Taxing & Spending

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

TwoCents — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:29:24 GMT

It is unfortunate that you have so little confidence in your ignorant tirade that you felt a need to block responses. I will not waste my time to craft a response to someone who clearly has no idea of what they are writing about. I have read your other posts and it is clear you are not interested in a dialogue but rather prefer to try and inflict your dribble on others. I should have ignored you like everyone else. Cheers.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

jimkress999 — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:48:44 GMT

Your ignorance of the law is only exceeded by your slavish dedication to pillaging the taxpayers to allow your crony capitalist friends to escape their obligations to their fellow citizens. In fact, your opening paragraph shows a complete ignorance of the law and makes the rest of your point moot.

There is no point in continuing this discussion since you are dedicated to forcing innocent people to pay increased taxes just so your buddies don't have to clean up after themselves. It's not my responsibility to pay for the damages caused by others. It is immoral to use government force to rob me (or other innocent bystanders) of my property so the culprit responsible for the damages can escape their responsibility.

I realize denezins of the Left don't believe in individual responsibility. However, your refusal to acknowledge that there are multiple avenues of recourse to resolve thse kinds of problems, that do not involve raping the taxpayers, just demonstrates your slavish dedication to totalitarianism wherein you enslave others to provide solutions to problems that are not their fault.

Make the perpetrator pay, not the innocent.

You whine about it being "too hard" to pursue and extract remediation from the responsibile parties. Tough. Get over it. That's life. Life is hard. Life takes work, and yes, I know "work" is an obscentity to you on the Left. You prefer to steal from others using the government as your gunman.

In your frantic efforts to subordinate the Liberty of others to your slavish ideology, you continue to insist upon ignoring the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, i.e. neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

You advocate the imposition of both on innocent citizens to satisfy your warped view of government. Well, your view of government is the norm in North Korea. Why don't you immigrate there and be happy.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

TaterSalad — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:33:13 GMT

How the "Debt Limit" is explained so even a liberal/progressive can understand it even though they don't want to know. Spend, spend and spend is the only thing on their minds. Entitlements are their "future"!

http://conservativebyte.com/2011/07/the-united-states-debt-limit-explained/

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

TwoCents — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:59:21 GMT

You are partially correct in what you say but it is an over simplification of reality and not realistic.

While it is partially true that the current owner assumes liability (historical owners of the property are also responsible for cleanup) there are many situations where it is no longer practical to pursue the owner due to things such as death, Chapter 7 bankruptcy, insolvency, etc. In these cases where ownership is clouded and the cost of cleanup makes sale of the property impractical (assuming no brownfield dollars are available) the land is left idle and eventually foreclosed on by the County Treasurer. The point being that no one with the resources to develop a site is going to purchase a site as-is and litigate for the cleanup except in very rare cases.

Once the Treasurer forecloses it become the owner. As you pointed out the County in effect takes the property in “as-is” condition. They may choose to litigate but the cost of doing so may likely be far greater than incentivizing someone to purchase the property and redevelop it with brownfield credits. The costs to be considered are not only the legal costs but the opportunity cost of having the property sit idle not earning taxes while cleanup is litigated.

Unfortunately, contrary to your belief, ultimately it is “the taxpayer’s responsibility”. Your inflammatory comments serve only to highlight your ignorance as to the process and lack of knowledge as to reality. While I may be Left leaning those I work with on a daily basis are most definitely Right leaning. Right or Left it doesn’t matter because the environmental legacy of these sites must eventually be addressed or they will continue to blight our State.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

jimkress999 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:05:51 GMT

LOL! It's always amusing, and pathetic, to watch the Left try to grow government into an even larger Leviathan by refusing to enforce the laws they passed!

There are plenty of resources in the Leviathan government you have inflicted upon us. It needs no more and should be vastly reduced in scope, resource and power from what it is today.

WRT your "brown field" red herring, nice try but it won't wash. BY law, the current owner assumes responsibility for the condition of the property. It is the current owner's responsibility to make sure it is compliant with the 80 million laws you on the Left have passed. If they want to recover their costs, they should take civil action against the previous owner, from whom they purchased the property, unless the current owner was stupid enough to contractually purchase the property in an "as is" condition.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to remedy the current owner's stupidity or lack of desire to pursue the legal remedies available to them.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

TwoCents — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:33:45 GMT

This bill is a necessary evil. The state has many brownfield sites that without incentives would never be cleaned up and/or reused. Developers are looking to maximize return and are not going to choose a brownfield site over a greenfield site unless there are incentives.

Without brownfield dollars most old sites will just be abandoned and revert back to the County/State where they will languish until cleaned up at tax payer cost. And before you suggest that the State make past owners pay for cleanup you should understand that in most cases ownership is clouded and that the time and cost of litigation could be far greater than clean-up.

It is only with incentives that we will see many blighted areas returned to productive and beneficial uses. At the same time sprawl can be reduced preserving our green spaces and rural areas.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

MiltonFriedman — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:50:05 GMT

Joe Hune:

Why did you vote yes for more government subsidies? What happened to the idea that Republicans are for less government subsidies, not more?

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

inform4 — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:16:05 GMT

It seems as if neither Senator Mike Kowall, nor my Senator Jim Marleau have gotten the message. We want these bloody subsidies stopped. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the passage of the bill and Lansing Senators who believe they have the authority to pick "winners" and losers." This is an absolute abuse of our tax dollars and an example of crony capitalism at its worst!

I wonder how many senators had their coffers filled with donations from "particular" businesses and developers who pushed to have this bill passed at the detriment of their competitors?

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

Citizen50 — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:18:48 GMT

Mr. Kowal is not winning any brownie points with me lately. BESIDES challenging McCotter in a primary ( an ASININE MOVE BTW ! ) this bill is going in EXACTLY the wrong direction with little or no oversight. It STINKS of cronyism and payola and I DON'T LIKE IT! We have NO MONEY to give away. We shouldn't be choosing winners and losers. Didn't we just yank out the movie welfare rug only to replace it with this hand out to big developers?

Now WHAT was the GOP state party chairmens last name again? And WHAT BUSINESS is his family in ?

STINKS !! IT STINKS!! I am an ardent, strong and vocal local GOP member and constitutional conservative, and THIS BILL STINKS !!

IT CAN NOT PASS OR BE SIGNED!! MR. KOWAL - we're watching your voting record, and so far we're not liking it!@!

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

Citizen50 — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:16:14 GMT

Mr. Kowal is not winning any brownie points with me lately. BESIDES challenging McCotter in a primary ( an ASISNINE MOVE BTW ! ) this bill is going in EXACTLY he wrong diection with little or no oversight. It STINKS of cronyism and payola and I DON'T LIKE IT! We have NO MANEY to give away. We shouldn't be choosing winners and losers. Didn't we just yank out the movie welfare rug only to replace it with this hand out to big developers?

Now WHAT was the GOP state party chairmens last name again? And WHAT BUSINESS is his family in ?

STINKS !! IT STINKS!! I am an ardent, strong and vocal local GOP member and constitutional conservative, and THIS BILL STINKS !!

IT CAN NOT PASS OR BE SIGNED!! MR. KOWAL - we're watching your voting record, and so far we're not liking it!@!

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

conservativemeh — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:24:39 GMT

This is not a conservative position. Couldn't agree more with those who said that the State government should not pick winners and losers when it comes to businesses.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

inform4 — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:34:23 GMT

Shame on Senator Mike Kowall. I guess he's not listening to the grassroots Tea Party initiative. No more SUBSIDIES! No more picking winners and losers. ABOLISH THE 'MICHIGAN STRATEGIC FUND!'

To the detriment and unfair advantage over their competitors -- "Essentially, the political appointees on the board of the state government's “Michigan Strategic Fund” would have extensive discretion to hand out these subsidies to particular developers as they see fit."

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

Atlas Shrugs — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:12:06 GMT

No, NO, and a resounding NO. When will they realize that this is not their money, and they do not know better, and Michigan needs to have less red tape, less regulation and a better tax environment so that we can thrive? What a joke, they just don't get it.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

jimkress999 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:34:36 GMT

It's not their money to give!

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=126560580729799

Not Yours to Give

Colonel David Crockett;

Compiled by Edward S. Ellis

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose: "Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to

the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--’

"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

"This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

"’I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

"’No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

"’Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

"’It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had

been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"’So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"’Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

"He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

"’If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

"’No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

"’Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

"’My name is Bunce.’

"’Not Horatio Bunce?’

"’Yes.’

"’Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word--I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"’Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"’And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"’It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

"He came upon the stand and said:

"’Fellow-citizens--It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership--good or bad--among the electorate.

Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!

—Leonard E. Read

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )

lilstoetz — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:43:24 GMT

Just the title of this bill is offensive. An appointed group group having broad discretion to award up to $10 million sounds like a way to bilk the taxpayers out of THEIR money.