable. Remember ;" George W. Bush; his father, George H.W. Bush; and Ronald Reagan all lost one of the two early states in 2000, 1988 and 1980, respectively." http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_how_many_have_become_president_after_losing.html

And on the home front

Taxpayer Fraud??? The state announced a SURPLUS of some $350 Million dollars…after the Democrats jammed through the largest tax increase in Michigan’s history. Republicans argued we could balance our budget without raising taxes…this is before any meaningful reforms.

Now that the Democrats got their tax increase…how about a bi-partisan approach at reforming the way Michigan spend our tax dollars?!?
http://migop.blogs.com/

How convenient for our Governor to some how have "lost" $350 million and then "by accident" discover it

Anyone wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

Happy New Year, lets vote!

Well its time folks, time to pick if you already haven't.

In a perfect world Tom Tancredo would have had a chance but as you know we certainly don't live in a perfect world so after watching the debates, reading and researching I've eliminated;

Giuliani, liberal with an "R" by his name, Romney, flip, flopping moderate Ken Doll and as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I could not vote for someone involved in a deceptive cult, therefore helping to legitimize the deception, Huckabee, spare me another big spending "compassion conservative", McCain, on the wrong side of every right issue so I've chosen.......(drum roll) Fred Thompson as the most Conservative Republican candidate who CAN win

The SIMPLE TRUTH

Out of the mouths of babes, the simple Truth...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zCdZwitrNoY


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes (trusts in, clings to, relies on) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Merry Christmas

Friendships and Tender Mercies

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
Proverbs 17:17

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Matthew 6:34

For to me to live is Christ,...
Philippians 1:21

A post script to my "Dream on Hold" lament.

Ever have a light bulb moment? I know we all have.

I did. I realized what the Lord was trying to show and teach me through this experience of unrealized expectations and dreams

By using an e-mail message send my a friend.

He has showed me that I am a "yesterday and "tomorrow" person.
I rarely live in the "now", today. He showed me through my friend's e-mail message what the results can and has been in my life...

“There are two days in every week about which we should not worry-two days which should be kept free from fear and apprehension. One of these days is Yesterday, with its mistakes and cares, its faults and blunders, its aches and pains. Yesterday has passed forever beyond our control. All the money in the world cannot bring back yesterday. We cannot undo a single act we performed. We cannot erase a single word we have said. Yesterday is gone.

The other day we should not worry about is Tomorrow with its possible adversities, its burdens, its large promise and poor performance. Tomorrow is also beyond our immediate control. Tomorrow’s sun will rise either in splendor or behind a mask of clouds-but it will rise and until it does we have no stake in tomorrow, for it is as yet unborn.

This leaves only one day-Today. Any man can fight the battles of just one day. It is only when you and I add the burdens of those two awful eternities-Yesterday and Tomorrow-that we break down. It is not the experience of today that drives men mad, it is the remorse or bitterness for something which has happened yesterday or the dread of what Tomorrow will bring. Let us therefore live one day at a time and leave the rest to God.”

He is showing me, Joanie live one day at a time and that I need to call on Him for help , every day, every hour and every minute sometimes!
He has showed me, a Rhema word to my spirit, that I can truly do nothing apart from Him.

He only enables me to glorify Him and day by day reflect Him

And He is helping me to let go and truly trust Him, with my life, my future, my happiness. Yup even after all these years as a Christian.
Trust & Faith = Hope

My faithfully tender loving God, He is so patient

A Dream on Hold

Been awhile but its been a busy time...

I am now a " Qualified Staging Professional " having completed a training program through the Midwest Staging Redesign Institute, an I.R.I.S approved training institution.

Which in a state that has one of the highest unemployment rates held captive by a socialist's Governor whose idea of a turn around is to tax its citizens and its businesses more and add to that a housing market in crises stage, it doesn't really mean a whole lot

Speaking of housing, I took my house off the market....It is certainly not news that we are in one of the worst housing market in 21 years and most of 2008 expected to be worst than 2007

I have worked my fanny off for over a year getting my house ready, de-cluttering, perfecting the staging, only to get a low ball offer, repeat showings to a couple that couldn't even make an offer and a real estate agent who thinks I am trying to mask odors because I have candles lit and who takes umbrage that I asked, "Please and Thank You" to extinguish candles and close the glass door to my fireplace so my house wouldn't burn down before I get back!

Even if I did get an offer again, why would I expect it to be anything close to acceptable?
Buyers know they have free rein, there is always another house or a foreclosure

I was just emotionally spend from bouncing between hope and disappointment and physically tired from cleaning or staging

So the house comes off the market and the dream of full timing is on the shelf *sigh*

I will probably re-list in March 2008, I don't know. I will pay close attention to the real estate report first.
It may make more sense to list in the Fall as "the prediction" is that the market might pick up in the 3rd quarter

Sooooooo I just gotta redirect my energies this winter (2008 election) and live, "on the road" vicariously through my RV buddies

But before I close that door for now, I did get the opportunity to see my RV (rig) of choice, a Bigfoot when in the Chicago area for my Home Stage Interior Redesign training

So for now these pictures are in my "hope chest" and my heart...

For Those Who Gave So Much

We cannot forget those who gave so much for that we may live free
A mere "thank you" seems so inadequate however I most sincerely thank you, those who have gone on and to those who remain, the VETERANS


July 14, 1861
Camp Clark,
Washington

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more . . .

I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and sufferings of the Revolution.

And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt . . .

Sarah my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me unresistibly on with all these chains to the battle field.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grown up to honorable manhood, around us.

I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar, that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battle field, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often times been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness . . .

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again . . .

Sullivan Ballou was killed a week later at the first Battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861.

When he died, his wife was 24. She later moved to New Jersey to live out her life with her son, William, and never re-married. She died at age 80 in 1917.Sullivan and Sarah Ballou are buried next to each other at Swan Point Cemetery in Providence, RI. There are no known living descendants.

In Flanders Field

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly.Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead.

Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved, and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields

This was the poem written by World War I Colonel John McCrae, a surgeon with Canada 's First Brigade Artillery. It expressed McCrae's grief over the "row on row" of graves of soldiers who had died on Flanders ' battlefields, located in a region of western Belgium and northern France. The poem presented a striking image of the bright red flowers blooming among the rows of white crosses and became a rallying cry to all who fought in the First World War.

It is the Veteran

It is the Veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the Veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Veteran, who salutes the Flag,

It is the Veteran, who serves under the Flag.

Whose coffin is draped by the Flag

The Trouble with RINOs

October 27, 2007
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58362


The pressure on Republicans to vote for "the only guy who can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton" continues.

That's what the political know-it-alls are telling the grass-roots GOP voters about Rudy Giuliani.

He's the only one. He's the best they can do in 2008.

I have a few problems with this line of thinking:

What difference does it make if Giuliani is president or Hillary? I ask this as someone who knows first-hand the repressive instincts of the former first lady. I was public enemy No. 1 in the media during her reign of terror. Nevertheless, the fact remains, Giuliani isn't much different from the Clintons in substance. He said so himself in an interview with the Village Voice a decade ago: "Most of Bill Clinton's policies are very similar to mine."

In fact, I'm not even sure he is eligible to run as a Republican. To run for the Republican nomination, you have to be a Republican. Giuliani denied he was really a Republican shortly after winning the race for mayor of New York – insisting that he was a "liberal."

Was he lying then or now? I think he's lying now.

He's got a long and undistinguished track record of support for liberal Democratic politicians – including Mario Cuomo in his bid to become governor of New York over George Pataki.

Where does he stand on the great issues of the day?

• pro-abortion


• anti-gun


• special rights for homosexuals as a class, including same-sex union


• pro-amnesty and fought federal government as mayor of a "sanctuary city"

Does that sound like a conservative to you?

"But he can win!" insist the pragmatists.

To which I say, "So what. Who needs him?

Why work hard for Hillary light when you can get the real deal with no sweat at all?"

And, I might add, I don't even believe he can win – not with a record like that.

I'm reminded of what the pragmatists told California voters when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor.

"He's the best Republicans can do in this state," they said.

And now, as a result of that foresightedness, we have so-called "anti-discrimination laws" in place in the Golden State that many believe will make it illegal to use "biased" terms like "Mom" and "Dad" in the public schools.

Schwarzenegger signed those bills after promising not to do so. That's the kind of character and commitment you get from these RINOs – Republicans in name only.

As for me, I won't vote for people like Rudy and Arnold and Mitt. No more phonies, no more pretenders. No more "compassionate conservatives." No more flip-floppers. No more men who govern like sissies and claim to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I've had it. I'm done, through, finished, completed.

I understand I am a minority. I understand Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and other celebrities disagree with this position. I don't care. I'm not compromising. I'm not going to be a part of electing an immoral and corrupt president – not again.

Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off with Al Gore as president in 2001.

If we had, I am confident the country would have rebelled by now.

With a weak-kneed RINO in the White House, nobody is quite sure whom to blame – there's so much to go around.

Don't get fooled again.
No more Bushes.
No more Schwarzeneggers.
No more Romneys.
No more Rockefellers.
No more Fords.
No more Nixons.
And no more Giulianis.

There's still time to demand better from the Republicans in 2008.

WARNING: Dems attempting another new tax hike

T-minus 5 Days until Government Shutdown
Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:43:48 AM EST

No, you didn't misread the headline. The Democrats in Lansing apparently aren't satisfied with a nearly $1.4 BILLION tax hike and are moving to raise taxes again and to bury them in the "cuts" portion of the 10/1/07 budget agreement.
You'll remember that the Dems agreed to make a few cuts before November 1st. Of course, they haven't. And now word comes that they'd very much like to avoid the cuts when at all possible. According to the Detroit News:
Sources familiar with closed-door negotiations reported advances Thursday, but no final deal on the outstanding sticking points, including privatizing foster care, slicing money from disease prevention programs and raising hunting and fishing license fees.
The governor's office, the Democratic state House and the Republican Senate must agree to an additional $430 million in cuts to balance the state's books and avoid another partial shutdown of government services.
This at the same time that the Governor rejects calls from Congressman Pete Hoekstra to reexamine hundreds of thousands of dollars of new state spending on a turtle fence.
More taxes so that we can buy fences for turtles. Oh, and to pay for special gifts to the city of Detroit. Items like:
$12 million for the Detroit Zoo, $10 million for the Detroit Institute of Arts and $1.9 million for the Detroit Historical Museum.
And on top of it all, we're now only 5 days away from a government shutdown. The second in a month.
Read on...
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2007/10/26/74348/483

A Slice of Life...

A reprieve from politics..looks like I will be here for yet another winter

I have only had one showing of my house in a month *sigh*

I have decided to take it off the market the end of November, before the holidays and give myself a break

I have worked sooooooooo hard on the presentation of my home, I am beat!

I will re-list in February 2008 and keep it listed until it sells
Hopefully in the early Spring so I will have time to find and buy a rig and a truck to pull it

Speaking of rigs, I will finally have an opportunity to see a
Bigfoot rig (RV) in person!

I am going to a Home Staging training seminar near Chicago the end of the month.
There is a Bigfoot dealer about 1 1/2 hour from where I'll be.
I called him today and he is expecting a 21ft RB in any day, just like the one I want!

Of course I am not gonna buy new although his price of $30,000 is very good for a new Bigfoot

I just want to actually SEE and be IN one!

For those of you unfamiliar with Bigfoot, http://www.bigfootrv.com/ they are a quality built molded fiberglass 4-season rig, very capable of snow camping.

After much researching and thinking about how
I want to camp, its my rig of choice

So I'll go and look, feel and take pictures and KNOW that sometime SOON I'll be in my own Bigfoot, on the road, me & Maddie, apackof2

Kicking the Home Team

Budget losers: Big 3, dealers
Automakers lose millions in refunds
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071002/AUTO01/710020398/1148

WASHINGTON -- General Motors Corp. stands to lose more than $100 million in state refunds under the budget deal approved by Michigan lawmakers early Monday -- in addition to paying tens of millions of dollars in new service taxes.

In all, automakers and Michigan car dealers will lose $350 million in refunds of sales taxes paid on demonstration vehicles and defaulted leases since 1999. The state has not reimbursed the automakers because the issues have been wrapped up in court.

In a pair of rulings earlier this year, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld two separate decisions awarding the automakers and dealers of hundreds of millions of dollars in back tax refunds. Specifically, automakers and dealers are owed $250.2 million for demonstration vehicles, and $93 million for sales taxes on defaulted leases.

State legislators early Monday rewrote the laws to eliminate the sales tax exemption on demonstration vehicles -- which include vehicles test driven by customers at dealerships and management leases for automakers' white-collar employees -- and to bar automakers from collecting sales tax paid on defaulted leases.

The House Fiscal Agency estimated the loss in future years at about $60 million in annual refunds for the automakers and dealers.
In addition, the Detroit Three automakers stand to pay tens of millions of dollars in new taxes on services, among them consultants and administrative services.

The companies' lobbyists in Lansing privately expressed their unhappiness with several provisions in the budget deal. GM declined to say how much it stood to lose. "We're studying the tax package to better understand its overall effect," said Greg Martin, a GM spokesman.

Ford Motor Co. also said it was studying the budget deal. "We are still studying Michigan's new tax policy in order to understand the full impact it could have on business and manufacturing competitiveness in the state," spokesman Mark Truby said.

Chrysler LLC spokesman Jason Vines said the company supported the budget agreement. "Our tax guys are looking at it. Nobody is in favor of higher taxes but we're glad there's an agreement and the state isn't shut down," Vines said.

Liz Boyd, a spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said it's not uncommon for retroactive tax decisions. She said a meeting was set for later in the week between state officials and automakers and their staff to discuss the ramifications of the new provisions.

"Our administration is very committed to our manufacturing sector and to the Big Three," Boyd said. "We understand there are concerns about the changes in tax policy."

SERVICE TAX REPEAL PLOTTED

If you are interested in helping call
Small business Association of Michigan at 1.800.362.5461
AND
National Federation of Independent Business/Michigan at 517.485.3409
OR Toll Free at 1.866.458.7584

When I talked with both, they are joining together along with other organizations such as Michigan Taxpayers Alliance to fight the obscene Service Tax (list of services taxed at the end of the article).
I truly believe we have a better chance of making this happen as opposed to recalls. Although I am looking and waiting for someone to come up with a viable recall of Queen Jenny.
After all doesn't the buck stop at the top?

Service tax repeal is plotted
Businesses unleash uproar
October 3, 2007

BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/NEWS06/710030403

LANSING -- Business groups inflamed by the new sales tax on many services are plotting a campaign to repeal it, just days after it passed.
"There are a lot of discussions going on," said Todd Anderson of the Small Business Association of Michigan.

He said measures include a possible petition drive -- which could place the issue on a statewide ballot -- or merely lobbying the Legislature to rescind or make major changes in the new tax.
The tax on services is a key piece of the state budget deal lawmakers finished early Monday, hours after a deadline passed to shut down state government. It will generate about half the new tax revenues needed to help erase a $1.75-billion deficit.

Legislators closely guarded the list of services under discussion for the service tax until Sunday morning.
The Legislature and Gov. Jennifer Granholm also raised the state income tax from 3.9% to 4.35%.

Charles Owens, state director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses/Michigan, said his members are incensed by the new law signed by Granholm to levy a 6% sales tax on a wide array of services. Soon after the new law passed, he said, it became clear the tax would apply to more business services than many first believed.

"We had a meeting with some of our members this morning, and the most-asked question was: 'Where are the recall petitions,' " Owens said, referring to recall campaigns planned against legislators who voted for the tax increases.

The businesses say they fear the tax will raise the price of their services enough to cost them clients who decide to go without the service, such as janitorial, or to change to an out-of-state company that might avoid the tax.

The tax is especially onerous, they say, in business-to-business transactions, where the cost could be passed on through several businesses and ultimately to consumers.

LIST OF SERVICES TAXED 6%

Astrology,Baby shoe bronzing,Bail bonding,Balloon-o-grams,Coin-operated blood pressure testing machine services,Bondspersons,Check room services,Coin-operated personal service machines,Comfort station operation services,Concierge services,Consumer-buying services,Credit card notification services,Dating services,Discount buying services,Social escort services,Fortune-telling services,Genealogical investigation services,House-sitting services,Social introduction services,Coin-operated rental locker services,Numerology services,Palm-reading services,Party-planning services,Pay telephones,Personal fitness trainers,Personal shopping services,Coin-operated photographic machine services,Phrenology services,Porters,Psychic services,Rest-room operation services,Shoeshines,Singing telegrams,House-sitting services,Wedding chapel services,Wedding planners,Consulting (including lobbying),Tanning,Escort services,Massage,Administrative services (like payroll),Investment advising,Janitorial,Armored cars,Private investigators,Packaging and labeling,Landscaping, Skiing,Business service centers,Carpet and upholstery cleaners,Couriers and messengers,Document preparation services,(Tax preparations, wills, buying selling real estate, etc),Self-storage,Transit and ground passenger services,Office administration,Travel agents,Scenic transportation Service contracts,Interior design Tour operators Warehousing and storage

If you believe Queen Jenny

Courtesy of http://www.rightmichigan.com/

Queen Jenny Gets her Massive Tax Increases

Senate approves tax on services, averting a state shutdown today
Deal is 'right solution for Michigan,' Granholm says

October 1, 2007

BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF, DAWSON BELL AND ZACHARY GORCHOW
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20071001&Kategori=NEWS06&Lopenr=710010329&Ref=AR&imw=Y


UPDATED AT 5:20 A.M.: LANSING – The shutdown of state government was halted early this morning when the Senate voted to expand the 6% sales tax to various services, the final major piece of a plan to erase a $1.75-billion deficit and balance a 2007-08 budget.

Democrat Lt. Gov. John Cherry cast the deciding vote for a 20-19 tally, the minimum needed for passage of an historic budget agreement that stopped what would have been a chaotic and embarrassing interruption of state services.

Three of 21 Republicans voted for the sales tax change, and only one of 17 Democrats opposed it.

“This budget agreement is the right solution for Michigan,” Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in a news release after the vote. “We prevented massive cuts to public education, health care and public safety while also making extensive government reforms and passing new revenue. With the state back on solid financial footing, we can turn our focus to the critical task of jumpstarting our economy and creating new jobs.”

The vote came about 4 a.m., about three hours after the House and Senate voted to raise the 3.9% income tax rate to 4.35%, and approved controversial changes in school employee health insurance and pensions benefits aimed at reducing state costs.

The Senate vote to raise the income tax was also 20-19, with Cherry as the tie-breaker.

The two votes triggered a 30-day interim state budget which Gov. Jennifer Granholm said she would sign – if coupled with a tax increase – to avert a shutdown.

Granholm said 35,000 state workers threatened with temporary layoffs would be told to report to work this morning at their regular work times.

The votes concluded an epic, 17-day struggle over taxes and the size and importance of state government, as the Legislature met in numerous late-night sessions with no results.

Democratic leaders hailed the approved plan as a responsible compromise, while Republicans decried it as a massive tax on Michigan’s struggling taxpayers.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, had held out for a smaller tax hike and bigger spending cuts. He said he was disappointed at the final outcome, but said some spending reforms were enacted that would reduce the cost to taxpayers over the long haul.

In the end, Bishop said, Granholm and Democrats who control the House were able to flex their political will for the tax increases.

He said work would begin now to cut $435 million from state spending and produce a permanent 2007-08 budget.

“Our members are going to work hard to make this the best state to work, live and raise a family,” Bishop said.

The tax increases will generate $1.35 billion in additional revenue for the state, with the promise of $435 million in spending cuts.

Those cuts will be decided in the next month, as the Legislature determines spending for public schools and the state’s 19 departments.

The flurry of final votes late Sunday night and early this morning capped yet another marathon session in a tumultuous two-and-a-half weeks.

Late Sunday, the Democrat-controlled House passed a bill to raise the state income tax from 3.9% to 4.35% by a 57-52 vote with just two Republicans — Chris Ward of Brighton and Ed Gaffney of Grosse Pointe Farms — voting for it. Only three Democrats — Lisa Wojno of Warren, Martin Griffin of Jackson and Mike Simpson of Liberty Township near Jackson — voted against it.

Gaffney said he is “not happy with what I did,” but it needed to be done to “break the logjam and put us on a course to keep government open.”

House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, criticized the votes to raise the income tax and extend the sales tax on services.

"This was vote for bureaucracy and special interests,"DeRoche said."This is one of the largest spending sprees in Michigan history, it is a 10% increase in the size of the bureaucracy.

He added, "We stood on principle to cut and reform and have the state live within its means, like working families have to live within their means."

Granholm and her fellow Democrats argued more revenue is needed to head off deep cuts to schools and state services for health and public safety.

House Speaker Andy Dillon said the House had done its part to solve the $1.75-billion deficit, putting the issue in the Republican-controlled Senate’s hands.

Asked why the House couldn’t have approved a $1.35-billion tax increase — the size of the income and sales tax increases the House approved Sunday night — weeks ago, Dillon replied: “It’s a nature of the legislative body to wait till the last second the make tough decision.”


Will the last one out of Michigan please turn out the lights?
Republicans who controlled the Senate de-cried it but in the end helped to pass it

Republicans who voted for Queen Jenny's Tax Increases

Income Tax Increase - Was 3.9%; Now will be 4.35%

State Senate:
* Patricia Birkholz - Saugatuck * Tom George - Portage * Ron Jelinek - Three Oaks * Gerald VanWoerkom - Norton Shores

State House:
* Chris Ward - Brighton * Ed Gafney - Grosse Pointe

Sales Tax Extension to Several ServicesState Senate:
* Wayne Kuipers - Holland * Ron Jelinek - Three Oaks * Valde Garcia - Howell

State House:
* None

The UAW's Awakening

September 29, 2007; Page A8
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010668

This week's deal between General Motors and the United Auto Workers is being hailed as a new era for Detroit, and for once that advertising may be justified. The UAW in particular made historic concessions that show a new awareness of global competition. What's less encouraging is how much this reality-based compromise still contrasts with the policies that unions and their political friends are promoting in the unreal world of Washington, D.C.

Our friends in the AFL-CIO often think we're too critical, but we're not responsible for taking union membership down to 7.4% of the non-government American labor force last year. (See nearby chart.) The reality of a dynamic world economy did that, assisted by the failure to adapt by union leaders and corporate managers. These columns support collective bargaining, and our belief has long been that if a company's workers vote to join a union, they and the company deserve what they get.

The problem with unions is not all that dissimilar to that posed by entrenched management: Once they win comfortable contracts, they often become impediments to the kind of innovation and flexibility essential to success in today's economy.

So in the name of "job security," they undermine a company's -- or a nation's -- competitiveness. The result, over time, is less job security for everyone, especially the union workforce. There's no better example of this than GM, where the UAW now represents about 74,000 hourly workers, compared to 246,000 in 1994. Some security.

The new GM-UAW contract is a belated recognition that the choice has now become change, or Chapter 11. Under the deal, wages are frozen, save for bonuses and some lump-sum payments. GM in turn promises to invest in American plants with UAW workers, though of course it will also keep investing abroad.

In what seems to be the most creative stroke, GM will pay some $35 billion toward a new health-care trust fund to be administered by the union. That's a big initial cash flow, but it means the company can divest itself of some $50 billion in long-term liabilities, which would only have grown as health-care costs rose and retirees lived longer. Investors loved it, driving up GM stock by around 7% for the week.

The UAW now gains ownership of its members' health-care resources, in effect becoming a financial manager of a giant Health Savings Account for auto workers. If the union is creative, it will rethink its coverage plans, using the new generation of consumer-driven health-care options (such as personal health savings accounts) to encourage and reward more careful spending by beneficiaries. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has told his members the trust fund will last 80 years, and the union's job now is to make sure it does.
A similar arrangement at Caterpillar Inc. didn't work because the money ran out in six years.

This new Treaty of Detroit in the marketplace is all the more notable when you consider how little the union political agenda has changed. The AFL-CIO famously split in 2005 over the priority of organizing over politics. But organized labor's share of the private workforce has kept falling.

We had a friendly visit not too long ago with Andy Stern, the Service Employees International Union President and perhaps the most successful modern labor leader. He is a shrewd man, but his main message seemed to be that union salvation lies in America adopting the work rules and income redistribution of Europe. He says companies need to pass their health-care costs onto government, meaning taxpayers. And while he recognizes that unions can't secede from the global economy, the trade rules need to be changed -- that is, restricted or managed -- so that the pace of change is less disruptive and wealth more equally shared.

With Democrats now running Congress, and ahead in the Presidential polls, Mr. Stern and his union mates are closer than they've been in decades to seeing that agenda implemented. But they also reveal their own lack of faith in the appeal of unions when they support a ban on secret-ballot elections at work sites. And of course they still benefit -- unlike anyone else in American politics -- from being able to coerce the payment of dues.

The larger irony is that Europe is now learning the hard way that Mr. Stern's "social contract" is itself deeply flawed. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected this year in part because he acknowledged that even France can't sustain the French model any longer. Health-care expenses represent a huge chunk of the tax burden in France, where restrictive work rules and such union demands as the 35-hour week have led to far higher joblessness and far less prosperity than in the U.S.

Mr. Sarkozy is now pushing American-style reforms precisely when Mr. Stern and Democrats are promoting French policies. Our guess is that economic reality will in the end limit Mr. Stern's political ambitions in the same way that global competition has finally awakened the UAW.

STRIKE!

Well looks like the UAW decided to pour on the pressure during the contract talks as a strike was called today at 11:00am

Is this just a move by the UAW bigwigs for the benefit of the union kool aid drinkers?

Or do they REALLY believe that in a global economy
any company can guarantee job security?

Surely they know that even though GM, has a surplus of about a 65-day supply cars/trucks that a strike will damage sales and profits?

Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis for J.D. Power and Associates, said even a short strike could hurt the company because its new crossover vehicles, the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook, are selling well and in short supply.

"The momentum they've established for those products would be interrupted if there's a supply interruption," Libby said. "There's not a lot of inventory available to sell down. So they need to keep that pipeline full."
Libby called the Enclave and Acadia a success story for GM because they don't stay on lots for long and they sell at or near full price.

And what about workers making only $200 per week in strike pay?

Worker Anita Ahrens burst into tears as hundreds of employees streamed out of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis., just after the strike began at 11 a.m. EDT.
"Oh my God, here they come," said Ahrens, 39. "This is unreal."
Ahrens has seven years at the plant, where she works nights installing speakers in sport utility vehicles. She waited Monday for her husband, Ron Ahrens, who has worked there for 21 years.

The couple has three children, including a college freshman, and Ahrens worried about how they would pay their bills.
"This is horrible, but we're die-hard union, so we have to," Ahrens said. "We got a mortgage, two car payments and tons of freaking bills."

Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis for J.D. Power and Associates, said, "I just think it's going to hurt both sides in the long run."

I agree Mr. Libby, I agree

Quotes taken from; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5160480.html

UAW sets 11 a.m. GM strike deadline

CONTRACT TALKS IN OVERTIME
UAW sets 11 a.m. GM strike deadline
September 24, 2007

By KATIE MERX
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/BUSINESS01/709240367&theme=AUTOTALKS072007

"I WILL NOT VOTE TO KILL JOBS"

RAISING OUR TAXES

To clear up some confusion over HB-5194
It was the H-10 version that passed

The version of House Bill 5194 that passed the House of Representatives was the H-10 version. This version REPLACED the original bill and actually CUT!! the income tax to Disabled Veterans by $250.00. This bill did NOT increase the income tax rate for anyone and was effectively a tax DECREASE.

So the H-10 version of HB 5194 did not raise the income tax as it was originally drafted to do. Instead, it only cut disabled veteran's income tax.

Thank you Dan Acciavatti
State Representative
32nd District for clarifiying this.

HB-5194, As Passed House, September 18, 2007

SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5194
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billengrossed/House/htm/2007-HEBH-5194.htm


HB-5198, As Passed House, September 18, 2007

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

TITLE

An act to provide for the levy, assessment, and collection of
a specific excise tax on the storage, use, or consumption in this
state of tangible personal property and certain services; to
appropriate the proceeds thereof; and of that tax; to prescribe
penalties; for violations of the provisions of this act and to make
appropriations.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billengrossed/House/htm/2007-HEBH-5198.htm

This bill includes a tax on our phone service

Well now its up to the Senate to stop the Democrats from raising our taxes

Here's the roll call:

VOTES ON HB 5194

DEMOCRATS VOTING `YES' (52): Accavitti, Angerer, Bauer, Bennett, Bieda, Byrnes, Byrum, Cheeks, Clack, Clemente, Condino, Constan, Coulouris, Dean, Dillon, Donigan, Ebli, Espinoza, Farrah, Gillard, Gon-zales, Hammel, Hammon, Hood, Hopgood, Jackson, Johnson, Robert Jones, Lahti, K. Law, LeBlanc, Leland, Lemmons Jr., Lindberg, Mayes, McDowell, Meisner, Melton, Miller, Polidori, Sak, Scott, Sheltrown, A. Smith, V. Smith, Spade, Tobocman, Vagnozzi, Valentine, Warren, Wojno and Young.

DEMOCRATS VOTING `NO' (4): Brown, Corriveau, Griffin and Simpson.

DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING (2): Cushingberry and Meadows.

REPUBLICANS VOTING `YES' (25): Acciavatti, Ball, Booher, Calley, Casperson, Caswell, Caul, Emmons, Gaffney, Hansen, Hildebrand, Hoogendyk, Rick Jones, Moolenaar, Nitz, Nofs, Opsommer, Pearce, Proos, Rocca, Schuitmaker, Shaffer, Walker, Ward and Wenke.

REPUBLICANS VOTING `NO' (22): Brandenburg, Garfield, Green, Horn, Huizenga, Hune, Knollenberg, LaJoy, D. Law, Marleau, Meekhof, Meltzer, Moore, Moss, Palmer, Palsrok, Pastor, Pavlov, Robertson, Sheen, Stakoe and Steil.

REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING (5): Agema, Amos, DeRoche, Elsenheimer and Stahl.

VOTES ON HB 5198

DEMOCRATS VOTING `YES' (51): Accavitti, Angerer, Bauer, Bennett, Bieda, Brown, Byrnes, Byrum, Cheeks, Clack, Clemente, Condino, Constan, Coulouris, Cushingberry, Dean, Dillon, Donigan, Espinoza, Farrah, Gillard, Gonzales, Hammel, Hammon, Hood, Hopgood, Jackson, Johnson, Robert Jones, Lahti, K. Law, LeBlanc, Leland, Lemmons Jr., Lindberg, Mayes, McDowell, Meadows, Meisner, Melton, Miller, Poli-dori, Sak, Scott, Sheltrown, A. Smith, V. Smith, Tobocman, Warren, Wojno and Young.

DEMOCRATS VOTING `NO' (7): Corriveau, Ebli, Griffin, Simpson, Spade, Vagnozzi and Valentine.

DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING (0)

REPUBLICANS VOTING `YES' (6): Ball, Calley, Emmons, Gaffney, Hildebrand and Ward.

REPUBLICANS VOTING `NO' (44): Acciavatti, Amos, Booher, Brandenburg, Casperson, Caswell, Caul, Elsenheimer, Garfield, Green, Hansen, Hoogendyk, Horn Huizenga, Hune, Rick Jones, Knollenberg, LaJoy, D. Law, Marleau, Meekhof, Meltzer, Moolenaar, Moore, Moss, Nitz, Nofs, Opsommer, Palmer, Palsrok, Pas-tor, Pavlov, Pearce, Proos, Robertson, Rocca, Schuitmaker, Shaffer, Sheen, Stahl, Stakoe, Steil, Walker and Wenke.

REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING (2): Agema and DeRoche.

HOW TO AVOID RAISING TAXES

By Jack McHugh

Mr. McHugh is a legislative analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8798

Summer 2007 Version(Note: Legislative Analyst Jack McHugh has also discussed these ideas in detail in a WJR-AM 760 radio interview.)

In facing budget challenges that are unquestionably daunting, the state’s political establishment has concluded that tax hikes are necessary because it would be impossible to find enough cuts and reforms to close the gap between desired spending and expected revenue.

Not so fast!
Below is a list of ways to achieve $1.9 billion in savings with little heavy lifting. Some of these may take a few years to fully implement, but the total also exceeds the expected deficit for next year. Much of the savings comes from injecting competition into government operations, providing government employee fringe benefits comparable to (generous) private sector plans or eliminating non-core functions.

Change the higher education funding mechanism to a standard "per-pupil foundation grant" in which the money is attached to the students, rather than each university getting an amount determined by legislative maneuvering. As colleges were forced to compete for students, they would "sharpen their pencils," rein in costs and eliminate the kinds of inefficiencies highlighted in recent audit reports. If the effect was that costs fell by just 5 percent, the savings would be: $70 million.

Shift state police road patrols to less expensive county sheriff deputies. With benefits and related expenses it costs more than $100,000 per year to employ a state trooper; most sheriff deputies cost much less to employ. Effect on public safety: Zero. Savings: $65 million.

Adopt the Hay Group report recommendations on rationalizing public school health insurance, including requiring co-pays and preferred provider networks. This could save: $422 million.

Eliminate the Michigan State University cooperative extension service and agriculture experiment station to save: $61 million.

The original version of this list recommended halting the so-called "21st Century Jobs Fund" before it borrowed and spent $400 million. It’s too late for that now: All but $33 million was spent before the 2006 election, and taxpayers will be repaying the debt for decades. At the very least, the bleeding can be stanched — $75 million of what is being characterized as a "$1 billion state deficit" is new borrowing for this boondoggle. Skip it and save: $75 million.

According to a Rio Grande Foundation report, if 5 percent of prisoners are placed in privately-managed prisons, the state saves 14 percent on overall prison spending because government-managed prisons have an incentive to "sharpen their pencils." Savings: $192 million.

Eliminate "History and Arts" subsidies, and cut state library subsidies in half: $35 million.

In 1999 the Citizens Research Council noted that "a number of changes have occurred over the past decade that have reduced the need for intermediate school districts." Let’s help the ISDs catch up by reducing their operations grants: $32 million.

Cut so-called "20j" payments to affluent schools in half. This extra money is a political response to the fact that under Proposal A certain wealthy school districts benefit less from per-pupil state foundation grant increases than other districts. (They still benefit, though.) Savings: $26 million.

Cut transit funding in half. By eliminating protectionist regulations that restrict alternatives, empty buses driven by public employee union members can be replaced by private sector innovations like jitneys, commercial van pools, "call-and-ride" services, car-sharing and more. This will improve service for transit users at a much lower cost: $112 million.

Repeal the "prevailing wage" law that requires above-market rate wages be paid on school construction projects: $150 million.

Schools can realize huge savings by privatizing non-core functions like transportation, food service and custodial. Many have already done so: The Mackinac Center’s most recent survey of school privatization shows that 38.5 percent of school districts already have a competitive contract in place for one of these functions. Some idea of the magnitude of these savings can be seen in the experience of one district that saved the equivalent of $177 per student by contracting out for its custodial needs. Statewide, similar savings would add up to $300 million annually! In the short term, it would not be unreasonable to expect: $65 million.

Reduce the Merit Award Scholarships by 50 percent. Shockingly, at the governor’s request, the Legislature just did the opposite and increased these non-need based college scholarships by $64 million annually beginning in 2010. When families face economic hard times, the first thing they do is cut luxuries. This is a luxury Michigan can no longer afford. $60 million.

The state spends almost $15 billion on Medicaid and welfare, more than $6 billion of which is from state taxes and fees. Medicaid in particular is a command-and-control monstrosity rife with perverse incentives. Reforming it in ways that give recipients an incentive to economize and take better care of themselves could save hundreds of millions of dollars, while actually giving recipients greater freedom and choice. If just 1.6 percent of the expense in these two programs could be reduced in this way, the state would save: $240 million.

Thousands of private sector workers have given back painful wage and benefit concessions to save their jobs. The average state employee receives salary and benefits worth nearly $75,000, compared to approximately $58,000 in the private sector. Comparisons of specific job classifications produce similar comparisons. State workers should be grateful for their much greater job security and benefits, and more than willing to assume some of the burden through concessions. $300 million.
Total: $1.9 billion.

There is a common theme that runs through opposition to every one of these common-sense reforms: "That’s not the way we’ve done it in the past."

That’s not good enough anymore: Michigan has already passed the tipping point of going from relative decline in population and income to absolute decline. Without major reforms there’s nothing to prevent the entire state from going the way of Detroit, with a declining population and an economy that is unable to support a government establishment that believes its residents exist to serve it — not the other way around.

None of the items above would be "devastating" to the state, to "vulnerable populations" or even to any particular interest group. Most people would not even notice that these changes had taken place. The alternative, a major tax hike, will only drive more people out of Michigan and hasten the impoverishment of a formerly rich state economy that in this decade has become a poor one.
______________
Note: This list combines reductions from current budgets, and speculative savings that assume certain policy reforms. It is intended as a plausible illustration of what is possible, not as a precise roadmap.
#####
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.

NEVER FORGET

http://www.mshepp.com/911flash.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak5mNwEPPHQ

GM vs UAW

As the contract talks continue, GM pushes for changes necessary for the financial solvency and future of the company while at the same time "suggesting" that if it doesn't get the needed concessions that it will be forced take its business outside of the U.S.

The biggest concessions on the table are;

• Ford and GM have made it clear that they expect to reduce the hourly cost from $71 to about $50 - a cut of about 30 per cent. The companies are keen not to cut workers' hourly pay, but they insist that other overheads must be reduced. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2156191,00.html
• General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC have proposed making lump- sum payments to the UAW in exchange for being relieved of liability for much of their collective $90 billion in unfunded long-term retiree health care costs. The union would then set up trust funds, referred to as Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Associations, to pay all future costs from those funds and investment income. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZL7LQxsN6ScGxNKD0raqzYCpSZQ

Of course at this point the UAW has to make like tough guys for the "kool aid" drinkers in its membership. However it's to early to tell if its really an act or the delusional death woes of a organization that has become what it was first organized to fight against. I can only hope its an act.

If the UAW is determined to "show management" and even strike it will be the end of American car manufacturing as we have known it at the expense of its membership.

So I think this would be a perfect time to reconsider the issue of Michigan becoming a right-to-work state.

Some facts...

What’s Due

Waiting for a National Right to Work Act.

By Deroy Murdock

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWRkN2IyZTg2YmFhMTY1ZGQ0MjM2YTFmOGEyMDNhYjM=

Americans will skip work Monday to celebrate what really should be called Leisure Day. But this Labor Day, an estimated 7.2 million privately employed Americans (and even more public-sector workers) could relax more thoroughly if they were not compelled to join labor unions and/or pay union dues as job requirements. That’s why the time is now for the National Right to Work Act.

Congressman Joe Wilson and Senator Jim DeMint, both South Carolina Republicans, have sponsored legislation to restore a woman’s right to choose whether or not to join a union and a man’s right to choose whether or not to pay union dues.

“The National Right to Work Act simply erases the forced-dues clauses in the [1935] National Labor Relations Act and [1926] Railway Labor Act without adding a single letter to federal law,” Wilson told House colleagues as he introduced his measure last January. “Passage of this bill would return to working Americans the freedom of choice that never should have been stripped from them in the first place. Furthermore, passage of the National Right to Work Act would dramatically increase both the freedom and the prosperity of all Americans.” Wilson’s bill features 83 House co-sponsors.

Beyond the boost in individual liberty that Wilson and DeMint advocate, abundant evidence demonstrates that America’s 22 right-to-work (RTW) states significantly outperform the overall U.S. economy, while forced-unionism states trail both.

• For instance, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that between 1982 and 2004, manufacturing establishments expanded 4.5 percent in RTW states. While they shrank 5.3 percent nationwide, they shriveled in forced-unionism states: down 9.3 percent.
• From 1995 to 2005, private, non-farm employment advanced 20.2 percent in RTW states, ahead of the 14.5 percent national average and 11.3 percent hike in forced-unionism states.
• RTW states saw $50,571 average, real household income in metropolitan areas in 2002. That year, the $48,310 U.S. figure trumped its $46,431 counterpart in Big Labor states.
• In 2004, 71 percent of households in RTW states owned their homes, versus 69 percent across the USA, and 68 percent in mandatory-unionism states.
• RTW residents more broadly enjoy medical coverage. Between 1995 and 2005, the Census Bureau reports, the number of individuals carrying private health insurance climbed 11.9 percent in those states. The 7 percent national average once again outstripped the 4.4 percent increase in compulsory-unionism states. Meanwhile, the number of children with private insurance rose 9.3 percent in RTW states and 2.9 percent, on average, across America. But in forced-union states, the number of boys and girls with private coverage actually slipped 0.5 percent.

So, do RTW laws catalyze greater prosperity, or are RTW states the kinds of jurisdictions that cut taxes, deregulate, preserve property rights, and otherwise encourage capitalism?

More pastorally, are RTW laws the animal feed that fattens the chickens, or are they the roosters that believe their crowing summons the sunrise?“States with Right to Work laws tend strongly to have other pro-growth policies,” says Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee. “But Right to Work laws themselves play a very important role in fostering a good climate, both for enacting other pro-growth policies in the first place and for maintaining them in the face of strong opposition from Big Labor.”

Mix adds that in non-RTW states, “union campaign operatives use a huge chunk of the forced dues they grab to elect politicians who are beholden to Big Labor’s agenda of higher taxes, more government spending, and straightjacket regulation of business.”

Conversely, Mix maintains, union bosses in RTW states lack access to compulsory dues, thus limiting their spending and activity to promote statist politicians and policies.

Nevertheless, and especially on this holiday, Big Labor still sings the praises of unionism.

“More than 97 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 85 percent of nonunion workers do,” the AFL-CIO crows. “Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce —where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

”These are appealing arguments. Union bosses should have enough faith in themselves and what Big Labor offers that they can attract U.S. employees through persuasion rather than coercion.That is all the National Right to Work Act asks.

© 2007, Scripps Howard News Service— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.