Album Review: Paul Simon’s “Surprise”

We originally planned this blog as being an all-purpose one-stop shop for politics, culture, art, philosophy, and local happenings in the Central Michigan University community. Unfortunately, our balance has shifted heavily to the local, state, and national level of poltics. Although important, we seek to form a well-rounded ball of information. The readers of State of Nature have a credit to redeem, and we are ready to oblige.

In my view, rarely is there a ‘good music album being released nowadays. Until there is, we at State of Nature will stick to reviewing and recommending albums that have been released in the past. Hopefully these reviews will be of albums that readers are not familiar with so that they will be duly influenced by our thoughts.

Today, I will review Surprise by Paul Simon, a 2006 release. His newest endeavor is a breath of air in the current landscape of Nickelback modern rock, silly-ass Fergie pop, and blunts, bitches, and forties rap. Note: I am completely, unashamedly biased against much (though certainly not all) of the popular music of the day.

Paul Simon is truly an artist of our time. Well, not perhaps our time, if you consider album sales to be the determinate of that characteristic. Simon, 68% of the wonderful duo Simon and Garfunkel (he wrote all the songs, played guitar, and sang), has had a long, distinguished career peppered with Grammys and platinum albums.

At his age (in his 60’s), it is surprising to hear a smattering of electronic beats on various songs, due in part to collaboration with Brian Eno an ambient musician, but with past Simon albums filled on South African rhythms, South American storytelling, and of course acoustic sarcasm, it shouldn’t be wholly unexpected. His foray away from purely acoustic sounds isn’t innovative for him, but the electronic feel is truly unique.

The album flows between mid-tempo rock songs and acoustic balladry. The first track, “How Can You Live in the Northeast,” is a conversation representative of the current post-9/11 narrative. As the title suggests, the song bounces back and forth among questions about the identity of others. The heavy guitar-laden outro is simply perfect.

All the songs stand out, which is difficult to do with any type of music, but another of the most shining tracks is “Outrageous.” The sarcastic lyrics come from the quintessential angry old man trying to send back soup in a deli, frustrated with his lack of relevance, mixed with the vain baby-boomer’s longing for youth, warning he will paint his hair the “color of mud. Mud, okay?!” The obsession with external qualities is front and center as he finishes “900 sit-ups a day.” He asks, “Who’s gonna love you when you’re looks are gone?” The song closes with a recognition of his submission to the prevailing attitude of unwrinkled visages and cellulite-absent bodies. The familiar Simonian sarcasm gives way to a Simonian introspective inquiry.

Naturally, the familiar tongue-in-cheek sarcasm pervades the album. On “Sure Don’t Feel Like Love,” against a quirky bouncy backdrop, he remembers, “Once in August 1993, I was wrong, and I could be wrong again.” This insecurity is hilarious and telling in the same breath.

“Wartime Prayers” is a wonderful ballad with accompaniment by pianist Herbie Hancock. Not a blatant anti-war statement that would be to easy for Simon, but a forged feeling of community through prayer in a time of uncertainty.

“That’s Me,” an autobiographical look into one’s past, throws an array of emotions your way, from first love and the (delusional) hope that follows from it and then through the midlife retrospection. One really gets a sense of continuity throughout one’s life; the feeling that you feel like the same person you were 10 years ago.

This sampling doesn’t appropriately address all the different sides of this album, but it suffices to show a few of the notable snippets. Moods on this album shift from playful summer-friendly sing-alongs to reverb heavy narratives. One of the most impressive aspects of the album is its coherence as one album, not as merely a collection of songs. What’s more is that the collection of songs is so varied lyrically, jumping from blatant sarcasm to fatherly adoration to communitarian sentiment. The music runs from tunes sans amplification to computer-generated rhythms to heavy guitar bombardment. The coherence of these musical elements shows Simon’s perfection of arrangement and writing.

For many of the songs, the familiar verse-chorus structure is abandoned for seamless transition of between sections. The hookless music contrasts the current search for the sellable few seconds of infectious melody. Each part is an irrevocable section of each song, and each song a necessary track of the album. Excerpting 15 seconds for a ring-tone would be criminal, and, honestly, ineffective. I’ll take songs over sound-bytes any day.

Here is the point the article where I make a conclusive comment that ties together the theme of the entire review. My first article of this sort comes with a learning curve. Often music writers aim to artistically outdo the piece they are reviewing. It would be impossible to do that with this album. I’ll recommend the album as a thoughtful, thought-provoking piece of music that is both intellectually satisfying and aurally enthralling.

“Student Hounds Prof Running for Office”

Unfortunately, Peter’s Report, run by Students Against Gary Peters, is at it again. Actually, Dennis Lennox is at it again. He has attracted an interview from the Associated Press that has been syndicated to the New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, and is posted on all of their websites. The stories don’t take sides, but they do show Lennox in his true-light, as working basically alone and striving to be a thorn in the community’s side. Of course, he says his work on this is non-partisan. Much like Bill O’Reilly resides in the No Spin Zone. Much like Williamsburg, VA is a stomping ground for snare drums, muskets, and fife players. Much like I shouldn’t be working on my Senior Thesis. These, obviously are all blatantly false (Trust me on Williamsburg, it’s a total letdown).

I’m hoping that, since Lennox is getting his 15 minutes of fame, he will be equated with Dr. “Don’t Taze Me Bro.” Luckily though, there is no reason to even feel sorry for Lennox, at least the other guy was tazed. He makes it so easy to attack his persona, his physical characteristics, and his voice, but I won’t. His cause is meritless, as has been established in past posts, and that is enough.

Peters has been dealing with this issue quite responsibly; he is, after all, a politician in a major campaign. He was followed by Lennox, videotaped, and barraged with questions on a college campus. His integrity as a professor has been repeatedly been called into question by a person who has never actually had him as a professor. Dr. Gates probably shouldn’t have swiped at Lennox, but I can’t say I would have done any different. He whipped out a camera and shoved it in her face, knowing that you don’t file Freedom of Information Act requests with her.

One problem with Lennox is, there is no way to stop him. He is, among other things, determined. The squeaky wheel does often get the grease. Fortunately for him, he proceeded to put that grease in his hair (I had to).
My armchair protesting is nothing compared to his tactics, though. I hope that the CMU community shows up to support Peters, Gates, and the University. We all hoped it would just go away. Well, he won’t. So we ought to show we disagree with him and move on.

It is interesting to note, Central Michigan University has actively been promoting the goal of achieving national prominence in various areas through their “Vision 2010″. Somehow I doubt that this is the kind of national recognition that they had in mind.

Power in the Hands of the Few

It has just broken that many of the Democratic candidates for president will not be participating in the primary election in Michigan. This is because the candidates had pledged to the Democratic Party that they would only campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada prior to February 5th. Senators Clinton and Dodd will not be opting out.

The Democratic Party urged both Michigan and Florida from moving their primaries up to be around the same time as the other four. Traditionally, Iowa and New Hampshire are always the first two parties, and all candidates from both parties hammer those states to make a good showing.

Candidates can do a lot of retail politics in these two states, they go to diners and shake hands and all that presidential stuff. Basically the political establishment relies on candidates to focus in those two states, letting the results from those primaries play big in the media creating momentum as other primaries follow.

The problem with this small 2-state early primary system is that the issues important to Iowans and New Hampshiranderians dominate the discussion. So, the manufacturing industry, the economy, and other issues affecting Michiganders will not be lent an ear. The reason Michigan wanted to move its primary up was to force candidates to discuss the issues that are important here in Michigan.

Somehow, the Democratic Party has taken it upon themselves to regulate which issues matter, rather than letting the people decide. Giving Iowa and New Hampshire the run of the political mill every four years decreases the likelihood that issues that may not be important to these states get any attention at all.

Hillary is sticking around, most likely because everyone else dropped out. But she may as well have; Michigan’s delegates have been stripped from the Democratic convention, which I’m pretty sure means that the primary votes cast in Michigan for Democrats are worth as much as expired coupons, about 1/20 of a cent.

I wish the early primaries would rotate states every four years, giving a fair chance for each states’ citizens to set the agenda every couple of elections.

The party should not have that much power, and it stinks for us in Michigan, and for any other state who wishes to get their voice heard. Iowa and New Hampshire have small populations, give some others a chance.

Another thing, I hope all these people who love to hate Hillary actually have a reason. This blind hate is perpetuated by the right. If these Hillary haters actually do hate her, they may as well hate many of the other Democratic candidates. Many of them have similar policy positions. If people hate her because she is a politician, then won’t they please look at every candidate – they all happen to be politicians.

Is it because she’s married to Bill? Is it because she’s a very smart liberal? Do you disagree on policy issues very vehemently?

If you happen to hate Hillary, let us know why. Substantively why. And if you do, tell us why you don’t hate other Democrats with many of the same views. If you don’t tell us why, at least think about it. I can’t defend her tooth and nail, I just want to understand the Hillary angst.

I really have to start writing funnier posts.

Juan Williams is the Person of the Day

I’ve always liked Juan Williams, and, surprisingly, with his defense of Bill O’Reilly (in one instance), I respect him even more. Juan Williams is an NPR contributor and a news analyst for Fox News.

Go here for a great defense of himself and Bill O’Reilly, who, for once, deserves a break from the flack he’s getting.

Writing Off Children With Veto Pen

Beginning this post with a witty comment is very difficult given the substance it is about to cover. I thought about claiming that George Bush doesn’t care about children, reminiscent of Kayne West’s hilarious statement. He probably does care, he just has trouble showing it – much like the deadbeat unaffectionate father.

The point of this post is to analyze why Bush deems it necessary to use but his FOURTH veto of his extended presidential career to strike down health care for children. On another saddening note, 2 of his 3 earlier vetoes were of bills reducing restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Some mechanism inside George Bush’s brain isn’t working correctly. This veto is both bad politically, and bad policy. His rationale for the veto is that it insures too many people, making it an abhorrent $35 billion “middle-class entitlement.” He seems to use that phrase with disdain. MSNBC:

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Although unrelated, but interesting, is a statistic in Time Magazine this week, A Nobel-Prize winning economist an a Harvard scholar found the amount of the Iraq war per minute is about $500,000. Per minute. That includes other sources, probably including British costs along with the countries of the coalition of the willing, among other factors. In my Windows-provided calculator calculations (assuming the $2 billion cost per week), it costs the U.S. alone $198,412 per minute on the Iraq War.

Moving on, responding to Bush in the point-by-point analysis that State of Nature has come to adore:

1.) The bill is too costly. When you take other government programs and compare them, see above, this is like 3/$1 candy bar sales at the gas station. Honestly, I can’t take this claim on with the usual bull-at-the-red-cape zeal that I usually would. I don’t know if it is overly costly or not, I don’t know what a reasonable price would be, and if this project is over or under that price. So, I will just point to the Senate who voted 67-29, including 18 Republicans. And to the House where 50 Republicans joined Democrats for a 265-159. The bill is going to be paid for a by a 61 cent raise in tobacco taxes.

2.) This program goes beyond it’s original intent. Who cares? Perhaps the original intent was wrong, or incomplete. Isn’t a plan that accomplishes more rather than less an improvement on the original? The original intent of our beloved cell phones was not to text, watch movies, play music, and make calls. But I don’t think anyone would trade their cell phone for a Zach Morris-style behemoth, even if it does cost more. The original intent was to help only poor people. This helps some lower middle class families who don’t have the money to pay for health-care. Or at least don’t have to break the bank to do it.

3.) This may entice people to switch to government coverage. Oh no, we’re all communists now! I better get out my red drab clothing and my Marx literature. Mother Russia, embrace me.

So, maybe people wouldn’t mind the government running some health care. Instead of private companies being in charge of doling out the money for my coverage, why not the government? Don’t Republicans love choice? Wouldn’t that be a choice for some people? Not all will have a choice, but Mr. Bush’s objection seems to imply that some of those that could be covered would have a choice.

This is a very complicated issue in some respects (philosophically, ideologically), and a very simple one in others (insuring children that couldn’t get it otherwise).

Vetoing this bill will not suddenly give the uninsured the choice to choose their provider as Republicans would like to believe. These people can’t afford to make a choice like that. Many can’t afford any insurance period.

Boot Straps for Sale!!!! Contact the White House for more information.

Unsurprisingly, he wielded his veto pen in private, behind closed doors, and without fanfare.

Response to Peters Report Reply

Although I’m glad that Peters Report has “responded” (if you can reasonably call a bulleted list of overplayed talking points a “response”) to our most recent post, I’m disappointed at their inability to address some of the claims that we have made. They state, in a reply on this site:

“1) Gary Peters is living off a job as a public employee. He’s earning $65,000 and taxpayer-funded benefits and perks for a “full-time” job even though he’s spending 95% of his work week campaigning for the United States Congress.”

That was clearly addressed in the last post. I’m pretty sure there are many people who live off of jobs as public employees without any one in the right mind being pissed about it.

Next:

“2) CMU requires his “primary commitment.” Gary Peters is breaking their clear contractual requirement by running, and his contract lasts three years, which makes you wonder if he actually thinks he can win his ‘08 campaign as he’s under contract until the spring of 2010.”

I assume, if Peters wins his election, he will step down as the holder of the Griffin Endowed Chair. The university hired Peters knowing that he was planning on running. So, they acknowledge that he may potentially break his contract and leave. But, if the university has acknowledged this fact, then the so-called ‘blame’ may rest on either party, although I don’t think there is any blame to go around. If Peters and Central Michigan University both accepted the terms of his employment, knowing full-well that he may run for public office, effectively cutting short his tenure here, then so be it. The two organizations would be hurting no one by this. Two autonomous parties have engaged in a contract where the facts were known, and the potential results from this contract have no ill-bearing on the students of CMU or anyone else for that matter.

“3) Gary Peters told “Off the Record” in July that he would have an ethical issue, as a public employee, running for Congress. What made him change his opinion?”

Again, please see the last post; his position is not publicly funded.

“4) Gary Peters was hired after being the only candidate interviewed for the position. Upon learning of this, a dean and provost told the Political Science Department to make the process look fair and find someone else to hire. They called in former Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, gave him an interview and then voted to stick with their original decision to hire Peters.”

I think some evidence of this would be appropriate. If it be true, then we would like to address it. Because the claim is unsubstantiated, and because Peters Report seems to have an interest in saying things like this, even though they may or may not be true, it would not be worthy of comment until it is shown to have merit. If Peters Report can, however, we would love to discuss this issue.

“5) Two members of the CMU Board of Trustees gave Gary Peters campaign contributions and never disclosed their obvious and apparent conflict of interest during the hiring process. Additionally, the former holder of the Griffin professorship gave him money and he was even consulted for a recommendation during this corrupted hiring process.”

Again, if this report could be lent some credibility, it would, of course, be worthy for discussion. Furthermore, if the above two issues were taken seriously, it seems as though the group should adjust its focus and perhaps become “Students Against CMU’s Corrupt Hiring Practices.” It is amusing that if the above claims are legitimate it actually weakens the argument of SAGP by fashioning the idea that Gary Peters is simply a victim of a suspect hiring system.

I would also ask Peters Report to publicly post State of Nature’s comment posted on their website a few days ago. Posting a link to this site would allow an honest debate about the issues involved here. I invite Peters Report to again respond to the claims here, but I would ask that they read our arguments rather than replying with the same bulleted talking points.

Students Against Students Against Gary Peters

In local news:

A few students from Central Michigan University’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom have created a new group of pointed interest: Students Against Gary Peters. Their interest is in protesting the hiring of Gary Peters at CMU as the Griffin Endowed Chair of the Political Science Department. Gary Peters is running for U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 9th District as a Democrat. YAF is a right-wing ideological group; however, their president, Dennis Lennox II, denies that their objection to Peter’s professorship has anything to do with partisan politics. A September 23 article in the Saginaw News quotes Lennox as saying, “This is not about partisan politics [...] Mr. Peters would probably be a great professor if he wasn’t running for Congress.”

Now, although I doubt there would be a coalition of students from YAF, ceteris paribus, protesting a conservative holding the Griffin Chair, that does not refute their argument. To denounce their point of view solely on motivational grounds amounts to an ad hominem attack. The motivation for their argument has nothing to do with the argument itself, which is where I turn my attention.

First, I must provide full disclosure. I am in Peters’ PSC 300 class. I signed up for it unknowing of the situation surrounding it, but enjoy class nonetheless. My status as student in his class may be valuable in evaluating SAGP’s claims.

Their main contention seems to be that, by working as a state employee and running for Congress simultaneously, he has a conflict of interest. Don’t state employees, such as House members and Senate members, run for other offices? This claim is not pointed enough. He is providing a service for CMU and its students, while separately running for a public position. Can’t someone have a job and run for public office? Not everyone is independently wealthy enough to fund a campaign and support one’s family. Were his campaign to disallow him from completing his teaching position adequately, I would ask for him to step down as well. But it hasn’t, so I won’t.

A crucial point that SAGP seems to ignore is that Peters’ $65,000 salary is paid for by a private endowment. He is the Robert and Majorie Griffin Endowed Chair in American Government. “The Peters Report,” a blog maintained by SAGP that monitors the every move of Peters, asserts that Peters is an “expert at living off taxpayer money.” Peters is not living off taxpayer money. In fact, CMU’s Operating Budget for the 2007-08 school year, which can be found here, lists state appropriations’ for the Griffin Endowed Chair at $0 (p.14). Furthermore, let me provide a quick lesson in private endowments. An endowment is money donated or transfered to an institution (i.e CMU) that must be invested so that its principal remains intact. The compounding of interest allows the fund to last over the long term. An endowed professorship (i.e CMU’s Griffin Chair) is permanently paid for entirely from the revenue of the endowment fund specified for that purpose. The salary that Peters is afforded through the endowment may be “cushy”, however it is one that the endowment would allocate to someone regardless of how many other professors were being laid-off or how much the budget provided by state appropriations (i.e tax dollars) was being reduced (or increased, for that matter). There is no need for the university to justify this salary or its associated costs, as it is provided in full by the private endowment. Whether or not the compensation package is “fair” is a moot issue, as it is set by the endowment.

The endowment funds the salary and associated costs of a U.S. and Michigan political expert to serve as a faculty member in Central Michigan’s political science department.

- CMU’s Griffin Chair website

SAGP contends that the job is “full-time” according to the contract, while he has said that it is part-time. YAF is splitting hairs here: Peters can reasonably be seen to have evaluated the number of hours it takes to perform his tasks and conclude it will not take 40 hours per week, widely considered the standard for full-time. It is not unreasonable to consider 1 weekly class, office hours, and the formation of a forum a part-time job, even though the legal status says full-time. Consider this: while I am a full-time student at CMU, this does not mean I have to acknowledge that my full-time job is a student. This point of contention is a waste to spend time on.

They also claim that Peters is necessarily biased and will jeopardize a healthy classroom atmosphere. This is where my attendance in class proves valuable. I can attest that Peters is not one to construct a biased classroom, nor let his internal bias subconsciously escape him. I have all too often had professors with clear, unashamed biases in class. Peters is not one of these professors. His lectures and exercises are entrenched in honest debate. I honestly have trouble determining his positions on any issue. Their contention that he could be biased really has no bearing on the discussion. Because he is not biased, there is no cause for concern.

Other meaningless claims against Peters include that he forgot where he was working, telling the Politico that he was teaching at Eastern Michigan University. In fact, the Politco acknowledged its regrettable error.

In the end, I don’t see a conflict of interest, an unreasonable salary, a professor trying to “pull one over” on the taxpayers or the students of this university, or a pattern of bias in his classroom. Not to mention the meaninglessness of some of SAGP’s other claims. I wish they would spend their time on more positive efforts, instead of playing partisan games for the political gain of their favored candidate. Surely, with their zeal for investigation they could do some positive work in a worthy area.

Michigan Budget – Revisitations and Advocations

Earlier today on “State of Nature:”

“I won’t provide specific ideas for this budget, as I’m only slightly informed about the specifics of the consequences of such moves.”

Well, forget that. I’m a flip-flopper. Case in point: at one time I stood by Pepsi, and frankly, I’m not so sure I can tell the difference between it and Coke. My soul is ridden with contradictions. One time, I’m pretty sure I imagined a round square that was both red all over and green all over, at the same time, in the same respect. I passed out immediately after, and my hair now parts down the other side of my head.

Anyway, after a little time with budget figures, it’s time to advocate a state budget plan. It’s all happening folks.

Much of my information comes from Sunday’s Oakland Press, the article I can’t find online.

An increase in the state’s income tax to 4.6%, the proposed Democratic rate, would cost a married couple with two kids making $42,000 an extra $188 for the year. A married couple with two kids making 100 g’s would have to pony up $594 for the year (Dept of Treasury).

From all the Republican rhetoric, I thought the increase would be astronomical, making parents sell their kids into the European sex trade to pay the rent. Actually, a married couple, assuming both adults make daily coffee runs, on $42,000, would each have to give up a coffee every 4 days. Sure, giving money to the government sucks, but the government helps pay for the poor and the elderly to have health care. The government pays for police and firefighters. It also fixes roads, hands out driver’s licenses, and, surprisingly to me, distributes hard liquor.

If in 1999, Engler and Co. would not have cut the tax rate from 4.4 to 3.9 when the economy was booming, we might not have the mess we have now. A tax increase will help the structural deficit that exists in the state (see below). If the structural deficit is not fixed, then we’d have to go through all of this again, assuming Michigan’s economy doesn’t drag the state to the bottom of the Great Lakes. Then we’d need to pass legislation for boats. Or rafts. Shit, that wouldn’t get done either.

A tax rate of 4.6% would likely raise $1.1 billion, letting the cuts in programs need only to cover (only, ha) $700 mil. A progressive tax or a sales tax would help most. But that might be a future project.

Here we can cut the lifelong health-insurance given to legislators whose years in the legislature are limited to 8 years maximum. I’m all about universal health-care. Again, that’s for another day. But if we can’t get it, then 8 years of doing a bang-up job in the state house shouldn’t afford you it either.

After that, smaller cuts to programs will have to be made. Those, I’m not going to touch. That’s what the legislature can vote on. They get paid to do that. I’m gonna grab some food.

Bruce Willis, the UAW and Hitting People with Cars

For the first time since 1970, UAW has staged a strike against General Motors in lieu of failed labor pact negotiations. Today’s deadline passed without a deal, leaving 73,000 hourly workers unsure of their employment future. The strike comes on the tail of ten days of “marathon bargaining.”

How were the higher-ups at GM handling the news? Apparently, they were so infuriated with the incessant demands of the UAW that they began hitting employees with their cars. At the Pontiac plant in Michigan, a supervisor “clipped” one of the picketing employees while trying to enter the parking lot.

This alleged “clip” did not seem so “clip-ish” after Tracy Turvis, 37, had to be treated by the local fire department for being “visibly shaken.” Cures of visible shaken-ness do exist. However, their administration requires an expert knowledge of the medical sciences and a relatively steady hand in order to provide the best treatment. If you are unfamiliar with Visible Shaken-ness, we have provided a picture of what a visually shaken person may look like:

And:

Turvis said, “I thought he was going to slow down and he gunned it.” The fact that Turvis was able to speak is a testament to medical fortitude of the Pontiac Fire Department. Beyond this however, the insight provides an astute characterization of the nature of the strenuous labor negotiations and the tense atmosphere surrounding GM-UAW relations before and immediately proceeding the unmet deadline.

“I thought he was going to slow down and he gunned it.”

Tracy Turvis

UAW negotiation survivor

While GM may be “gunning it” at UAW employees and negotiators, the balance of power remains unclear. Leaders at the UAW are suggesting that GM is not budging, which is odd considering that the UAW keeps coming back to the table. GM feels that the UAW is too demanding, even against the backdrop of a declining auto industry which has inevitably resulted in numerous cuts to big-labor . At issue is the adoption of a union-run health-care trust that provides coverage for medical bills of GM’s 340,000 retired employees and their family members.

Compromise.  This seems to be the theme of the day for Michigan. Having picket signs ready to be marched around at 11:01 am, one minute after the negotiation deadline, does not seem like a deal was in the cards to begin with.  Perhaps all this was a self-fulfilling prophecy for the UAW… or perhaps they just had signs left over from 1970.  And GM, come on. Hitting people with cars is no way to bargain…unless you’re Bruce Willis (fast forward to the last scene of the clip).  Negotiations are tough.  Everybody involved in them has to give a little bit, otherwise it would just be favors.  They are not that tough though and you’ve been bargaining since you were two.  If you’ve never had to give up anything to achieve a desired result, then you my friend were the bully. Nobody wants to be the bully; the bully has to answer to Bruce Willis’s helicopter.

Michigan Budget

Unluckily for us, our state legislature can’t do their job. It’s that simple. The budget for the state of Michigan needs to be passed into law by September 29 to avoid a partial shutdown of the government, including a potential layoff of 53,000 state-paid employees. Without money to pay for employees and services, the government cannot function.

Currently, there is a projected $1.8 billion deficit. There is a structural deficit: this means that the amount of money the government takes in will never equal what it spends, unless changes are made.

As is common, this problem arises from an unwillingness to compromise by both the Republicans and Democrats. They are working weekends to get this done. Unfortunately for them, working harder is not as effective as working smarter. Now, I am no expert on Michigan politics or policy, but it’s just commonsense that if a) you have an important deadline and b) you don’t agree with your coworkers, you compromise.

Republicans have supported a continuation budget, which would merely continue the current structure, giving the legislature more time to sort this out. This continuation would only increase the deficit, with each day of government-run programs being underfunded for the time being. To put it bluntly, this is a stupid idea. The Republicans are essentially saying, “Give us more time (which we’ve used poorly thus far) to come up with even more money (because of the increasing deficit) to argue about the same things we are arguing about today.”

The solutions are there, the two heavily dichotomous sides can compromise. The Democrats don’t want to cut programs, and Republicans don’t want to raise taxes. I don’t blame them. There will be political hay to pay for both parties. But they signed up for this job. Find a plan to do both. We need some leaders to compromise and get the job done. What company will locate here if its government can’t get its job done, and worse, if there is no government to speak of? State legislators should see this as an opportunity to get the state back on its feet, or at least off of its ass. Raise the income tax (and/or the sales tax), cut some spending. I won’t provide specific ideas for this budget, as I’m only slightly informed about the specifics of the consequences of such moves. But, $1.8 billion is too much to tax, and too much to cut.

I think a potential fix would include a progressive income tax. Now, this won’t happen this year, as it has to be approved by the public in a referendum. But, higher income earners would pay more, lower income earners would pay less. This would capitalize on the horrible income gap, creating more revenue, but giving a break to those who need it most. But that argument is for another day.

Addendum:

Cuts that a government shutdown would entail (taken from here)

The impact of a state government shutdown (among other things)

-The Secretary of State’s 150 branch offices could close.

-Officials in at least 18 public school districts have said the districts would have to shut down if they don’t receive their October state aid payments, which are supposed to be sent Oct. 22.

-Once inventories in stores are sold, customers would not be able to buy hard liquor.

-Prisons would remain open and fully staffed. State Police patrols likely would be reduced.

-139 road and bridge projects would shut down.

-Permits would not be issued; no regulation of incoming freighters to enforce new law on ballast discharge.

-Cities, townships and counties across Michigan would miss revenue-sharing and public transit payments.

-The Michigan Gaming Control Board would close Detroit’s three casinos; the state Lottery also could be shut down.

-The Department of Natural Resources might have to close state parks, but it would keep a small law enforcement presence in the field during the archery deer season that opens Oct. 1 to prevent poaching and other violations.

Contact your Senator and Representative