| Much has been said about the recently exposed slide presentation - perhaps the best piece of "blog journalism" I've seen this year (and worthy of an OutsideLansing.com award if submitted to us later in the year and if it wasn't already part of a paid project), reposted here at Mackinac Center, with analysis by Paul Kersey. The discovery by Jim Vote is astonishing because the main, quick read on the slide show is the arrogance and dirtyness of the Michigan Democrat Party (MDP) and Mark Brewer, in crassly trying to rewrite the rules in their favor. But the quick read should be followed with a read of the polling done by Democratic polling firms. Yes, it proves the Democrats are engaged in a crass, power-play to mess with a fundamental cherished document - and to destroy checks and balances. But let's look at some other points. Slide 14 - 66% Opposed Recent Tax Increases. Drolet wasn't wrong, his arrows just fell short of the target. Republicans should remember this every second in the general election contest. 9 focus groups and two polls by a DEMOCRATIC-HIRED national polling firm verify the obvious - what we should already know. 66% opposed tax increases. The Governor's approval ratings are near or below the President's (legislature's approval is 12%, or half the Governor's). Slide 8 admits that the fallout of the Democratic Governor's 2007 tax increase could likely affect the 2010 election, despite the huge advantages Democrats have in 2008 (at the national level and the fact that twice as many Republicans are term-limited at the state level - but all of that math reverses in 2010). Folks - 66% is essentially everyone except the true kool-aid drinkers. If 30-35% of the population is hard-core Dem, and 30% hard-core Republican, the math of those left over means that JUST ABOUT EVERY INDEPENDENT (still residing) in the state disagreed with the tax cuts. Term Limits - Don't touch them.
There is no popular desire to lengthen term-limits, so much so that the Democrats kept the proposal, which has "bi-partisan ELITE support". Quinlan Greenberg says that a term-limit lengthen - even the modest proposal of going to 12 years instead of the current six, would be a poison pill since 60% opposed the idea. So the Democrats kept that out of their 12 page reform. I say this to even my Republican friends who think expanding term limits is a good idea. DON'T TRY. I knew this before I saw the Dem data though, but its nice verification. (Slide 27 - "Term Limits Taint entire proposal") Voter Reservations about Part-time Legislature and Unicameral idea, but are warmer to reducing the size of the legislature (and other branches). Interestingly, the Quinlan data asserts (without percentages or much analyis) that voters have reservations about both ideas, and that a raw reduction in both houses beats. The upshot here is that the Democrats have essentially tried to steal an entire theme of Republican government - reduce governmental size - to put sugar in the water so that they can pass their poison through. It proves that the conservative principle of less government - a bedrock Reagan value - is alive an well. It proves that if Republicans return to their "brand" they will win, even in this allegedly anti-Republican environment. I love the Quinlan statement, "Voters feel that they've suffered during this recession, and that the government should share their burden." Still, government has grown despite the recession, governmental salaries continue to rise, and the pain is paid by the taxpayer - which only acts like quicksand to draw us deeper into recession. (Slide 24) Indeed, if the proposal didn't "log-roll" the reductions in such a way as to be blatantly a power play intended to restructure the game and remove checks and balances against Democrats, I would favor a reduced legislature (definitely no change in the Supreme Court size, and probably not in the Court of Appeals but I'd have to look at that more carefully), and certainly reduced executive (which, in this proposal, is the lightest of the changes proposed, ironically, and a token so it didn't appear it wasn't being touched). Election Reforms - Feel good ban on illegal immigrant voting.
Allegedly some 2005 poll suggests that they are popular, but Quinlan data says that the only way to make the popular is to adopt the Republican-conservative platform wholesale. That is - ban illegal immigrants from voting (sort of already the law, but not effectively enforced given the way voter registration is done) and to NOT INCLUDE voter registration at less than 30 days before an election. Throwing that into the Constitution though is a "feel good" statement since it doesn't change the status quo. The only thing the Democrats "get" in their proposal here is "No Reason Absentee Voting," something many Republicans (including myself) support and not entirely a partisan issue, although the Democrats have sort of adopted the issue recently. But the data prove that the traditional Dem stance on immigration is not popular - so the RMGN proposal simply moves to the right and adopts a conservative position to buy votes and further conceal its true purpose. |
