For the last fifty years or so, the Great Lakes states have trended Democratic. Michigan is the leader in this regard.  For example, Michigan has not voted for a Republican President since 1988 and is currently represented in the U.S. Senate by two Democrats, Senators Levin and Stabenow. Governor Granholm, a Democrat, is finishing up her second term as Governor. She is term-limited out of that position. Illinois, with Chicago as the driving force, has followed a similar trend.  Wisconsin is also considered a safe blue state. Ohio is the most politically balanced. It currently has a split U.S. Senate contingent, but has a Democratic Governor. In spite of these tendencies, 2010 will present an immense opportunity for Republican advances in the Great Lakes region--Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio are states ripe for the taking.

Michigan Republicans are facing an incredible gubernatorial primary. Hoekstra, Cox, Bouchard, and Snyder are involved in a primary campaign that will last for months. Rick Snyder made the biggest splash recently by airing an ad in Michigan during the Super Bowl. His personal wealth and outsider perspective may provide an inside track. The general election will still present a challenge, but none of the proffered Democratic candidates are fear-inducing.   Unfortunately, Michigan Republicans will not be able to present a challenge to either Senator Stabenow or Senator Levin this year.

Like Michigan, Illinois is a state where local and national party figures need to express focus and optimism for 2010. Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, and Tony Rezko are divisive personalities that must be expressly tied to the Democratic machine in the state. An unresolved primary continues to loom, but Republicans Brady and Dillard undoubtedly pose a major threat to Democratic gubernatorial nominee, and Blagojevich compatriot, Pat Quinn. To make matters even better, the Democratic Lieutenant Governor nominee, Scott Cohen, has dropped out because of revelations that he has a history of domestic violence and may be dating a prostitute. The U.S. Senate nominee Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, a Blagojevich-Obama cohort, is the State Treasurer. The Republican nominee is moderate Mark Kirk. It is realistic to believe that Republicans can nab both Obama’s Senate seat and the governorship.

In Ohio, the likely Republican nominee for Voinovich’s Senate seat, Rob Portman, is running near the Democratic challengers in recent polls, but is not well-known and is facing low name-recognition. Republican John Kasich is faring well in a match-up against current Governor Ted Strickland.  Portman must win to keep Republican control of the Senate; a Kasich win would be an incredible bonus.

I am incredibly biased, but based on this assessment, the Great Lakes region should be near the forefront of the national GOP’s efforts in 2010. The rust-belt states are facing high unemployment, declining tax bases, and an unenthusiastic future outlook. A pro-business agenda that sparks growth in Michigan, Illinois, or Ohio could be a major resume booster for any Republican aspirant for national office. Also, with citizens looking for answers, these states would provide a “laboratory” for innovative policy ideas. The labor stronghold is not what it once was, and the commitment to status-quo paradigms is weak given the economic environment.  Lastly, the downside is almost non-existent because the possibility of further decline in these states is remote.

The national GOP faces little risk in going all-in for the Great Lakes states.

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."

           Grand Rapids is a burgeoning medical center, with the new Michigan State University College of Human Medicine serving as the latest evidence. However, the current plans in Congress will seriously alter our future development in this area. West Michigan’s conservative streak may have consequences.

           Today, on a conference call, Representative Shadegg (AZ) stated that all of the current health care bills in the House and Senate will usher in “Soviet-style” health care in America. Specifically, he pointed out that the quality of our health care benefits may well be determined by the seniority, influence, or political affiliation of the Senators or Representatives who represent the state in which we live.

           Representative Shadegg pointed out a few telling examples to illustrate his point. First, Harry Reid (NV) added a provision to one of the Senate bills that would give four extra-special states, including Nevada, federal dollars to cover the state’s portion of the Medicaid expansion for four years. Harry is of course proud to fight “the good fight for Nevada.” Second, Debbie Stabenow (MI) and John Kerry (MA) have added a $5 billion measure to help cover the cost of union health care benefit plans for members below Medicare age, proving that it sure is nice to be a favorite son of the majority party. Third, Senator Menendez (NJ) has attached an amendment that gives tax breaks to “emerging” biotech companies. Approximately 86% of New Jersey’s biotech firms qualify for the credit.  

          These are just a few early examples of the type of health care system we will soon have in America. Representative Shadegg is exactly correct to label this type of unnatural selection as “Soviet-style.” When our political masters are given control over matters so central to our lives and well-being, we become easily managed. The political majority gains even more power by delivering life-giving services in an unequal fashion to those people, groups, and organizations that are most loyal.

          The market, even with inequities, does not evoke the same intuition of unfairness and injustice precisely because some basic opportunity for self-determination is present. Clearly, the medical industry and the health insurance industry are highly regulated, but a regulated market is still much freer than the state-run system. The capacity to change jobs, work more hours, and petition for charity offers individuals the ability to make rational decisions. If the favoritism outlined here prevails, individual health benefits, a basic requirement of modern life, will be determined by the majority party. Representative Shadegg’s warnings do indeed ring true, especially, if these early acts of statist-favoritism are allowed to persist. Suddenly, the lessons of Solzhenitsyn gain pressing relevance.  

The Michigan Senate should summarily vote down “Michigan Health Care Rebate Law.” The law, already passed by the house, is a misleading tax on physicians. The “Michigan Health Care Rebate Law” raises two very substantial issues. First, it represents another tax on the middle class. Second, the tax is a result of Michigan’s efforts to comply with conditions placed on receiving federal money.

As to the first issue, the “Michigan Health Care Rebate Law” places a 3% gross revenue tax on physicians. The tax revenues are then used to increase Medicaid reimbursement. Presumably, physicians who deal primarily with Medicaid reimbursement may actually support the increased rates of reimbursement, even with the 3% gross revenue tax. However, the local family practice that sees mainly middle class patients will not realize any of the increased rates of reimbursement. This, logically, will only result in increased rates or layoffs of support staff. Once again, entitlements are funded at the expense of people who pay their bills.

The second issue is larger and potentially more troublesome. With Michigan’s daunting budgetary problems, federal money is tempting, but we make a substantial compromise when in order to alleviate our budget issues we sacrifice our capacity for self-determination. Federal money for Medicaid reimbursement is nice, but is it worth a 3% tax on revenue generated by physician services? Michigan must solve Michigan’s problems. Federal money is fleeting, but our problems are not.

With these glaring issues, the Republican-controlled Senate will undoubtedly oppose the bill. The Michigan State Medical Society is also holding a “White Coat March” to express its disapproval. Going forward, these are exactly the type of proposals that Republicans can use to garner support from the already-pinched middle class.

It has been well documented that the Michigan Senate has approved $1.2 billion worth of budget cuts. Amongst the cuts, is $140 million for the Michigan Promise Scholarship, which gives $4,000 total to Michigan residents who attend qualifying colleges and universities. Paying for college is painful, I know. Taking out loans is painful. But, at this moment in our state's history, providing subsidies to college students should be a low priority. The College Democrats have staged protests and are up in arms about Michigan's "broken promise." I think most Republicans are in agreement that college subsidies are nice when times are good, but they are simply not a necessary government function. Therefore, the Michigan Promise subsidy is expendable.

The motivation behind the grant was to encourage Michigan residents to attend our wonderful universities and settle here after graduation. Mike Cox is actually proposing a policy solution that will better meet this government interest. As part of his "Putting Michigan Back to Work" booklet, Mike Cox proposes that the State not tax graduates from a Michigan college or University for three years. This proposal will actually encourage graduates to stay and settle in the state, as opposed to the Michigan Promise Scholarship, which only promotes attendance at an in-state university. Over the long run, those graduates who decide to settle in Michigan because of the tax break will produce a lifetime of future earnings from which the state will benefit.

Our current budget situation is tenuous, and tax increases must be off the table. Republicans need to make the tough political decision to end the Michigan Promise subsidy, while proposing other ideas to keep graduates in Michigan.

The Detroit Free Press just released an article showing that Mike Cox is the current front-runner in the Republican primary for Governor. The poll was conducted by Inside Michigan Politics and Marketing Resource Group.  The poll indicates that Mike Cox currently has 27% of the Republican vote; Pete Hoekstra is second with 23%; Mike Bouchard is polling at 15%. The Bouchard number could fluctuate because the poll was taken from September 12-20, so the Land announcement as running-mate did not have full effect. Surprisingly, Rick Snyder only polled at 2%. His number is probably attributed to lack of name recognition. Conversely, Hoekstra and Cox receive state-wide press on a regular basis. Bouchard has received some press, just from the Land announcement alone. The primary is still almost a year off, but it is entertaining to have these numbers.