This Week In Your State Rep's Office: The Good, And The Rather Unfortunate

     Only three weeks into his new job, Gary Howell is already making noise in Lansing.

     Say what you will about the man just elected to replace Todd Courser in the state House, but he's already made good on one campaign promise of his, co-sponsoring a bipartisan set of bills that would end the exemption the governor's office currently has from the Freedom Of Information Act. The set of bills, HBs 5469-5468, go one step further by creating the Legislative Open Records Act, which would function similarly to FOIA for state legislators, though in a press release regarding the bills, sponsor Ed McBroom (R- Vulcan) claimed that certain provisions in the state constitution, namely the Speech and Debate and Separation of Powers Clauses, prevent them from simply applying FOIA as it stands to the legislature, but that the LORA works around those issues by subjecting such requests to a non-partisan review by the Legislative Council Administrator. If nothing else, it's a step in the right direction, and a sign that the Legislature is listening to calls for increased transparency.

     And if we could have called it a week right there, all would have been well and good. But then, Rep. Howell decided to weigh in on a more controversial issue.

     As you've probably already heard by now, the State Board of Education has been discussing a set of policies aimed at ensuring fair treatment for gay, lesbian, and transgender students. Among other things, the steps being suggested (note: all of said guidelines are optional, and some are already in place in some districts) include adopting policies to protect LGBT's from harassment, violence, and discrimination; the creation of extracurricular clubs for these students; and referring to students by their chosen name and gender pronouns. Basically, the way you'd treat anybody if you're not a completely horrible person.

     Of course, there's one particular part of the guidelines that several conservative politicians have latched onto as being completely unacceptable: Allowing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify as. In a press release, Rep. Howell took exception to the suggestion of allowing students to choose which gender they identify with: "The Michigan State Board of Education is eroding parental rights to the degree that parents will not even be entitled to know what gender clothing their child is wearing during the school day." Now, if the parents of a transgender child are aware of and accepting of it, great. Those aren't the parents these policies are put in place for. What about the parents that, if they knew their children were transgender, would disown, abuse, or kick out their children for having come out as such? Those children shouldn't be protected?

     Admittedly, the restroom issue is a somewhat complicated one, and no resolution proposed so far is going to make all parties happy. The idea of single-occupancy bathrooms has been shouted down on both sides, with some on the pro-trans side arguing that they shouldn't be forcibly ostracized further, while many on the other side don't feel they should have to accommodate "confused" children. (A rather unfortunate way of looking at it, anyway, implying it to be some sort of "phase" they'll "grow out of.") And that same side certainly won't be happy about letting gender identity determine which restroom to use, claiming that it would be, to quote Howell again, "potentially putting the health and safety of children at risk." So, here we go with this idea that all transgender people are predators, that just want to sneak into women's restrooms and assault them. Ironically enough, LGBT students are 2.3 times more likely to be threatened or injured by their classmates, and transgender people are far more likely to be the victim of violence in the "right" bathroom than to assault anybody in the wrong one. Infinitely so, in fact, as the latter has literally never happened. And this hasn't been an issue any place where it's been put into effect, save for a few men intentionally violating the laws in some sort of attempt to creep people out enough to get them repealed. But clearly it's those transgender students, creeping around to spy on girls in the bathroom, that are the issue. 

     Good lord, did these people learn everything they know about LGBT people from watching 80's sitcoms?

     Of course, the most common argument thrown out on this issue is that "you're whatever gender the doctor/your parents decide at birth, and that's IT. The 'plumbing' is what it is." Of course, that's not always true; beyond the obvious examples of those born as hermaphrodites, approximately one in 1,500 people are born with genetic and anatomical characteristics that don't match the sex they were assigned at birth, and these assignments are often made without taking into account hormonal changes that take place during puberty, when their gender identities are more fully developed. 

     And there's a few places promoting bunk science as well, or at the least, religious propaganda disguising itself as science. In a link that's been making the rounds, the "American College of Pediatricians" have blasted the very idea of being transgender, making the absurd call to "reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex." Now, before you take these people even somewhat seriously, a little background: The ACP was founded in 2002 by former members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (the legitimate pediatric association) who were incensed that the AAP wouldn't condemn gay adoption, and is far more concerned more with promoting its own religious agenda than with the health and well-being of children.

     This is certainly an issue for which almost no solution is going to satisfy everybody, But it's still rather disappointing to see the same tired narratives being trotted out again, and I would have hoped for better from our state representative than to continue to perpetuate stereotypes that simply have no basis in reality.

The Authoritative Guide To Today's Election

     At long last, the day is finally upon us.

     Today, voters will head to the polls to finally pick somebody to replace Todd Courser as state representative after over fourteen six months without any representation in Lansing and to pick somebody to run against Hillary Clinton in November. We'll start with the state representative race, which started out as a total free-for-all with 14 candidates declaring for the position, including the incumbent, who somehow found time in between shoving his face in front of every news camera he could find to run again. Thankfully, the voters were smart enough to not make the same mistake twice.

     It's fairly obvious who's getting the endorsement of the local paper, though, even though they haven't directly endorsed anybody. Yes, Republican Gary Howell found himself on the front page twice in Sunday's County Press, campaign stickers plastered over the faces of his opponents. Yes, they say it was accidental and a printing error. But given that the owner of the paper has donated the maximum allowable amount to Howell in this election and has donated sizable sums in prior ones, which no doubt had something to do with the bizarre double endorsement of Howell and Ian Kempf in last year's primary, this Sunday's claim by one of their columnists that "this newspaper doesn't comment on particular candidates this close to an election" because "we don't want to unfairly influence your vote" rings particularly hollow. And isn't true anyway since, as I just pointed out, they endorsed two candidates in the last election. Needless to say, I doubt you'd have seen DeLuca's campaign stickers laid over top of Howell were it the other way around. 

     (Editor's note: Though, as pointed out to me by my friend Steve Starking, in fairness to the columnist in question, Ed Fitzgerald, he followed that statement with this: "I'm wondering if it's possible that since March came in like a lion, that maybe it will go out like a donkey." Not exactly toeing the party line. Still seems a bit odd to have no official endorsement this time around, though.)

     On to the candidates:

     Margaret Guererro DeLuca- Lost to Todd Courser last time around, and beat out a field of moonbats and no-shows to secure the nomination again. Has a seemingly endless supply of facts and figures to back up every position she holds, and isn't afraid to use them. Also has no problem taking on the other side, as evidenced by her sparring with State Sen. Phil Pavlov over schools (a particular strong point of hers), or working with them when needed. VOTE IF: You'd like to see something resembling actual change in Lansing.

     Gary Howell- The Republican-tested, County Press-approved option. Certainly far more moderate than the last Republican to serve in the office, but not above sending out plenty of negativity in his own right. Still a fairly reasonable guy whose positions differ from the Republican establishment in a few areas, and is rather blunt in expressing those differences. VOTE IF: You'd like to see change in Lansing, but not that much change.

     Tracy Spilker- Jumped in as the Libertarian candidate, and has done Libertarians no favors with her platform, wherein the answer to literally every question is "free markets." Which is great if you're the kind of person who, to take an example from her campaign's Facebook page last night, believes the hydraulic fracking industry will just regulate itself, and that the best thing to do is keep all regulation out of its way. This is, of course, the same woman that thinks the electrician doing work on your house shouldn't need to be licensed to do so, and spent an entire debate saying that the state shouldn't be involved in education at all. VOTE IF: You'd like to set the libertarian movement back about ten years.

     But that's not the only race going on today, of course; there's still a presidential primary to get to as well.

     Biff Tannen- If you like your Republicans to not even pretend to care about minorities, decorum, or basic human decency, then what other choice do you have than a reality star that's failed at businesses too numerous to list here? VOTE IF: You don't understand the difference between "political correctness" and "not being an inconsiderate asshole"; You really wish to kill my faith in humanity.

     Ted Cruz- Manages to run against Donald Trump and somehow still have the most punchable face in the field. As far as his politics, he's like Todd Courser on the national level, without the affairs and cover-ups. Compromise of any sort is weakness, religious liberty only applies to his religion, and it's totally not a conflict of interest that his wife works for Goldman Sachs. VOTE IF: You like your extremist candidates to be even more smug, shifty, and condescending than a guy who bragged about the size of his junk on a debate stage.

     Marco Rubio- Ah, the MarcoBot. It was only a week or two ago that he declared he wasn't going to get into personal attacks, then... started getting into personal attacks. Other than immigration, doesn't differ much from the rest of the field, except for an odd tendency to repeat stump speeches word-for-word on the debate stage when flustered. VOTE IF: You think a guy that can't handle debating with his own party should be leader of the free world.

     John Kasich- Finally, an actual adult in the field! It's a damn shame he's so anti-union, anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-education funding, because otherwise he appears to be the voice of reason in this field. VOTE IF: You like your right-wing ideologues to at least give the illusion of compassion.

     Hillary Clinton- Not a fan of her current position on an issue? Don't worry! She'll change it in five minutes and tell you she always supported it. Want a direct answer on something? Good luck. Wants to ride her husband's coattails and take credit for his accomplishments... until you mention things like NAFTA and the 1994 crime bill. Then we're not here to talk about the past. VOTE IF: If you think you can legitimately believe half of the promises she makes on the campaign trail. And if you do, then I've got an airport in Lum to sell you...

     Bernie Sanders- The idealist of the Democratic field, and as such, the guy that's been given no shot to win from the  beginning. Are some of his proposals unrealistic and unlikely to pass Congress? Sure. Is he sometimes light on specifics? Sure. But he also holds a lot of positions that the rest of his party, Hillary included, are now coming around to, and has been far more willing than anybody in the race to acknowledge, and denounce, the impact of corporate welfare, corruption, and big money in politics. VOTE IF: If you'd like to see something resembling actual change in Washington.

     Now, I don't care who in the hell you support (unless it's Trump or Cruz, then we can't be friends anymore), and it should be fairly obvious to most of you who I support, but if I could ask one thing of you: think about who you're voting for. Be informed. Know where these people stand before you go into the voting booth. Hell, I've done half the work for you and sat through every debate of the election cycle to do these debate recaps! Make sure we don't have to deal with another mistake on the scale of Todd Courser, or worse. And for as important as this presidential election is, the state representative race can't be ignored either. You see how corrupt the current legislature is. You see how little regard they have for democracy and the will of the people. You see how little consideration the previous occupant of the office gave to his constituents. That's why it's so important to get this one right.

     Because if you don't... we're gonna have to wait a whole eight months to elect another one.

Watching The Democratic Pandering In Flint So You Don't Have To

     The Democratic presidential race also stopped by Michigan over the weekend, though without all the circus sideshow antics of their Republican counterparts.

     The race on the Democratic side hasn't been nearly the clown show that the Republicans have offered up, mostly because it's been widely accepted that Hillary Clinton was going to end up the nominee anyway, barring a last-minute run by Vice President Joe Biden. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley dropped out early on, presumably to focus on a new world tour and album with his Irish band. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee showed up once at a debate, which is just adorable. The only candidate to even put up a fight in this one has been Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" who's still technically an independent, at least as far as the Senate is concerned, and has, if nothing else, forced Clinton to try and attempt to pander to the more liberal factions in the party.

     And together, they came to Flint on Sunday to exploit the local water crisis for political gain debate the issues facing Flint and the country. (As long as those issues are completely contained within this country's borders, anyway; if foreign policy is your thing, you were likely highly disappointed by last night.) You know the drill by now: candidates say things, I cut through the stump-speech spin and sum up the important stuff.

     The opening statements, naturally, are all about Flint; both candidates want Rick Snyder gone, the state and feds need to help pay to replace the pipes, and Bernie went on about Wall Street and the 1% because that's what Bernie Sanders does. Anderson Cooper then brings up a single mother from Flint to ask how the candidates will restore the people's trust in their government. Clinton had great praise for Mayor Karen Weaver and her role in fixing the current situation, mentioning her program that hires Flint residents to deliver water until the pipes are replaced, as well as President Obama's role in holding the EPA accountable, and called for the work done on replacing the piping to be be double and triple-checked. Sanders pointed out that Flint residents are paying three times as much for poisoned water as he does in Burlington, called for the CDC to come in and check on Flint residents to determine the severity of the lead poisoning, and proposed a trillion-dollar program to replace crumbing infrastructure, while blaming bad trade agreements for the decline of Flint. (Meanwhile, Rick Snyder was hard at work this evening tweeting in his own defense.)

     Cooper then asked both candidates whether they would fire the head of the EPA. Clinton claimed everybody that was in the wrong had been fired by the EPA, though Cooper countered by reminding her that only one person resigned and nobody was fired. She then said she'd be in favor of an investigation into who knew what and when. Sanders declared he'd "fire anybody that knew about what was happening and did not act appropriately," while wandering into more criticism of tax breaks for the wealthy and mentioned the failing Detroit schools.

     Next, another Flint resident asked the candidates to commit to making it a requirement to remove all lead pipes in public water systems. Sanders said he'd have the EPA test the water at every public water system in America, while Clinton went one further and promised to remove lead from everywhere within five years, a promise that seems more than a bit impossible to fulfill. Both were then asked if those responsible for the Flint water crisis should go to jail over it, and both completely dodged the question.

     Flint Journal editor Bryn Mickle then asked Clinton why the people of Flint should believe she isn't using their plight to further her own political ambitions. She responded by touting her time with the Children's Defense Fund and her past as a problem-solver and an activist. Sanders was asked why he hadn't showed up in Flint for the first time until last week, which he claimed wasn't the case, and went on to talk about the meeting he'd had in Detroit with those affected, as well as a town hall he'd held about the crisis.

     Another Flint resident asked what the candidates would do to keep jobs in America. Clinton talked about infrastructure, offering incentives to manufacturers, and clean energy, while Sanders pointed out that she'd supported several trade agreements that resulted in a loss of American jobs. Clinton countered by pointing out that he was against the auto bailouts, which isn't entirely true. Sanders then turned it around on her by pointing out that she supported the Wall Street bailouts. Clinton tried to talk over Sanders, which prompted an irritated "Excuse me, I'm talking" from him, the sort of thing that has already spawned a million overblown think-pieces about how dismissive and sexist Sanders must be, because it's apparently okay to interrupt somebody mid-sentence if you're a woman. She then claimed to have voted against CAFTA and opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and defended her support of the auto bailouts. Sanders then called her out for the money she's taken from Wall Street, while Clinton pointed out that Obama had taken a record amount of money from them as well. Sanders went back to the hundreds of thousands of dollars Clinton's been paid for speeches, pointing out that he hasn't done anything similar.

     Sanders would continue to point out Clinton's support for past trade agreements that cost American jobs, while he and Clinton both agreed that they would be willing to use the tools given by Dodd-Frank to break up banks that are "too big to fail." Clinton took exception to Sanders' accusations that she supported failed trade policies, and his insistence on coming back to her actions and policy positions in the '90's, while pointing out that Michigan had a 4.4% unemployment rate and had gained jobs under Bill Clinton's presidency. The candidates would differ wildly on the Export-Import Bank; Clinton was in support of it, while Sanders claims that 75% of their loans are made to large profitable corporations and denounced the idea of corporate welfare, a position that oddly puts Sanders in agreement with fellow senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Clinton defended her support of the Export-Import Bank by claiming that other countries support their companies in a similar way, while Sanders then argued that the middle-class shouldn't have to pay for a handout to large multinational corporations, then digressed into health care.

     Cooper then brought out the father of one of the victims of the recent shooting in Kalamazoo, who asked what the candidates would do to prevent something like that from happening again. Clinton offered up closing loopholes in current gun laws and stronger background checks, as well as taking away immunity from gun manufacturers and sellers. Sanders touted his history of support for gun control, and agreed with most of Clinton's proposals, save for the aforementioned immunity, claiming it wouldn't make sense to hold gun manufacturers or sellers responsible for what people do with their weapons, and that it would put gun manufacturers out of business in America.

     Next, Don Lemon asked both candidates about the 1994 crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law and Sanders reluctantly voted for. Both candidates pointed out that there were some worthwhile provisions in the bills (in particular, the act relating to domestic violence), and Sanders expressed concerns at the time about others, but still voted yes. Both now acknowledge the bill was largely a mistake, and Sanders vowed that the U.S. would no longer lead the world in incarceration rate by the end of his first term.

     Race would  be the subject of a few questions to follow. Sanders related a story about getting arrested in Chicago trying to de-segregate the public school system there, and taking part in Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington, while Clinton shared her story of working for the first African-American woman to pass the Mississippi bar exam. Both were then asked what racial blind spots they had; Clinton gave a pretty standard answer about not knowing what it's like as a black person to worry that something like the Sandra Bland incident could happen to them. Sanders came back with somewhat of an off-putting line: "When you are white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto, what it's like to be poor, you don't know what it's like to be hassled when you are walking down the street or dragged out of a car," which somehow managed to come across as oblivious, if not outright insensitive, towards non-white people and poor white people.

     Sanders then called Clinton out on a welfare reform bill she fought for in '96 he claimed only increased poverty, which Clinton shot back by claiming that many provisions of the bill were stripped by the Bush administration, then defended her record in the '90's by pointing out the increase in new jobs and median income during that time. Sanders countered by reminding Clinton that during that time several unfavorable trade agreements were passed, as were bills that effectively deregulated Wall Street. Essentially, to sum up half of tonight's debate: Bill Clinton was president for most of the '90's, and much time has been spent arguing about his record.

     Sanders was then asked how he'd do better than President Obama at improving race relations, to which he said he would end militarization of local police departments, have the Department of Justice investigate every death that occurs under police custody, end mandatory minimum sentences on drug charges, and make police departments more reflective of the communities they serve.

     Next, the parent of a Detroit Public Schools student asked what the candidates would do to fix the current plight of DPS and districts like it. Sanders, as he often does, went back to the wealthy and the tax breaks they receive, asking why there's money for them, but not to fix crumbling school systems. Clinton called for an end to emergency financial management and more federal funding to repair and modernize school buildings. She was then asked about her support from the two biggest teachers' unions in the country, and whether unions protect bad teachers, which she kind of side-stepped, referring to a need to "eliminate the criticism." Sanders called for tuition-free college and investing more in child care, mentioning that his family didn't have any money growing up, the kind of difference between him and Clinton that you'd expect him to refer back to more often, if only for the idea that it should theoretically make him more able to relate to lower-income voters in a way Hillary cannot.

     Infrastructure was the next topic, and Clinton proposed to add another $250 billion to fund road and infrastructure repairs in addition to the Highway Transportation Bill by starting a National Infrastructure Bank, which would be funded with $25 billion in capital. When pressed for how he'd fund his own trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, Sanders explained he'd eliminate the loophole that allows for offshore tax havens, and that would account for the $1 trillion and create 13 million jobs.

     Next, a University of Michigan student asked if the candidates support hydraulic fracking, despite it's effects on the environment. Clinton went on to dance around the question with talk of regulation, while Sanders got straight to the point: "My answer is a lot shorter: No, I do not support fracking." Sometimes it's nice to see a direct, simple answer to a question after a string of answers that go on well past their allotted time and often raise more questions than they answer. Cooper counted by pointing out that some Democratic governors believe it can be done safely. "Are they wrong?" Sanders: "Yes." Cooper then pressed him about comments he'd made implying that Clinton is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, which Sanders used as a springboard to go off about the influence of big money in politics and point out that his campaign is not bought and paid for by any special interests. Clinton then talked about her own climate change plan, including a proposed half-billion more solar panels deployed by the end of her first term. Cooper countered by asking about a Clinton fundraiser held by executives at a firm that does hydraulic fracking, on which she refused to comment. After that came one of Bernie's better lines of the night: "We are, if elected president, going to invest a lot more money into mental health. And when you watch these Republican debates, you know why we need to invest into that." He then talked about making it a top priority to overturn the Citizens United decision.

     The candidates were both asked about the possibility of running against Biff Tannen Donald Trump in the general; when asked how she'd take him on, Clinton pointed out that she's the only candidate who has received more votes than Trump in this election cycle, adding "I think that Donald Trump's bigotry, his bullying, his bluster, are not going to wear well on the American people." When mentioned that Trump had referred to Sanders as a "communist," Sanders replied "That was one of the nice things he said about me!" He went on to point out that most polls show him performing better against Trump than Clinton does.

     Finally, the most pointless questions of the night, a Flint resident asking Sanders "Do you think God is relevant" and asking Clinton "To whom and for whom do you pray?" Questions that seem more at home in the GOP debates than here, though it's hard to see how any god could help that field. Sanders brushed off accusations that he was downplaying his Jewish heritage, while Clinton spoke of humility and empathy, most likely because her handlers told her that people are into that sort of thing.

     It seems fair to say that both candidate had their struggles on Sunday. Sanders clearly was knocked off his game early on after being blindsided by the auto bailout argument, and Clinton found herself having to answer for more than a few contradictions in her policy stances. Luckily for Bernie, in contrast to Thursday's GOP debate, not a single question was asked about foreign policy, an area in which Sanders isn't particularly strong, mostly because he can't blame anything on Wall Street there.

     All in all, this one can probably be chalked up as a win for Hillary, who still enjoys an advantage as front-runner going into tomorrow's vote here in Michigan. That said, even if he does end up losing the race, Sanders has succeeded in one regard. By the virtue of having lasted in this race as a legitimate contender for as long as he has, he's forced Clinton to really engage the liberal base in her party and take their concerns into consideration far more than she would have otherwise. Doesn't necessarily mean much after the election, but the conversation has undoubtedly shifted leftward at any rate as a result of Sanders' growing following.

     But between some rather unfeasible proposals from Hillary and some that she's rather unlikely to act on given her associations with various special interests, and Bernie's often one-dimensional campaign that remains convinced that closing tax loopholes will solve everything and then some, I'm left with one question in regards to the presidential primary race.

     Is it too late to get a do-over on this one?

Watching The GOP Clown Car In Detroit So You Don't Have To

     Rarely have so many politicians used so many words to say so little, as they have during this presidential election cycle.

     Substance has been all but absent for the vast majority of the debates so far, with policy getting tossed aside for yelling and name-calling.

     Most of the reasonable and mature folk (that is to say, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, New York Governor George Pataki, and Sen. Rand Paul) dropped out of this race long ago. Evangelical long-shots Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee popped in to remind us they think gay people are an abomination, then crawled back under the rocks from whence they came. Carly Fiorina became all-consumed with those doctored Planned Parenthood videos and dropped out of the running. Jeb Bush, the red-headed stepchild of the field, finally got tired of begging for applause at his own rallies and packed it in. Jersey loudmouth Chris Christie grew tired of antagonizing Marco Rubio on stage and left the rest of the field to do so. And somewhere, on a prior debate stage, Dr. Ben Carson is still asleep, blissfully unaware that Super Tuesday has come and gone.

     This leaves us with the top two candidates, Biff Tannen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, yelling at each other about who's more smug; Marco Rubio's automated response generator; and Ohio Governor John Kasich, who... is apparently running for president as well?

     So with the field pared down significantly, the three candidates who still have an actual shot of being their party's nominee and John Kasich met in Detroit Thursday night to mostly insult and talking over each other as prodded by the anchors of Fox News, whom occasionally interjected a few actual questions about policy.

     Leading off the night, Chris Wallace asked the reality star about the less-than flattering comments Mitt Romney had made about his campaign, challenging him to do so "with substance, not insults." If you thought that would actually happen, you clearly haven't been paying attention. Literally the first words out of his mouth: "Well look, he was a failed candidate, he should have beaten president Obama very easy." And there you have it: Even when the instructions literally state not to throw out insults, he can't help himself.

     He then went on to talk about trade, and threw out some ridiculously incorrect numbers. "With China we're going to lose $505 billion in trades. You just can't do it." You can't, but, of course, we're not; the actual figure is $366 billion "Mexico, $58 billion." That one... is actually accurate. "Japan, probably about, they don't know it yet, but about $109 billion." Well, he was right about not knowing it, anyway; the actual figure is less than $69 billion. "Every country we lose money with." Except Brazil, the Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore, Australia, Argentina... the list goes on.

     Wallace followed that up by asking Trump about the controversy surrounding his failure to denounce the endorsement of white supremacist leader David Duke, and his views on the KKK and white supremacists, and he disavowed them. Bret Baier then asked Marco Rubio about comments he made about not wanting to get into personal attacks, before he unleashed personal attacks on Trump days later. Rubio countered by pointing out that Trump has been the king of personal attacks since he began his campaign: "If there is anyone who has ever deserved to be attacked that way, it has been Donald Trump, for the way he has treated people in the campaign." Trump, naturally, followed with the back-handed insult; "I also happened to call him a lightweight, OK? And I would like to take that back."

     This is where things went off the rails. "Nobody has hit my hands. I have never heard of this," referring to Rubio's crack at the size of his hands. Of course, that's not true; current Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter did just that over 25 years ago in the pages of Spy magazine, which prompted an interesting response from the man: "To this day, I still receive the occasional envelope from Trump.There is always a photo of him - generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers." But then Trump dropped this: "And if he referred to my hands, if they are small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem." You read that right, folks: The 2016 GOP primary campaign has now become a literal dick-measuring contest.

     From there, Megyn Kelly tried to get things back on track by asking Cruz about his lack of popularity with his conservative and evangelical base. Cruz went on a tangent about Obamacare killing jobs (which isn't true, but more on that later), before the whole thing devolved into Trump, Cruz and Rubio arguing about poll numbers, the highlight being Rubio correctly pointing out that on average, Trump fares worst of any of them in a one-on-one with Hillary.

     Finally, for the first time of the evening, Kasich gets to speak, as Baier asks him about the possibility of throwing his support behind Rubio in Florida to increase the possibility of a brokered convention, which is realistically the best shot Kasich has at the nomination. He side-stepped the question, but did come through with this gem: "People say everywhere I go, 'you seem to be the adult on the stage.'" It's nearly impossible to disagree with that assessment. He went on to claim his success at bringing 400,000 new private sector jobs into Ohio, which is technically true, but at 9.3%, it still falls behind the national job growth rate, which is at 11.7%.

     At long last, we now get to actual questions of policy. Wallace throws out another one of Rubio's attacks on Trump, having called him a "con artist," then asks how many jobs Rubio has created. Rubio made the point that his belief is that it's not the government's role to create jobs, then accused Trump of inheriting $100 billion from his father, while Trump stuck to his claim of only getting one loan for $1 million from his father. Essentially, both are lying here. Technically, Fred Trump's will left about $20 million to be split between his four children, but that fails to take into account that the elder Trump also had valuable political and financial connections that his son used to get himself established, not to mention that there was at least one loan for $3.3 million, made in December 1990 through his Atlantic City casino, which was highly illegal and would cost the casino $65,000. Rubio went on to attack Trump's merchandise being manufactured overseas, and his many failed business ventures, while Trump referred to him as "little Marco" and went after his voting record.

     Well, it was worth a shot. Wallace again attempts to rein the candidates in by asking Trump about his tax cuts and specifically what he would cut to make them happen. He responds with agencies that don't exist ("The Department of Environmental Protection") and "Common Core." Wallace calls BS on this almost immediately, noting that the entire budget for the Department of Education is $78 billion, the EPA is $8 billion, and given that the deficit is over half a trillion dollars, the cuts don't add up. Trump goes on about Medicare and saving $300 billion by negotiating drug prices, but Medicaid currently only spends $78 billion on prescription drugs.

     Wallace follows that up by asking Cruz how, if he abolishes the IRS, tax revenue will be collected and deductions will be figured. He points to a postcard on his website and says the Treasury Department will still handle these things, while criticizing Trump for not offering enough specifics and offering this appeal to Trump supporters: 'For 40 years, Donald has been part of the corruption in Washington that you're angry about." Trump responds to earlier criticism of his supporting liberals by  pointing out that he's supported and donated to candidates on both sides, and referring to the current state of affairs in Washington as "total gridlock." Interesting contrast being presented here; Trump wants to paint himself as a deal-maker in opposition to obstructionist Cruz, who appears to view negotiation and reaching across the aisle as compromising on his principles.

     Next, Wallace asked Kasich about raising the minimum wage, which he pointed out he'd be in favor of on a state level, then touted his experience at balancing the federal budget. Finally, a question that didn't devolve to childish bickering. That didn't last long, as Kelly's question to Cruz about Sen. Jeff Sessions' endorsement of Trump after Cruz repeatedly brought up his own work with Sessions on the immigration issue resulted in Cruz rattling off several Democrats Trump supported.

     From there, Kelly hit Trump with a report that in an off-the-record interview with the New York Times' editorial board, he'd expressed willingness to be flexible on his immigration policy. Trump denied it, once again made his ridiculous claim that "Mexico is gonna pay for the wall." Kelly then asked Rubio about his support for an eventual pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Rubio offered a half-hearted defense of his actions then turned it around on Trump, calling for him to release the tapes from that interview. Oddly, Trump defended Rubio more than Rubio did:"He is talking about a little give and take and a little negotiation. And you know what? That's OK. That's not the worst thing in the world."

     After a break, Kelly called Trump out on his flip-flopping on worker visas, to which Trump admitted he'd softened from the position he took on his website. Kelly then called Cruz out for his reversal of position on those same worker visas, having been in favor of quintupling the number of them before calling for a suspension of them. Cruz did his best "I voted for the visas before I voted against them" move, before calling out Trump for hiring foreign workers, which Cruz, Trump, and Rubio then shouted over each other about.

     From there, the topic turned to terrorism, as Baier asked Rubio whether he was willing to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, which he claimed he was and always had been, which he'd not really mentioned before this debate. When asked the same question, Kasich had much the same answer, while touting his experience on the Defense Committee and criticizing Hillary Clinton for working to depose the Gadhafi regime there.

     On the same topic, Baier pointed out to Trump that several foreign policy experts, including a former CIA director, signed a statement refusing to support him because of his support of waterboarding and more extreme forms of torture, and asked what he'd do if the military refused to enforce his illegal orders. Trump, in his usual fashion, blustered "They're not going to refuse me, believe me," then went on to claim that he supports worse torture than waterboarding and repeated a false claim that the wife of one of the 9/11 hijackers was in the United States until two days before the attacks and knew what was about to happen, even though none of the hijackers were married or had brought family with them into the country in the first place. Cruz then got a good jab in at Trump: "I think the American people understand that yelling and cursing at people doesn't make you a tough guy."

     Cruz was then asked about his position on Edward Snowden, as Cruz had offered in 2013 that perhaps he'd performed a public service, but in the words of moderator Baier, "it took you until January of this year to call him a traitor and say that he should be tried for treason. Why the change of heart? And why did it take you so long?" (Do I detect a bit of subtle editorializing from Baier there, perhaps? Maybe I'm reading to much into it.) Cruz justified his decision by saying that "I believe you should start with the facts and evidence first before ending up with the verdict," explaining he felt that Snowden's behavior afterwards suggested that his weren't the actions of a whistleblower. Trump was then asked about his deflection on foreign policy, and his claim that he'll ask the best people for advice, and specifically whom those people would be. Trump named a few names (former director of policy planning for the Department of State, Dr. Richard Haass; current NBC military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs; and former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Jack Keane), and went on to claim that he'd been saying all along Snowden was a spy. Kasich then jumped in to point out that he'd been voted by military policy experts as the best choice for foreign policy of the candidates.

     After another break, Kelly called Trump out on a few inconsistencies and things he'd completely changed his positions on; namely the war in Afghanistan, accepting Syrian refugees, and whether president George W. Bush lied to get the U.S into the Iraq war. He started off by claiming he'd always been against the Iraq war, although there was no proof he'd opposed it before the war began, and that he was in favor of Syrian refugees before he knew how many there were, adding "you have to have a certain degree of flexibility." Kasich jumped in to point out that as governor of Ohio, he managed to do the things he'd promised he'd do, like balancing the budget and cutting taxes.

     Rubio then chimed in to accuse Trump of "telling people whatever you think you need to say to get them to do what you want them to do," bringing up the controversial Trump University debacle, which has been subject to class-action lawsuits from dissatisfied students. Trump claimed an "A" rating from the Better Business Bureau and a 95-98% satisfaction rate per student surveys, but many students are believed to have been coerced into writing positive reviews while still taking classes, and the most recent BBB score available had rated the "University" a "D-." Trump had even tried to file a counter-suit against the lead plaintiff in the original suit, only to have it dismissed and be ordered to pay legal fees to the original plaintiff. Having had Kelly and Rubio both refuting his claims and having been called a con artist by Rubio, Trump then turned on Rubio's absentee record in the Senate, while Cruz made the point that having a nominee in the midst of a fraud trial who'd donated to Clinton in the past would be the worst possible outcome for the party. Trump and Cruz carried on about poll numbers, while Kasich tried to call for an end to the fighting.

     The next topic of the night would be the Flint water crisis, as Rubio was asked why the GOP hasn't done more or talked more about the issue, to which he claimed he had, blamed Democrats for making it a partisan issue, and commended Rick Snyder for taking responsibility. (He didn't necessarily, until well after the fact, but that's another issue for later.) Kasich was asked whether Detroit Public Schools should be bailed out, and responded by citing a somewhat similar situation in Cleveland's public schools, calling for more vocational education, and calling for politics to be put aside. Cruz was asked what he'd do to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, and Detroit in particular; he started by invoking the "60 years of failed left-wing policies" narrative, talking about his plan to replace all income taxes with a flat tax, and calling Obamacare "the biggest job-killer in America." (In actuality, over 2.4 million jobs have been gained since it was put into effect.)

     Kasich would then be asked about his thoughts on "religious liberty," the code-word these days for "legalized discrimination against LGBT's." He'd made statements prior that he wouldn't necessarily approve of that kind of discrimination, then back-pedaled at that somewhat, making clear his opposition to same-sex marriage and support for religious freedom, but claiming on the latter "I'd rather people figure this out without having to put another law on the books," and ending with a plea to rise above the divisiveness: "Why don't we come together as a country, respect one another, love one another, and lift this country? I think that's what people want."

     When asked about whether gay adoption should be legal, Cruz side-stepped the issue somewhat, claiming it should be left up to the states, while declaring he'd never compromise on religious freedom and attacking the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, which he's stated prior that he'd seek to overturn. Rubio was asked what limits he'd put on the Second Amendment; naturally, he said as few as possible. Trump was quizzed on his statements regarding his support for the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which he now claims he opposes. Cruz also stood against any such regulation, attacking Trump for being in favor of nominating "judicial activists" and supporting Democrats, while claiming that a study on the '94 assault weapons ban did nothing to reduce violent crime, which isn't necessarily the case.

     The next segment began with Rubio and Cruz arguing over which would be a worse leader in regards to foreign policy, with Rubio accusing Trump of "admiring" Russian leader Vladimir Putin, which... is kind of false? Cruz was asked about North Korea's threats to launch nuclear weapons, blaming Bill Clinton for lifting economic sanctions on that country and calling for a space-based missile defense system. Wallace then tried to get Kasich to call Trump naive about Putin's ambitions, though Kasich wasn't taking the bait, instead going into detail on what he'd do for most of the current conflicts between nations (essentially: try and win Turkey over, keep Jordan and Saudi Arabia as allies, set up in the South China Sea and take out Chinese computer systems if they try to hack American targets again, and arm Ukraine to protect it from Putin).

     The final question of the night was a simple one: Will you support whomever wins the Republican nomination, even if it ends up being Trump? Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich all said they would. When asked the same, Trump, not surprisingly, had to ask: "Even if it's not me?" But shockingly, he agreed he would.

     All in all, none of the front-runners acquitted themselves very well in this one. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio all came across as petulant children so often during this debate, and over the course of the campaign, that one might confuse this for a race for fourth-grade class president, which would be amusing were we not talking about three people vying to be the next leader of the free world. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that John Kasich is the only adult left in this race, and the only even somewhat sane choice remaining in the Republican field. That's not to say that he's a particularly palatable one; a governorship marked by union-busting, slashing education funding, and stripping reproductive rights from women, is a bit tough to swallow for a lot of liberal-minded independents, but in a race where the front-runners' stock in trade is a great deal of narcissism, smugness, contempt for everyone around them, and very little of substance in general, he's about as rational of an option as any that still exists in this race.

     Which is why he still doesn't stand a chance.

     So goes the Republican Party these days.

Rounding Up The Final Debate Before The Election

     For the last time... at least until next month, when the whole race begins anew, the candidates vying for Todd Courser's former seat took the stage together to field questions from their potential constituents. Republican Gary Howell, Democrat Margaret Guererro DeLuca, and Libertarian Tracy Spilker all attended Tuesday night's forum, in which virtually all the questions were about education. As always, you can watch the video here if you have about 90 minutes to spare, and I'd highly recommend that you do. But as an ongoing public service for those of you who don't, once again we have every question asked of the candidates, and their responses.

     First, the candidates were asked for one specific solution they'd offer to fix any of the current issues with education in the state. DeLuca wanted to look at providing proper funding for schools, noting that the money the state gave to schools over the last four years is going primarily to legacy costs. Spilker claimed "the government shouldn't be involved in forcing parents to send their child to school if they don't want to" and that the state shouldn't be as involved in education as it currently is. Howell stated that he'd like to see the legislature step in and increase their contribution towards legacy costs so local districts aren't so burdened by them.

     Next, they were asked what school funding should look like in the future. Spilker once again called for less state involvement, acknowledging "I know I sound like a broken record." It's hard to disagree with that self-assessment. Howell, noting that the legislature can't do much, if anything, to change Proposal A, and that he doesn't foresee the state opening up more funds to schools, also stated he would be in support of allowing local school districts to propose millages as a way of increasing additional funds. DeLuca called him out on that immediately after, pointing out that the state legislature has indeed changed the state constitution of late, specifically the senior pension tax. She went on to state that Proposal A needed to be reformed, noting that there's about 50 wealthy school districts that are exempt from its regulations.

     The Detroit Public Schools mess was the next subject addressed, as candidates were asked whether the state should be allowed to appoint emergency managers to school districts, and how they would avoid putting schools under state management. Howell noted that Detroit has seen ten superintendents in the last seven years, and that "no school district could operate in that kind of a situation." He went on to add that while no school district in Lapeer County was in danger of that happening anytime soon, whether or not state management is warranted depends on the situation. DeLuca came out firmly against state emergency financial management, pointing out that voters overturned the emergency manager law in 2014, adding that it's an issue of lack of proper funding, not mismanagement of funds. Spilker also argued against state management, going back to her primary point of local autonomy over education.

     School district consolidation came up next. DeLuca stated that the state shouldn't be able to force a merger between school districts, but that local districts should be allowed to make that decision if necessary as an absolute last resort. Spilker agreed with DeLuca on those points, while going on to decry the very concept of taxation. Howell argued that there is a better solution, through the Lapeer County Intermediate School District helping individual districts to work together to defray their costs, noting that Imlay City, Almont, and Dryden districts have shared costs on certain programs, and in the case of Imlay and Dryden, a shared superintendent.

     Candidates were then asked about using School Aid Fund money for public community college, career and technical education programs, which was. Spilker, naturally, was against, calling for privatization of the above, including college loans, following that with a tangent that went from teaching to standardized tests, to common core. Howell criticized Proposal 1 as a whole for being a "road proposal that had a hundred other things in it, that had no chance of passing," but offered that he would be in support of using school aid funds for vocational programs and community colleges, calling them "an integral part of the high school program." DeLuca was against the idea, blasting it as "robbing Peter to pay Paul," bringing it back around to her point that schools aren't being properly funded as it is.

     When asked about separate funding for transportation costs, Howell was in favor of putting it to the voters. DeLuca pointed out the inequality of the current per-pupil funding, in that it doesn't take into account transportation and other costs. Spilker came back to local control, emphasizing that the state doesn't account for the needs of individual districts.

     Unemployment was the next subject, as the candidates were asked what role schools districts can play in bringing more jobs to Lapeer. DeLuca gave particular praise to the Lapeer ISD's Ed-Tech program. Spilker touched on teaching job skills briefly before coming back to her ridiculous proposal to eliminate licensing requirements that are in place for certain professions, again using the electrician example from the last debate. Howell also mentioned the Ed-Tech program, particularly the three-year program that allows high school students to obtain an associate's degree at no cost through Ed-Tech.

     From there, the topic turned to school safety, and what role the state should have in securing schools from armed intruders. Spilker defaulted to her standard position of letting local governments handle things. Howell was in favor of state appropriations to provide assistance or guards in schools. DeLuca started by informing the audience of pending legislature to eliminate gun-free zones and CPL training, before calling for the state to "put their money where their mouth is" and create appropriations to fund school liason officers.

     Funding for charter schools was brought up next, with Howell asserting that charter schools should continue to be funded at the same level as public schools, using Lapeer's Chatfield School as an example, claiming that they are actually funded as a lesser rate already because they don't have access to the same funds to cover their building costs. DeLuca criticized the very idea of taxpayers supporting for-profit charter schools (she did note that the aforementioned Chatfield is a non-profit), bringing up the example of Muskegon Heights, where the emergency manager sold the school district to a for-profit charter school company which then turned around and shut the doors due to lack of profit. Spilker essentially repeated the same answer she has all evening thus far.

     Next, the candidates were asked if they agree with policy that would ban or limit the sale of junk foods on campus. DeLuca and Spilker disagreed, saying that local administrators should make those calls. Howell took it a step further, saying there should be no federal regulations on the same. When asked about the increasing role of technology in the classroom, Howell warned of getting too far away from the traditional classroom setting, DeLuca stressed providing enough funding, and Spilker emphasized the importance of exposing children to technology in the classroom.

     When asked about using standardized testing as measurement of student achievement, Spilker disagreed with schools being forced to teach to the tests, using a story about her kid's Halloween party that didn't exactly relate to the question. Howell pointed out that as a state representative, he won't have any effect on college admissions, and does not support using standardized test as a basis for teacher pay, but would support merit-based pay for teachers, blaming union contracts for not being able to do so. DeLuca also opposed the idea of using test scores to determine teacher pay, and supported merit-based pay, but also pointed out that schools are still waiting on test results from last year.

     Non-traditional programs like virtual learning, year-round calendars, and the like came up next. DeLuca was in favor of the year-round calendar, but somewhat skeptical about virtual learning because of a lack of human interaction. Spilker naturally was in favor of all of the above, though she too expressed skepticism of the effectiveness of virtual learning. Howell made it clear he doesn't think the state should have any role in deciding on this issue. When asked about promoting training in the STEM fields in Lansing, Spilker once again stressed local control, Howell again emphasized not allowing Lansing to dictate local education. DeLuca strongly suggested her opponents' responses simply didn't reflect the reality of the current situation, explaining "In utopia... yes, the state should not be involved in local education, but that's not the case," and that voters should send someone to Lansing who will lessen the negative effects of the current state legislation.

     When asked what recommendations they'd have for the state superintendent, Howell mentioned a lack of school funding and overabundance off bureaucratic red tape; DeLuca said she'd suggest ignoring the legislature altogether and listening to teachers and school boards, again citing Phil Pavlov as an example of that; and Spilker yet again advocated lessening government interference.
Next, candidates were asked how they'd fund the mandated-but-unfunded-by-the-state Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System. DeLuca suggested removing privatization from transportation, custodians, and school cooks, citing that as a reason the legacy costs have risen, as well as addressing the other issues that have caused teachers to flee. Spilker argued the opposite, calling for more privatization. Howell pointed out that this is one area in which the state does have authority, but that this mandate needs to be funded by the state instead of placing the burden on local districts.

     Another question asked what can be done to reach parents of students that need help. Spilker, naturally, emphasized personal responsibility, and that this is an issue that shouldn't be the role of government, stating "You can't save everybody." Howell stressed doing as much as possible to identify early on students that will need more assistance. DeLuca pointed out that it's not always a case of parents just needing to do more, relating the story of a single mother of two children working two jobs and not having enough time to help the children with school work as much as she'd like to.

     When asked how to fund any programs that they've suggested need more funding, Howell stated that there's only two ways to do that: tax increases and reallocating money in the budget, and that he'd choose the latter. DeLuca suggested that Proposal A needs to be reformed and reformulated to take inequalities between districts into account, and go closely over every line-item in the budget. Spilker -do I even need to say it?- emphasized more local control.

     Once again, the two front-runners came off well in spots. Howell shined when he was able to point to his successes at the Lapeer ISD, but not so much when asked how he'd fund many of the programs he suggested, and was directly called out by DeLuca in regards to Proposal A when he claimed that legislators couldn't change the amendment. DeLuca came out strong in asserting that the amendment put into place via Proposal A can and should be amended, undermining the narrative that more privatization is a good thing for schools, and pointing out that while less involvement on the state level would be nice, it's at best a pipe dream that simply doesn't reflect the current reality. That would hit particularly hard at Spilker's platform, which is entirely based on less (ideally, nearly zero) involvement from the state on everything, and really showed just how unrealistic that platform is. Think about it: a candidate is running for a state government position whose stated goal is to effectively dismantle state government? While one almost has to admire the optimism required to conclude that such a candidacy could even be viable, it's not exactly crazy to suggest that such a legislator might actually be less effective than the last occupant of the position, who at least had an ally or two in his party.

     And with that, election day is a little over three weeks away, and at long last, Lapeer County will actually have representation again for the first time in over a year.

     Not that there'll be much time to recover, of course; the next election is only another eight months away.

Rounding Up The First Post-Primary State Rep Debate

     And then there were three.

     The candidates that will be fighting for Todd Courser's now-vacant office in less than a month are set, and the first debate since November's primary circus was held on Tuesday night. Gary Howell and Margaret Guerrero DeLuca were in attendance, of course, along with a third candidate, though not the one I was expecting. (Back during the primary, a local resident by the name of Ann Cowan threw her name into the ring as an independent, but has since deleted her campaign page and gone radio silent.) Tracy Spilker entered the race as a Libertarian, and also took part in the debate. The video from the debate can be found here, but in the interest of saving you a couple hours, I've once again broken it down here for your convenience.

     First, the candidates were asked which two issues they'd first address upon taking office. DeLuca touched on roads and education, bringing up the implementation of stricter weight limits and holding contractors accountable for their work on the roads. Howell chose job development and education, pointing out specifically vocational-training programs like the Lapeer County ISD's Ed-Tech center. He also brought up a theme he'd refer back to throughout the night: bureaucratic red-tape. He used the specific example of Kamax in Lapeer, which is attempting to expand its current Lapeer facility and move jobs there from their current Troy location, and has had said expansion halted by a drain that needs to be moved by 300 feet, which all the pertinent local officials have approved, but the Michigan DEQ and EPA have held up indefinitely. Spilker would hammer home a recurring theme of her own about eliminating government interference in free markets, and getting rid of state and federal involvement in education.

     Next, the topic of gravel mining at the old D-Bar-A Boy Scout camp east of Metamora came up. Howell owned this issue from the beginning, as he was quick to point out that he'd successfully fought a lawsuit brought against Metamora Township by a gravel mining company 25 years ago, and had just held a forum at the White Horse Inn the day before about that very issue. Spilker's take was that the company has the right to do whatever they want on their property, but should be held accountable if it effects surrounding areas. DeLuca's main point was that the mining company isn't concerned about the best interests of the surrounding environment, so voters need to elect officials that aren't bought and paid for.

     The next few questions focused on the Flint water crisis; namely, how much blame falls on the emergency manager, and what can be done to fix it. This is where Spilker went off the rails, with an odd call for free-market competition for water. If this sounds like it makes no sense, that's probably because it doesn't. While some cities have privatized their water services with varying results, to the knowledge of your humble correspondent, none have ever had two competing water services serving the same area. She would later go on to suggest that "we the people" can fix this problem. One can only assume she doesn't intend to have Flint residents tearing out lead piping themselves, but one can't be entirely certain of this.

     In regards to the EM law, DeLuca questioned why the legislature isn't held accountable for overturning the will of the people through referendum-proof legislation. As far as solving the problem, DeLuca returned to talk of accountability, asking why nobody at any level has lost their jobs over this, apart from a few resignations, while calling for the DOJ to investigate, as the "independent" investigators appointed by AG Bill Schuette are donors of Snyder's. She also slammed Snyder for his staged photo op/signing of the bill, surrounded by his smiling supporters: "He should have had his eyes crossed and been handing the check and looking in shame!"

     Howell said he'd look at the EM law, but that the situation in Flint is not necessarily an indictment of that law, but rather an indictment on all levels of government. Referring back to his earlier call for less governmental red tape, he pointed out that the current regulation "failed us miserably," and called for an independent committee to establish what went wrong, while pointing out that this isn't going to be  a cheap fix, and will require a great amount of spending on the fed and state level to fix the flawed infrastructure.

     Staying on the topic of Flint, candidates were also asked if they believed racism played any role in the water crisis. Spilker and DeLuca both agreed that it wasn't necessarily a race issue, but a class issue, with DeLuca pointing to an example of classism by State Senator Phil Pavlov in a recent exchange they'd had in regards to Detroit Public Schools, in which he essentially asked DeLuca why she should even care about another community. (More on Pavlov, and this particular issue, to come in this space next week.) Drawing attention to the fact that Lapeer is also considered an economically depressed county, she pondered whether Lapeer would get the same dismissive treatment if something like the Flint or DPS crises were to happen here. Howell had a somewhat different view, stating that "I am sick and tired of everything being made into a racial issue," and that he believes "we treat Americans equally in all cases." (As a side note: it took me a bit by surprise to hear Howell refer to Asians as "orientals" during his rant about racism. Seriously, this is still a thing?) Shockingly, this got applause from the all-white audience.

     Minimum wage was the next topic, with both Howell and Spilker against an increase (Spilker's take: "If people want to make more money, they need to go and learn more skills"), and DeLuca taking on the narrative that only high school kids work minimum wage jobs; of the 643,000 minimum wage employees in the state of Michigan, 80% of them are over the age of 21, and 70% of those over 21 are single mothers. On the topic of straight-ticket voting, all three candidates were against, with Howell referring to it as "a fundamentally bad practice" and DeLuca taking time out to rail against redistricting.

     Gun control was the next subject, and the one where the candidates' answers differed the most. DeLuca who supports a "common-sense" approach to gun ownership, started by producing a copy of the NRA's official questionnaire to the candidates and reading a few select points from them, including their claim that if candidates don't complete the survey, they will be assumed to be "hostile" towards the Second Amendment, and that their favored answers include repealing background checks and making it easier to transfer any gun to anybody at any time. Howell would consider restrictions placed before him for a vote, but noted he would be "very reluctant" to approve them, while calling for open-carry to be disallowed in schools, but for concealed-carry to be permitted. Spilker stood against any restrictions, but went on to talk about the need for mental health to be addressed.

     Later, they would be asked about guns in schools; Howell was in favor of concealed-carry, but not open-carry; DeLuca came down against open-carry as well, but expressed that teachers and parents should be asked what they'd be in favor of, while Spilker somewhat side-stepped the question, saying she can see both sides of the argument, but that more people should be trained on the safe use of guns.

     Investing in improvements and expansion for the Polly Ann Trail was the next topic. Howell noted that the trail has been successful, and that he would not be opposed to improvements where it exists, but it shouldn't be forced on governments where it hasn't been approved, noting concerns from private land owners in Arcadia Township over expansion there. Spilker seconded Howell's thoughts, while DeLuca pointed out that she's supported Polly Ann Trail since the beginning, had to push Imlay City to care for their section of the trail and since then has been working with Oakland County and advocate groups to maintain and expand it.

     On the subject of veterans' care, Spilker stated she believes the VA has abandoned veterans, but yet as a libertarian, she's against government involvement, and as such, would like to see non-profits and community members step up instead. DeLuca expressed that she's glad that incompetent employees at the VA are now being held accountable, but a better job still needs to be done of informing vets where to go for services. Howell, the lone veteran of the three, pointed out that while thankfully not all vets need these services, we owe it to those who do to get them the care they deserve. He admitted that he won't have much effect on the VA as a state rep, but believes that private providers would give better care anyway.

     Next was the issue of student loans, college debt, and college administrators' salaries. Howell started by pointing out that when he attended college, it only set him back $120 a semester, which he was able to finance through a summer job, but now believes that "higher education has gone off the rails in this country," and the reason is that public education has become too "top-heavy"; too many high-paid administrators, not enough professors in classrooms. His solution involves programs similar to the one implemented at Ed-Tech, where high school students can take college classes over a period of three years and obtain a two-year associate's degree free of charge to them. DeLuca agreed that students shouldn't have to endure 20 years of financial hardship to get a college education, and called for a salary cap to be set on public administrators proportional to the salaries of their professors. Spilker, as was the case throughout the evening, decried government interference in college loans and college presidents' salaries, and once again invoked the free market, claiming government involvement in student loans is causing the cost of tuition to rise.

     The controversial gas tax increase then came up, with all three candidates stating they'd like to see it repealed, but admitting that realistically this is unlikely to happen. Howell and DeLuca both noted that it won't be til 2021 that a single dime from the new taxes and fees will go towards road construction, Howell pointing out that most of that money will probably go to DPS and Flint first, and DeLuca adding that originally, House Republicans wanted to double the increase in the gas tax, while Spilker questioned why the roads couldn't be maintained on strictly the local level.

     From there, the topic turned to the state legislature's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, with all three candidates decrying said exemption, and Howell and DeLuca promising to introduce legislature to remove it. All also opposed legislation introduced to reduce competition for public utilities. On term limits, DeLuca admitted she's not passionate on this issue, and would put it to the voters. Howell was in favor of them, adding "I probably wouldn't be here if not for term limits." Spilker agreed with DeLuca and Howell, but also wants more power in local government, and brought up her support for overhauling the electoral system though proportional representation or runoff voting.

    The next question concerned Senate Bill 571 (which I wrote about here last month). Howell referred to it as a poor bill, that nobody read or analyzed, that was changed at the last minute, adding that he believes there is room for legitimate neutral information to be promoted by local governments. Spilker called for legislation to prove that legislators understand the bill they're voting on (which I mentioned in that last writeup). DeLuca pointed out that Pavlov voted yes on the bill, and was not happy about her calling him out on it. All three agree this bill prevents municipalities from sharing information about a bill, and oversteps its bounds in doing so. However, it's rather disappointing that only the part of the bill mentioned was that prohibiting local officials from giving information about ballot proposals before an election; while that certainly appears blatantly unconstitutional, there were other similarly terrible provisions in this bill that apply to political donations.

     The current legislature's tactic of inserting appropriations into bills to shield them from public referendum also came up, and all three candidates stood strongly against. Spilker argued that there should never be a case where the public cannot have a referendum on an issue, DeLuca commented that "appropriations should never be attached to a bill. Period," adding that she would push to be placed on the appropriations committee, and that Imlay City had never had a line-item budget until she took office there. Howell agreed, declaring that "the denial of the right to vote on an issue is a misuse of the Michigan Constitution."

     Finally, all three were asked what would be the first bill they'd enact if elected. Spilker offered up her requirement that legislators prove they know the content of a bill they vote on; and a left-field proposal to remove professional licensing requirements. She gave as an example, an electrician who learned the trade from a parent shouldn't need to be licensed by state "as long as he is openly and honestly stating what his qualification to do that is." How one would verify that said person is indeed qualified to do the job, however, is anyone's guess. DeLuca vowed to attempt to lessen the negative impact in regards to the gas tax by instituting warranty contracts on work done by road contractors and stricter weight limits on semis. Howell stated he'd set absolute deadlines, similar to those enacted in Indiana, for state regulatory agencies to approve or deny permits, referring back to his Kamax example from earlier.

     Howell finished by stating he would not run for higher office if elected; "I'm willing to serve my seven years and come back to the farm in North Branch. Consequently, the lobbyists, the special interests, and the pressure groups, can kiss my ass."  DeLuca reminded the audience that she's a fighter and has the research and facts to back up her stances, adding "I'm not afraid to vote against my party if it hurts the people that I represent." Spilker finished reading her prepared opening statement, then went on to the need for more than two political parties and positions to be represented in government.

     Ultimately, Howell and DeLuca both had their high points over the course of the night; Howell owned the Metamora gravel mining issue, was able to point to the success of the Lapeer ISD's college credit program at Ed-Tech as a model for making higher education more attainable, and used the Kamax expansion to great effect to underscore his points about bureaucratic over-regulation. DeLuca successfully hammered home the theme of holding government accountable, from crumbling infrastructure to the state legislature, with her recent sparring with Sen. Pavlov being a good example of her willingness to demand accountability and get answers for her constituents. Spilker fell back on the free market as her primary talking point throughout the evening, not offering up much in the way of specifics. I often forget just how much faith the Libertarian platform puts in completely unregulated capitalism and the willingness of corporate entities to act in the public's best interest when that doesn't necessarily coincide with their shareholders' best interest, which might be the one thing I'm more skeptical of than the ability of government to act in the public's best interest; at least government officials can be removed from their positions when they fail to do so.

     There's one more debate to be held within the next few days, this one to focus mostly on education, a subject where both Howell and DeLuca are particularly well-versed. Of course, I'll have coverage of that debate later this week, as well as a few words on a state senator who may be running for a soon-to-be-vacated Congressional seat... just because the last state rep is gone doesn't mean there isn't plenty to write about.

Michigan's Legislature Somehow Gets Even Less Transparent

     If 2015 was the year that the Michigan legislature decided to flip the bird to democracy, then 2016 is shaping up to be the year they double down on that decision.

     We've already seen them overturn the vote of the people on emergency management and straight-ticket voting, but all that looks like child's play compared to the mess that is Senate Bill 571.

     The bill, introduced by Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons on the last night of the House's 2015 session, was initially only twelve pages and wasn't yet the crushing blow to campaign finance reform it would become by the end of that last session. By the end of the night, the now 53-page bill would include provisions that essentially amounted to a gag order on local officials in regards to ballot proposals for the two months before an election, the doubling of the amount of money PAC's are allowed to donate to political campaigns, and the ability to keep independent expenditures secret until after elections.

     Who says this legislature can't get things done when they want to?

     First, there's the amendment that would forbid local officials from discussing any ballot proposal within 60 days of an election. Its proponents claim this would prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on propaganda. Never mind that there are already laws on the books that prevent taxpayer money from being spent on propaganda of that sort. Seems a little redundant and more than a little unconstitutional, as the scope of the bill would appear to heavily infringe on the free speech rights of public employees, including teachers, librarians and the like.

     Even more sinister, however, is the provision that effectively doubles the maximum allowed amount of political donations a PAC can make to a campaign, by allowing campaigns to accept twice the current amount and apply it retroactively to expenses occurred from a prior campaign. While this has been nearly an entirely Republican supported effort, the scenario described above looks an awful lot like the one that occurred with former Democratic State Senator Andy Dillon, as Brian Dickerson over at the Freep points out. In fact, this bill makes it legal to do exactly what Dillon would eventually be fined for. For what it's worth, Dillon eventually ended up with a position in Snyder's administration, and his then-legal counsel, Eric Doster, is believed to have authored parts of SB 571. Coincidence? Doubtful.

     What's somehow even more troubling than the fact that Rick Snyder and the legislature just signed over our state to dark money interests, however, is the number of representatives that had no idea what they were even voting on, which ultimately allowed this travesty to occur. In that same Freep article, Dickerson quotes Rep. Dave Pagel, one of the useless stooges that voted for the bill: "It's troubling when you take a vote and later realize you were ignorant of some facts you should have known." Even Sen. Mike Kowall, the original sponsor of the bill, claimed not to know what was in it, not that it stopped him from voting for the amended bill when it came back to the Senate.

     Ignorant is an understatement. Completely negligent in your duty as a representative seems more fitting.


     And if that's indeed the case, all but three House Republicans, all but three Senate Republicans, and Democratic turncoat, spousal abuser, and all-around scumbag Virgil Smith, have been completely negligent in their duties. The House Reps who voted no were John Bizon, Ed McBroom, and Paul Muxlow; the Senate Reps who voted against were Rick Jones and Tory Rocca, while the Senator for my district, Mike Green, didn't vote at all. (Our Senator before the most recent gerrymandering, Phil Pavlov, predictably voted yes.)

     How is it even possible that one whose job it is to write and pass bills into law, can be allowed to vote on said bills when they haven't read the bills they're voting on? The phrase "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it" comes to mind, and while it makes as little sense today as it did when first uttered by Nancy Pelosi, it seems to be standard operating procedure in Lansing.

     Naturally, once many of them realized just what they'd sent to Snyder's desk, they fell over themselves trying to distance themselves from it, including, inexplicably, the very representative who introduced the amendments to the bill in the first place. Confused yet? You're not the only one. House Speaker Kevin Cotter and Senate Majority Leader Arlen Meekhof were both quick to deny any claims that any legislator who voted for this bill didn't know exactly what they were getting into, while the aforementioned Rep. Lyons said there might be a need for a "follow-up" bill to clarify the original, though one has to question why there should be a need for that when you're the one that submitted the part of the bill that caused the issue in the first place.

     Truthfully, I'm not sure what's more mind-boggling in all of this: The legislators that didn't read the bill they voted for, the ones that knew what was in it and voted for it anyway, or the ones who knew what was in it, voted for it, then claimed they didn't know what was in it!

     How can this sort of thing be prevented? Some have suggested limiting the length of any bill submitted for a vote, some want a one issue-per-bill limit, others propose a comprehension test on the content of the bills. Personally, your humble correspondent would like to see these bills presented to the public in their final form before any vote is taken on them, for a sufficient amount of time (say, 24-48 hours) so as to allow both lawmakers and their constituents to read and comprehend what they're voting on, and to allow the represented to make their opinions known to their representatives accordingly.

     Is it logistically possible? Perhaps not.

     Is it better than the current state of perpetual plausible deniability in Lansing? Absolutely.

     Would any of these proposals ever see the light of day? As long as there are still elected officials whose self-interest doesn't include reading legislation until after it's been passed, the answer to that question remains a resounding no.

     Of course, as always, that last part is easily remedied. Because while the Michigan legislature can overturn the will of the people all day long with their votes, they have yet to find a way to legislate themselves back into office after being voted out.