"Michigan is Screwed" - The Rachel Maddow Show

**Pushtina** · March-10-11, 01:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUpO1QFMDtM

thoughts?

**Detroitnerd** · March-10-11, 01:16 PM

This belongs in Discuss Detroit...

**R8RBOB** · March-10-11, 01:27 PM

Well, when I thought out giving more power to the emergency financial managers somehow Lord of the Rings popped in him my head. You know how Sauron was the one behind creating the Rings of Power and then he created his One Ring to rule them all.

I still believe that the state legislature created this bill with only one city in mind: Detroit

**Goose** · March-10-11, 02:12 PM

I long for the salad days provided to Michigan residents by the competent leadership of Jennifer Granholm.

**Funaho** · March-10-11, 02:18 PM

As I mentioned on a Facebook thread, this bill is basically Lansing saying "You're not smart enough to use democracy, so we're going set you up with a nice, convenient dictator instead."

**belleislerunner** · March-10-11, 02:26 PM

When a company has too many liabilities and not enough assets - often it may file for bankruptcy. Through various "chapters" of bankruptcy - the company may decide to liquidate and pay off debtholders based on what cash is available. That is Chapter 7. A company may reorginize with its creditors under Chapter 11 and come out a leaner company will less debt.

That's all this law is trying to achieve. Suppose a city has 100 residents. 30 of them are teachers, police and fire fighters who are guaranteed pensions. The costs of providing benefits to the teachers/police/fire fighters costs the city $50. The city only has $25. What is the city to do? This legistlation allows for an emergency financial manager to restucture the benefits/debts so they don't cost more than $25. There will be pain for those involved - but it saves the city the costs [[i.e. higher interest rates on debt etc) of bankruptcy etc. If the financial manager wasn't allowed to have these abilities - the city would go bankrupt and then the obligations would be altered anyway.

This has less to do with unions losing their normal rights etc - but more just a "checks and balance" so if the unions have been pushing through 3% raises for 20 years and a city finds it can no longer afford to pay those prices - the manager [[assuming it's deemed an emergency) can make the tough choices to avoid insolvency.

If this option isn't palatable to Maddow - I'd be curious to what solution she proposes to a city like Hamtramck to pay their obligations w/o the luxury of restrucuturing.

**defendbrooklyn** · March-10-11, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

the unions have been pushing through 3% raises for 20 years

I've been teaching 10 years and never had a 3% raise...

**Goose** · March-10-11, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

If this option isn't palatable to Maddow - I'd be curious to what solution she proposes to a city like Hamtramck to pay their obligations w/o the luxury of restrucuturing.

more obama money???

**belleislerunner** · March-10-11, 02:50 PM

It doesn't mater if the pay raise was 3% or.02% - the point was just the liabilities are more than the assets. In such a scenario - you collapse the liabilities.

**Detroitnerd** · March-10-11, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by defendbrooklyn

I've been teaching 10 years and never had a 3% raise...

Ah, but that's the trick:

1) Create a fiscal disaster that requires giving all our money to the rich, impoverishing our governments through foreclosures and falling tax revenues

2) Convince everybody that the real problem is public sector workers, with their sweet deals and Cadillac benefits [[remember those "welfare moms" who were supposed to be driving Caddies?)

3) Tell beleaguered and impoverished private sector workers that the public sector unions have it sweet, and pit them against each other

4) Break the public unions, freeing up more money for the super-rich to steal

Divide and conquer, baby. Divide and conquer.

Proslack · March-10-11, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

more obama money???

If Obama were to come in and delete your locally elected city board and mayor because he did not deem them "competent" to continue operating your "republican" stronghold city, what would the overall attitude be at that point? Would the attitiude still be "oh well it had to be done".

**Detroitnerd** · March-10-11, 03:06 PM

Less democracy! Weaker unions! More money for the rich! More debt for the middle-class!

Yay! Yay!
It's all OK!
Destroying the middle class is fun!
I read it all in Econ 101!

**R8RBOB** · March-10-11, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Ah, but that's the trick:

1) Create a fiscal disaster that requires giving all our money to the rich, impoverishing our governments through foreclosures and falling tax revenues

2) Convince everybody that the real problem is public sector workers, with their sweet deals and Cadillac benefits [[remember those "welfare moms" who were supposed to be driving Caddies?)

3) Tell beleaguered and impoverished private sector workers that the public sector unions have it sweet, and pit them against each other

4) Break the public unions, freeing up more money for the super-rich to steal

Divide and conquer, baby. Divide and conquer.

You know this reeks of late 2008 and 2009 when the GOP was blaming the financial collapse on minorities taking home loans that they couldn't repay. They somehow convinced the clueless who joined the Tea Parties that banks and billionaire investors had no hand in the collapse yet they walked away not only with their money but more money. In 2011, it is the unions that is creating debt to all 50 states. Yes, we have been down this road one too many times.

**maxx** · March-10-11, 03:11 PM

Ordinarily Republicans are opposed to enlarging gov. powers ..... except when they're not.
Be very afraid of the big gov. they are not opposed to.

Fascism will come to the U.S. wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
Sinclair Lewis.

**Funaho** · March-10-11, 03:14 PM

You know if we're going to go this far why not just write the law so that Snyder can decree that all local entities within Wane County are hereby dissolved and create single supercity out of it? At least that would accomplish something.

**R8RBOB** · March-10-11, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Proslack

If Obama were to come in and delete your locally elected city board and mayor because he did not deem them "competent" to continue operating your "republican" stronghold city, what would the overall attitude be at that point? Would the attitiude still be "oh well it had to be done".

One of the reasons why Obama will not use "Executive Order" is that he is scared to death that Republicans would label him a dictator. A prime example of this is DADT. Obama could have ended that through executive order but the backlash would have been fierce. So back to your question. If Obama would done such a thing, Glenn Beck would have plastered his studio with pictures of Obama wearing Hitler's stache'

**Jimaz** · March-10-11, 03:20 PM

This is a corporate coup d'état in the making. This is surprisingly blatant. I wonder how they plan to back it up with armed force over civilians.

**belleislerunner** · March-10-11, 03:35 PM

Most civilians are fine with the changes.

They recognize that money doesn't go on trees and you have to make cuts.

I don't understand the hysteria behind it - it's just a financial decision. The government isn't out to get you. Look at your checking register. If you don't have $200 - you can't write a check w/o it bouncing. This is no different.

**Meddle** · March-10-11, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Pushtina

thoughts?

My thought is to wonder why anyone, anywhere, ever, for any reason watches any of these talk-show blabbermouths. Put them all together and the total IQ wouldn't surpass that of a tree-frog.

**R8RBOB** · March-10-11, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

Most civilians are fine with the changes.

They recognize that money doesn't go on trees and you have to make cuts.

I don't understand the hysteria behind it - it's just a financial decision. The government isn't out to get you. Look at your checking register. If you don't have $200 - you can't write a check w/o it bouncing. This is no different.

Hmm, so you have to make cuts? I agree but I believe that all should share the pain. That means no tax breaks for the rich. capeesh?

**JDKeepsmiling** · March-10-11, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Ordinarily Republicans are opposed to enlarging gov. powers ..... except when they're not.
Be very afraid of the big gov. they are not opposed to.

Fascism will come to the U.S. wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
Sinclair Lewis.

See it all about keeping the government not involved with the right people, the rich and big business. If you are poor, gay, want an abortion, or apparntly work for the government, Republicans want the government intimitly involved in your life.

**kraig** · March-10-11, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

Most civilians are fine with the changes.

They recognize that money doesn't go on trees and you have to make cuts.

I don't understand the hysteria behind it - it's just a financial decision. The government isn't out to get you. Look at your checking register. If you don't have $200 - you can't write a check w/o it bouncing. This is no different.

He's not making cuts, he's shifting resources so that the retirees and the low income residents finance the breaks that are given to the large corporations.

**Detroitnerd** · March-10-11, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Funaho

You know if we're going to go this far why not just write the law so that Snyder can decree that all local entities within Wane County are hereby dissolved and create single supercity out of it? At least that would accomplish something.

Actually, that outcome would be so good, so sensible, it's certainly got to be the one thing he WON'T do, right?

**Detroitnerd** · March-10-11, 04:16 PM

Austerity for the poor. Tax cuts and unlimited free speech [[cash in bag) rights for the rich! Down with unions! Up with fat cats! Wheee!

**skyl4rk** · March-10-11, 06:34 PM

I have to agree that this law is being written for the COD. Benton Harbor was a test case and the Council acted like a bunch of idiots, so now they know how to change the law to prevent shenanigans in Detroit.

The thing that concerns me the most about the current situation is that they are only talking about the locals as having problems, or better said being the problem. The reality is that it is the state with the biggest budget problem. Where are the cuts at the state level? Where is discussion happening on how to reduce the state budget? Instead they are acting as if the problem was created by the locals.

Take away the traditional funding sources for cities and schools, cause the weak jurisdictions to go into deficit mode, and use the EFM to clean up. The funding that you take away from the locals goes to keep the state bloatocracy fat. Use the headlines caused by local budget problems to shift the public eye away from the state problems. Is this the Republican action plan?