Thankfully for the jobless in Michigan, Governor Granholm was able to spend her day with Democrats’ favorite constituency, excluding organized labor, college students.  Today was a rally day at GVSU and other state colleges to garner emotional responses from college students in support of the Michigan Promise Scholarship. The great sin: a cash strapped state is cutting a $4,000 subsidy to college students.  

Watching the Granholm speech to MSU students, elicits nothing short of exasperation. First, if the Michigan Promise Scholarship was so important to her, she should have vetoed any budget that did not fund it. Second, she desires to fund this unnecessary subsidy through increased taxes on tobacco and changes to the earned income tax credit. Essentially, we will be taxing low income tobacco users to pay for some kid to study feminist interpretations of the Renaissance at Central Michigan University. More people being thrust into the Academia apparatus is not necessarily a self-evident good and is definitely not a self-evident proper role of government.

I have one question for college students who are decrying Michigan’s “broken promise”: when the police force is being cut for lack of funding and other essential government functions are being scaled back, how can you justify a government subsidy for college tuition? This is nonsense. I hope our students realize this. 

Lastly, if the stimulus bill taught us anything it is that the Democrats will cloak paying off their favored constituencies in the language of economic recovery. As I stated earlier, more students in college does not necessarily result in economic growth. Granholm's commitment to the Michigan Promise Scholarship is more about garnering the irrational enthusiasm of the young and the restless, while expanding the academia bureaucracies,  than meaningful growth for Michigan’s businesses.

A Michigan Democrat in the U.S. House handed the GOP a glowing opportunity to gain credibility on pro-life issues and divided the Democratic Caucus in the Senate, jeopardizing the entire health care overhaul. The Stupak (D-MI) Amendment “mirrors the existing federal policy known as the Hyde Amendment,” as it “prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion under the public health insurance option and prohibits the use of federal affordability credits to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion.” Translation: no federal funds for abortion—even when federal funds are used to subsidize a non-public option health insurance policy.

This Amendment is going to incite pro-choicers everywhere because it stigmatizes the abortion procedure as something outside of normal medical practice. The federal government is stating that abortion is not analogous to an appendectomy. The two masses of tissue are indeed not equal. If they were, we, the federal government would fund the removal of both. The pro-choice lobby depends upon the premise that a pre-viability fetus is nothing more than a mass of tissue. The federal government disagrees and through the Stupak Amendment expresses its disfavor of the procedure. Senate Democrats are going to be under enormous pressure to chuck the Stupak Amendment. Thus, the GOP can hold pro-life Democrats to their word and campaign slogans. After being dismissed for some years as a “dead” issue because of the Supreme Court rulings, now, the pro-life issue is very much alive. The GOP would do well to embrace it.

The Stupak Amendment was absolutely key to the passage of the bill in the House and will likely prove as essential in the Senate. Democrats will be forced to choose between NARAL and their moderate constituents who may favor legal abortions but bristle at the thought of subsidized abortions. This could get nasty. Republicans in the Senate must use this issue as a wedge to divide and conquer Senate Democrats. Suddenly, the majority party looks much weaker than was once thought. Bob Casey and Harry Reid will be forced to put their professed pro-life sympathies on the line.

I must say thank you to Bart Stupak. Thank you for standing up for the pro-life issue and thank you for de-railing the majority consensus on health care reform.

While at a Kent County Republican Party event in 2008, I noticed the Justin Amash campaign for State House. I was very impressed with the commitment to liberty that was expressed by the Amash campaign. As 2009 draws to a close, I am able to confidently assert that Kent County has no better advocate of basic liberty, restrained government, and economic freedom than Representative Amash.  For example, Rep. Amash introduced a Bill that affirmed Michigan's commitment to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Unlike the Rick Perry stunt in Texas, which focused on "states' rights," Amash's Bill was focused on reserving the basic rights of individuals. Rep. Amash has opposed union wage controls in government contracts and special interest tax breaks and subsidies that pick and choose favored industries (See HB 4629 and HB 5247). Representative Amash is also not afraid to break ranks and vote "no" when the majority of the Republican caucus goes along with the House Democrats. 

In a nod towards meaningful constituent interaction, Representative Amash keeps everyone up-to-date on the House Agenda and his votes through his Facebook page. He also actively responds to postings on the page and is frank in his references to current news events. This is exactly the kind of authentic representative government that was intended for our republic. Instead of maintaining a narcisistic level of indifference, Representative Amash embraces online interaction with the taxpayers.

This type of praise for Representative Amash is long over-due, and it has been my failure for not paying close attention. Allow me to now note: as more and more Republicans cave in to the temptation to save people from the free market, especially here in Michigan, Representative Amash continues to be liberty's laudable standard-bearer.

Amidst the buzz over the encouraging elections on the East Coast, it was easy to overlook the Grand Rapids City Commission election. However, Grand Rapidians finally get a voice of reason for the City Commission. Last night, Dave Shaffer staged an upset victory over the union apostle James Jendrasiak. Shaffer polled second in the primary election back in August, setting up a general election face-off against Jendrasiak. In an excruciatingly close finish, Shaffer received 140 more votes than Jendrasiak (51% to 49%). This close finish is a testament to the Shaffer supporters who voted for him yesterday. Clearly, the enthusiasm to bring reason to the City Commission prevailed over union allegiance.

Hopefully, all of the elections yesterday will provide a shot in the arm to competent government. I personally appreciate that in one year's time, reason is replacing passion and meaningful policy debates are replacing nonsensical chants for change.

As I reported earlier here, Governor Granholm and the Democratic-controlled house wanted to tax Michigan's doctors to pay for a mere slice of the budget deficit. Physicians from across the state and medical lobbying groups vehemently opposed the plan, which would have amounted to a tax on revenue in exchange for federal Medicaid dollars. Thankfully, the Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly voted down the proposal. Senate Leader Mike Bishop is holding steadfast on his no tax pledge, frustrating, amongst others, the Governor's husband. As the budget impasse continues, let's hope Bishop continues to fend off the cries for new "revenue."

The Associated Press is reporting that a new poll released by EPIC-MRA shows the GOP beating Lieutenant Governor John Cherry, regardless of who will win the primary. The poll breaks down like this: Mike Cox receives support of 45% of those surveyed with Cherry receiving 30%.  Mike Bouchard is leading 39% to 31%. Pete Hoekstra is leading 40% to 33%. The poll is listed as having a margin of error of 4%. EPIC-MRA has a decidedly mixed reputation as a polling group and not a single ad has run against any of these candidates, but the MI GOP has to feel good about the general mood.

John Cherry running on the Granholm record would be an absolute disaster for the democrats. Really the only similar comparison would be if Vice President Cheney would have run for President in 2008. Granholm's job approval is similar to President Bush's when he left office. In my opinion, a different type of democrat, such as Andy Dillon, would pose a much greater challenge. Cherry is going to lose votes, just based on disgruntled voter attitudes towards Granholm.

Here's to hoping the current budget battle with Senate Leader Bishop further tarnishes the Granholm executive branch.