Gov. Snyder, I am not your "customer"

[1953]

I like the term customer. It recognizes that the Governor is the head of an organization [[a zero margin organization) that is designed to serve people.

And, the Governor will get re-elected, since he has balanced the budget, put away money for a rainy day, moved on a new bridge, and tackled a host of other issues previous administrations were afraid to tackle [[another reason we can expect an EFM in Detroit).

1953

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I like the term customer. It recognizes that the Governor is the head of an organization [[a zero margin organization) that is designed to serve people.

And, the Governor will get re-elected, since he has balanced the budget, put away money for a rainy day, moved on a new bridge, and tackled a host of other issues previous administrations were afraid to tackle [[another reason we can expect an EFM in Detroit).

1953

Where did all these Snyder apologists come from?? The budget will be balanced until his next proposals [[gas tax and higher registration fees) are possibly implemented. I surely hope neither passes, and he's not re-elected.

[Ray1936]

I like the term, "inmates".

Hey, I escaped.

[Warrenite84]

A company succeeds in the marketplace when it provides a product at the highest quality and the cheapest price. Why wouldn't someone want the most bang for their buck, whether it is from a company or a government entity?

Any company worth investing in takes care of their workers, their customers, and their stockholders. We who are citizens of Michigan deserve value for our tax dollars. Our elected officals are stewards of our money and it is our duty to see that they are doing the most good with it.

I don't begrudge a worker a fair days wage for a fair days work and i"ll gladly pay for my portion of a civil society. But we have to see that when a public employee demands wages and benefits beyond reasonable levels, they force all of us to dig deeper into our pockets for it.

If past malfeasence is the reason why our roads are crumbling, we need to not only pay up to make them right, but to demand high quality when we pay for it. Not just pay it and forget it.

[Wesley Mouch]

A company succeeds in the marketplace when it provides a product at the highest quality and the cheapest price. Why wouldn't someone want the most bang for their buck, whether it is from a company or a government entity?

Any company worth investing in takes care of their workers, their customers, and their stockholders. We who are citizens of Michigan deserve value for our tax dollars. Our elected officals are stewards of our money and it is our duty to see that they are doing the most good with it.

I don't begrudge a worker a fair days wage for a fair days work and i"ll gladly pay for my portion of a civil society. But we have to see that when a public employee demands wages and benefits beyond reasonable levels, they force all of us to dig deeper into our pockets for it.

If past malfeasence is the reason why our roads are crumbling, we need to not only pay up to make them right, but to demand high quality when we pay for it. Not just pay it and forget it.

Well said.

I wholeheartedly agree for fair days wage for fair days work, and will gladly pay, too. The problem is of course how to set 'fair'. We've tried collective bargaining, and what we got was promises made to pay with our parents children's money -- and that's us. So perhaps we should try a new system.

I propose therefore that public salaries all be pegged to 150% or maybe even 200% of the average wage actually paid by private employers to citizens in Detroit. Just take the tax return income paid, and divide by the # of returns. This would give great incentive to city workers to encourage economic development in Detroit. I guarantee you they'll start treating everyone like good customers.

[coracle]

Why on earth should Public Sector workers be paid 150% t0 200% more than Private Sector workers who pay their salaries with taxes anyway. If it was less I would agree; then they could earn real money and pay real taxes by working in the Private Sector themselves.
Why do you think all these cities are in trouble? They have too many "workers" and they've paid them too much for years and years.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I like the term, "inmates".

Hey, I escaped.

I know you're glad to have had the forthsight to see what was coming for Michigan, and moved Ray. Kudos to you.

[rb336]

We've tried collective bargaining, and what we got was promises made to pay with our parents children's money -- and that's us. So perhaps we should try a new system..

collective bargaining has precious little to do with it. What Detroit suffers from is 50 years [[yes, I'm including Cavanaugh and Gibbs)of inept, corrupt government and 30 years of reaganomics

[Wesley Mouch]

Why on earth should Public Sector workers be paid 150% t0 200% more than Private Sector workers who pay their salaries with taxes anyway. If it was less I would agree; then they could earn real money and pay real taxes by working in the Private Sector themselves.
Why do you think all these cities are in trouble? They have too many "workers" and they've paid them too much for years and years.

Didn't say 200% more than a comparable worker. Just 200% more than the AVERAGE worker.

[bailey]

Agreed. He's making the quality of life here quite unbearable with his policies. Raising the gas tax and vehicle registrations are definite no-no's. Along with the highest insurance premiums in the nation, who's going to be able to afford to drive?

Wouldn't that be the point?

Making it more expensive to drive and having exurban sprawl dwellers actually feel the pinch on what it costs to maintain those redundant roads is an effective way to engender support for something resembling mass transit and sane urban planning. In most of Europe it's FAR more expensive to drive than here....hence a totally built out public transit system and thriving central cities.

If we're going to use silly jargon terms, we need disincentives to change the sprawled out/drive everywhere paradigm here in SeM.

[Detroitnerd]

Wouldn't that be the point?

Making it more expensive to drive and having exurban sprawl dwellers actually feel the pinch on what it costs to maintain those redundant roads is an effective way to engender support for something resembling mass transit and sane urban planning.

I don't see it playing out like that here. The condition of the roads will remain largely the same, I think, due to the insanely heavy trucks on the state's roads, especially in metro Detroit. We will be subsidizing the corporations with the increased fees, because he's proposed a smaller hike for heavy trucks than for ordinary motorists.

[bailey]

I don't see it playing out like that here. The condition of the roads will remain largely the same, I think, due to the insanely heavy trucks on the state's roads, especially in metro Detroit. We will be subsidizing the corporations with the increased fees, because he's proposed a smaller hike for heavy trucks than for ordinary motorists.

Michigan has a high gross weight limit per truck that is true, however, two things to keep in mind...1) Not every truck is licensed to take that "insanely high" weight or if it is, is carrying it all day everyday; and 2) Michigan's per axle limit is in line with and actually lower than a lot of other places. It's the weight on the axle that is the issue.

The problem is not the weight limit. the problem is heavily used and poorly maintained roads.

[Detroitnerd]

Michigan has a high gross weight limit per truck that is true, however, two things to keep in mind...1) Not every truck is licensed to take that "insanely high" weight or if it is, is carrying it all day everyday; and 2) Michigan's per axle limit is in line with and actually lower than a lot of other places. It's the weight on the axle that is the issue.

The problem is not the weight limit. the problem is heavily used and poorly maintained roads.

I'd like to see that study touted by MDOT. I wonder if it's even peer reviewed. Lots of studies have "proved" things, like smoking isn't bad for you, and got away with it.

How can it be that the weight limit on trucks is so much higher here than in other states, and that the moment you drive from Michigan to Ohio or Ontario you can tell the difference, and yet it's not the trucks on our roads doing that damage?

But let's say that you're right and that MDOT's study is correct. That it's really a matter of funding. We all know that -- whatever the axle weight limit -- trucks wear out roads more than Ford Focuses, right? So, therefore, is it just to raise registration fees by double for ordinary motorists and by a percentage for heavy trucks? Seems to me like more of the same: Socking it to individuals to subsidize large trucking interests. Why should I subsidize Moroun when I drive a little Volks?

[Detroitnerd]

Another thing to note is, governments are supposed to be transparent. You are, in theory, allowed to go right into the government offices and ask to see the records showing the public business. Try doing that with a corporation, as a "customer." If you're really persistent and lucky, you'll get a bullshit PR person to tell you half the truth and send you on your way. Go further and you'll get lawyers on your ass.

And yet you guys still want government to be "run like a business," huh?

[bailey]

[QUOTE=Detroitnerd;368135]

I'd like to see that study touted by MDOT. I wonder if it's even peer reviewed. Lots of studies have "proved" things, like smoking isn't bad for you, and got away with it.

And where is the study proving your point?

How can it be that the weight limit on trucks is so much higher here than in other states, and that the moment you drive from Michigan to Ohio or Ontario you can tell the difference, and yet it's not the trucks on our roads doing that damage?

Are you saying ohio trucks don't drive in Michigan or Michigan trucks don't drive in ohio?

But let's say that you're right and that MDOT's study is correct. That it's really a matter of funding. We all know that -- whatever the axle weight limit -- trucks wear out roads more than Ford Focuses, right? So, therefore, is it just to raise registration fees by double for ordinary motorists and by a percentage for heavy trucks? Seems to me like more of the same: Socking it to individuals to subsidize large trucking interests. Why should I subsidize Moroun when I drive a little Volks?

a) If you cut the weight down to some insanely low number, you're going to increase the number of trucks on the road. I'm not sure that solves the problem.

b)regarding the accusation that the hike is higher on "ordinary" drivers vs. commercial truckers... I think you need to read the actual proposal. Diesel fuel taxes would go from 15 cents to 33 cents [[120% increase that hasnt been touched since the 80s) and heavy truck and trailer registrations would go up 25%. Car registration would go up 60%..however that means and 120 bucks a year to the "average" person and is based on the car's price. And unleaded goes from 19 cents to 33..and is completely dependent on how much you choose to drive.

Those who drive the most [[ie use the most fuel) and have the most expensive vehicles will bear the most cost. How is this NOT a progressive solution? Oh yeah, Snyder proposed it.

[Detroitnerd]

b)regarding the accusation that the hike is higher on "ordinary" drivers vs. commercial truckers... I think you need to read the actual proposal. Diesel fuel taxes would go from 15 cents to 33 cents [[120% increase that hasnt been touched since the 80s) and heavy truck and trailer registrations would go up 25%. Car registration would go up 60%..however that means and 120 bucks a year to the "average" person and is based on the car's price.

Those who drive the most [[ie use the most fuel) and have the most expensive vehicles will bear the most cost. How is this NOT a progressive solution? Oh yeah, Snyder proposed it.

It's not progressive because you have millions of motorists and tens of thousands of trucks, that is, the many subsidizing the few. Last time I checked, the many [[struggling, forced to drive whether they have an income or not, no real transit choices, etc.) subsidizing the few [[corporate profits are at record highs) was anything but "progressive."

Blame it on partisanship if it makes you feel better. But $120 is a lot of money to a family living at the poverty level. I mean, that's a few hundred cans of beans. But, oh, yeah, this is all about Gov. Snyder and partisan politics. Pfffft...

[Honky Tonk]

[QUOTE=bailey;368138]

And where is the study proving your point?

Are you saying ohio trucks don't drive in Michigan or Michigan trucks don't drive in ohio?



a) If you cut the weight down to some insanely low number, you're going to increase the number of trucks on the road. I'm not sure that solves the problem.

b)regarding the accusation that the hike is higher on "ordinary" drivers vs. commercial truckers... I think you need to read the actual proposal. Diesel fuel taxes would go from 15 cents to 33 cents [[120% increase that hasnt been touched since the 80s) and heavy truck and trailer registrations would go up 25%. Car registration would go up 60%..however that means and 120 bucks a year to the "average" person and is based on the car's price.

Those who drive the most [[ie use the most fuel) and have the most expensive vehicles will bear the most cost. How is this NOT a progressive solution? Oh yeah, Snyder proposed it.

I really am not in the mood to get into a pissing match with you gentlemen, and I can take or leave Snyder. That being said, just out of curiosity, how many registered personal vehicles are there in MI compared to registered commercial trucks? Thanx.

[bailey]

it's not progressive because you have millions of motorists and tens of thousands of trucks, that is, the many subsidizing the few. Last time I checked, the many [[struggling, forced to drive whether they have an income or not, no real transit choices, etc.) subsidizing the few [[corporate profits are at record highs) was anything but "progressive."

Millions of motorists driving how many miles and consuming how much gas per vehicle vs those tens of thousands of trucks and their consumption?

Blame it on partisanship if it makes you feel better. But $120 is a lot of money to a family living at the poverty level. I mean, that's a few hundred cans of beans. But, oh, yeah, this is all about Gov. Snyder and partisan politics. Pfffft...

If they are living at the "poverty level" they are by definition not the "average" family and thus would not see the same increase. a NEW $25,000 car's fee would increase by about $74. I wasn't aware "poverty" level citizens are out there buying new cars. Nice straw man though.

If this was Granholm's proposal and Richardville had come out against it like he has here... there would be no end to the howling about obstreperous republicans protecting the trucking industry and blocking progressive tax solutions.

[Detroitnerd]

Millions of motorists driving how many miles and consuming how much gas per vehicle vs those tens of thousands of trucks and their consumption?

Oh, sure, you have a point. But it's not the incredible point you think it is. Motorists have to drive to get everywhere and have no choice. Driving to work is one of the major costs of an employee, and this will add to it significantly.

But what profit does an individual motorist make? He is hauling one [[maybe two or three, if he's carpooling, a minuscule exception) worker to a job. The daily payload is a day's wages.

Now compare this to the profit earned by a truck transporting a load. You begin to see that the journey made by the truck is making a great deal more money, and using the road harder, than the individual motorist. And, again, this is a RECORD YEAR FOR BUSINESS PROFITS.

Have it your way if you want. I know some people just don't want to see this in a poor light because of their own personal reasons, whatever they are.

If they are living at the "poverty level" they are by definition not the "average" family and thus would not see the same increase. a NEW $25,000 car's fee would increase by about $74. I wasn't aware "poverty" level citizens are out there buying new cars. Nice straw man though.

No, it's not a straw man. Even $50 is a lot of money to a family living at poverty wages. Heck, even $10 is the difference between breakfast for four kids or going off to school hungry. If you don't think that's important, I really don't know what to say to you.

If this was Granholm's proposal and Richardville had come out against it like he has here... there would be no end to the howling about obstreperous republicans protecting the trucking industry and blocking progressive tax solutions.

It's not a partisan issue. People's reactions to this have been all over the place. Even hard-right SOS Ruth Johnson opposes the move in toto.

[bailey]

QUOTE=Detroitnerd;368145]

Oh, sure, you have a point. But it's not the incredible point you think it is. Motorists have to drive to get everywhere and have no choice. Driving to work is one of the major costs of an employee, and this will add to it significantly.

Motorists in this area have enjoyed 50 years of subsidy for their driving. That particular can can't be kicked anymore. Motorists can carpool. motorists can trade in the SUV for a more fuel efficient car. Heaven forfend, motorists can even move closer to work...or vice versa if the increase has THAT much of an effect on their life. Or, you know what? Motorists can DEMAND transit options. The status quo is not going to cut it anymore.

But what profit does an individual motorist make? He is hauling one [[maybe two or three, if he's carpooling, a minuscule exception) worker to a job. The daily payload is a day's wages.

Are you kidding me? "the daily payload is a day's wages"? hyperbole much? we're one of the lowest "metros" for commuting travel time. IIRC it was around 25 miles one way [[22 minutes). There are no 4 hour round trip commutes for anyone that is not a statistical outlier...or riding the DDot SMART debacle.


If you are in your car and can not afford the 2 gallons of gas [[8 bucks-ish) it might take to get you to work and back, you have bigger problems.

I mean, are you really​ saying the intrepid commuter in your example is making less than 8 dollars a day? C'mon now.

Now compare this to the profit earned by a truck transporting a load. You begin to see that the journey made by the truck is making a great deal more money, and using the road harder, than the individual motorist. And, again, this is a RECORD YEAR FOR BUSINESS PROFITS.

Bullshit. Stop with that "record year" crap. It's a record year because the financial sector profits have exploded and the overseas profits of multinationals is higher pulling the number higher. Further skewing the results is that large corporations are paying a historically low tax rate. [[facebook is getting a 500,000,000 refund after over 1 billion in earnings in 2012 FWIW). That doesn't mean Joe Trucker is raking it in. It's all about margins.

If it is such a boon to the trucking industry and to those here that depend on the trucking industry to move their stuff, why are they having a meltdown about the prospect of increasing the tax? They are against it because fuel costs are a HUGE issue for their profit margin and margins are very tight. Taxes on diesel have been kept artificially low and they want to keep it that way. I feel very confident that if I find myself in the opposite position of Matty Maroun... I've made the right choice.

Have it your way if you want. I know some people just don't want to see this in a poor light because of their own personal reasons, whatever they are.

I'm looking at in the same light Snyder is. We can pay what it costs to maintain what we have now, or pay double later to completely replace it.

I agree with him and think the people that drive the most, use the most fuel, and have the most expensive cars should pay more for the service. That used to be a progressive idea...

No, it's not a straw man. Even $50 is a lot of money to a family living at poverty wages. Heck, even $10 is the difference between breakfast for four kids or going off to school hungry. If you don't think that's important, I really don't know what to say to you.

Yes it is because you are ascribing poverty level needs across the spectrum. Again, this is the most progressive of the proposals out there. If you don't consume it, you don't pay for it. If $10 is keeping your family from eating, I doubt having a car is a priority or even a possibility.

The R proposal is to eliminate the gas tax and then slap an extra 2% on the sales tax. That would be a much more regressive tax because then you are taxing everything instead of a just a good you could conceivably do without.

It's not a partisan issue. People's reactions to this have been all over the place. Even hard-right SOS Ruth Johnson opposes the move in toto.

Well, again, who is pulling those strings? As with Matty Maroun, when I find myself on the opposite side of an issue than Ruth Johnson, I tend to think I probably made the right choice.

[Detroitnerd]

QUOTE=Detroitnerd;368145] Motorists in this area have enjoyed 50 years of subsidy for their driving.

As I said originally, I really don't think it's going to shake out in any environmentally friendly way where we get tight development thanks to higher costs for motorists. While it's nice that you think motorists have been too subsidized [[they have) a lot of people agree that the heavy trucks have been more subsidized because they damage roads more. Don't agree? Agree with MDOT's study? In many ways, MDOT has proposed a World's Fair's worth of bad ideas, which may not benefit ordinary people, but certainly benefit concrete and road men. Forgive me, and the legion of other Michiganders, who are not allayed with the claim that, as MDOT says, "MDOT engineers have thoroughly studied this issue."

Are you kidding me? "the daily payload is a day's wages"? hyperbole much?

You stoop to miss the point and belittle it.

Bullshit. Stop with that "record year" crap. ... That doesn't mean Joe Trucker is raking it in. It's all about margins.

No, this is not about Joe Trucker. This is about trucking concerns [[CenTra), the Big 3 [[all the massive trucks on I-75 shipping Just-In-Time), etc. This is about corporate and business profits, not Joe Trucker. I like Joe Trucker and pity Joe Trucker.

If it is such a boon to the trucking industry and to those here that depend on the trucking industry to move their stuff, why are they having a meltdown about the prospect of increasing the tax?

They want higher profits. Are you surprised by that?

Anyway, thanks for locking horns. This all relates back to the topic at hand. MDOT is operating surprisingly like a business. We are supposed to rest assured that MDOT's scholarship is perfect, and that no conflicts of interest had any pernicious effect on the weight and weight-per-axle limits of any truck. The "business" counts on you to just believe them. Some of us think the "business" should open its books and behave as governments should.

[rb336]

The problem with our roads is that they are engineered and built on the cheap. Very few have the one-foot+ base that is pretty standard on Euro highways. It is the American way - penny wise and dollar foolish

[bailey]

As I said originally, I really don't think it's going to shake out in any environmentally friendly way where we get tight development thanks to higher costs for motorists. While it's nice that you think motorists have been too subsidized [[they have) a lot of people agree that the heavy trucks have been more subsidized because they damage roads more. Don't agree? Agree with MDOT's study? In many ways, MDOT has proposed a World's Fair's worth of bad ideas, which may not benefit ordinary people, but certainly benefit concrete and road men. Forgive me, and the legion of other Michiganders, who are not allayed with the claim that, as MDOT says, "MDOT engineers have thoroughly studied this issue."

Well, then there should be some study out there that proves the opposite shouldn't there? I'm willing to be educated on the issue. I just don't see how less than 5 % of the trucks on the road [[those licensed to haul above the 80,000 and actually doing it) are to blame for the condition of the roads. And I don't see how doubling the amount of trucks on the road to ship the same tonnage is any better of a solution. Clearly the fault is in the composition and construction of the roads.

I mean I drive on some roads that I know see little to no truck traffic and they are shot through with potholes. We overbuilt the roads and refuse to pay the full cost of keeping them up.

No, this is not about Joe Trucker. This is about trucking concerns [[CenTra), the Big 3 [[all the massive trucks on I-75 shipping Just-In-Time), etc. This is about corporate and business profits, not Joe Trucker. I like Joe Trucker and pity Joe Trucker.

Well, again, under this proposal, their fuel costs would be raised 120% and their fees raised 25%. How much more would you like them to be raised? 300%? Which would likely put everyone but the largest entities like Centra out of business. Seems counter productive.

Anyway, thanks for locking horns. This all relates back to the topic at hand. MDOT is operating surprisingly like a business.

The problem is MDOT is operating UNLIKE a business. It can't generate enough revenue to support operations because the public is used to getting the product at a discount. It used to be able to paper over the problem by having volume and using creative accounting. It can't do that anymore and because of that it can not afford to both maintain the current infrastructure and support new/replacement construction, so it provides crappy product that fewer want to pay for.

Actually it does sound like a business.... Pre-Bankruptcy GM and Chrysler.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, then there should be some study out there that proves the opposite shouldn't there? I'm willing to be educated on the issue. I just don't see how less than 5 % of the trucks on the road [[those licensed to haul above the 80,000) are to blame for the condition of the roads. And I don't see how doubling the amount of trucks on the road to ship the same tonnage is any better of a solution. Clearly the fault is in the composition and construction of the roads.

I think when self-interested bodies are in power, they do what benefits their own self-interest, and shade the news carefully so that it doesn't seem that way.

We should remember too that MDOT has been on a building spree when it can't even afford to maintain what it has. [[MDOT is even proposing wilder projects, such as spending $3 billion and 20 years to widen a 7-mile stretch of I-94. Yech.) To many who are suspicious of roadbuilders, this is called stake-driving. You overbuild the things you can't pay for, then you need to raise the money to pay for it all. Bob Moses used to do this in New York back in the bad old days.

If MDOT is like a business, it's like the stupidest business I've ever heard of. It's like: You're going to have to pay more for this one product. We're going to sell it to you retail, even though you don't have a choice on whether to buy it. For others who could afford different modes, such as rail, well, fuck it, we're going to give them wholesale rates. And if you don't like it, if you want a choice, if you want some magic choo-choo train, you can move to another state.

For those of us who are tired of watching our young people, which we paid to educate and nourish and care for, leave the state for the things MDOT will never offer, it's a damn shame.

And this idea that all the state highway groups and road builders have studies showing that heavier trucks don't do more damage to roads reminds me of studies sponsored by tobacco companies that cigarettes don't harm your health, or studies supported by the Drug Czar that marijuana kills brain cells.

See, now, if I'm a customer, I just have two choices: Look through the marketplace of what's available here or take my business somewhere else [[Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc.). But if I'm a citizen, I can join other citizens in working together to change what's on that menu.

[Jimaz]

Gov. Snyder, I am not your "customer"

Sneaky Snyder is using what's called a Humpty Dumptyism.

From the fictional character Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Caroll's Through the Looking-Glass, who, when asked what he meant by "glory," replies "I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'". Alice protests that this isn't the meaning of "glory" and Humpty Dumpty replies "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."