The Man With The Pink Pig Wants To Screw Our County
August 23rd, 2007 | by christine |So you may have seen Leon Drolet’s pink pig come through Shiawassee?
Leon & co. are threatening to recall Dick Ball (yeah, right) for supporting a tax increase. Well, subscription only Gongwer is giving us some more insight into Leon’s thinking, as to how we can balance the budget without raising taxes:
Mr. Drolet responded that he’d use the tax cuts recommended by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, including having some of the duties now being done by State Police troopers be taken over by county officers to save money in that budget.
Hear that, Shiawassee? The man with the pink pig wants to put the burden on your county.
Good God. Isn’t it enough that Randy Colbry and Margaret McAvoy are a burden on your county? Do we have to take on the burden of state police work too?
Jeesh.
But check out Valde Garcia ..
“We’ve cut. We’ve shifted things around and there’s just no more to do,” Mr. Garcia said. “At some point we’re going to have to pay the piper. Even if we had administrative savings, we wouldn’t come anywhere near saving enough money to fix the budget. I haven’t signed the tax pledge but I also am not a tax raiser but I do have a responsibility to balance the budget by the first of October, how we’re going to do so, I’m not sure.”
(read: “I’ve got to raise taxes but I can’t raise taxes but I have to raise taxes, but I said I wouldn’t raise taxes, so I’m in a pickle”)
Looks like Leon’s got quite a battle on his hands.
Good.
But I’ve got to hand it to Drolet … he makes quite a splash for a guy on a shoestring budget.
15 Responses to “The Man With The Pink Pig Wants To Screw Our County”
By Chetly Zarko on Aug 25, 2007 | Reply
I’m glad you recognize what Leon’s been able to do with “shoestring” budgets.
And he certainly has Democrats cowering — if it is morally right to raise taxes as your side has suggested, why are vulnerable D’s looking for a way out? Delaying until a 2005 Recall is not temporally possible?
By christine on Aug 25, 2007 | Reply
Yep, Democrats and Republicans are worried about that fool. That’s because they’re cowards.
I would’ve stood up to the punk. I’d have followed his pink pig around with a big sign saying I was going to save our schools, and not be intimidated by people who are so selfish that they would rather close down our schools and roads, than pay their fair share of taxes. I’d put up a billboard saying that I was going to save Michigan from people like Drolet.
Drolet is a bully. A frugal one, but a bully nonetheless. I’ve got no respect for people who threaten recalls.
By Leon Drolet on Aug 25, 2007 | Reply
Christine,
The Mackinac Center recommendation is that county sheriff’s handle road patrols now done by state police AND that they be given state funds to finance this new burden. County sheriffs simply cost less than state police to do the same job.
Why should taxpayers pay the “highest bidder” to provide the service of pulling over speeders instead of a more frugal option? Why do liberals seethe at the thought of cost savings?
Sincerely,
The Frugal Bully Punk
By christine on Aug 25, 2007 | Reply
Leon, you frugal bully punk,
I don’t seethe at the thought of savings, which anyone who has read my articles would know. I seethe at the thought of people like you disrespecting Democracy by abusing the recall process.
I also don’t appreciate your position that the locals should pick up more and more of the tab so that you don’t have to, which makes my county a more expensive place to work and live.
There is only so much that our local governments can take.
By Chetly Zarko on Aug 26, 2007 | Reply
Christine,
Leon hardly wants to “shut down schools” or roads. However, I think we both believe that “saving our schools” isn’t going to happen simply by pumping more money into the system without some thought and creativity.
I challenge you and/or the MEA (no necessary connection implied) to hold a few panel discussions on how we can make our schools better with THOUGHTS, creative reforms, and focus on what’s important. I’ll bring some notes (or the people themselves if they’re up to the risk) from a few teacher friends of mine (including self-identified Democrats) who’ve I’ve interviewed in depth on how to fix the system, and we’ll all sit down and discuss real, concrete, ideas for the defining issue of our time. I’m convinced the solution isn’t more and more money — its properly structuring our system with the right priorities.
If education is failing and we’ve consistently increased funding to it year in and year out (and we have), then more money is a proven failure (unless we blindly believe that “we need just an extra few dollars” on top of the dollars we’ve already fed the system).
The problem is that we have regionalized failures of education clustered around areas of poverty concentration. It’s a problem with a hundred heads, a thousand needed solutions, and some serious reform at a level our political discourse is unable to muster. If more money solved the problem, why are schools in D.C. with 15K per pupil averages failing?
By Chetly Zarko on Aug 26, 2007 | Reply
On road patrols, didn’t the Dems want to consolidate State Police posts (and they also wanted to cut 30 troopers outright?)? That’s (post consolidations) almost identical in form and effect to Mackinac’s idea oonsolidating or “folding into” state highway patrols into the duties of county sheriffs. Each county would be responsible for patrolling its portion of I-96 or 75 or 94 etc. — they’d be given block grants to do it presumably, adjusting for the fact that their police salaries aren’t as high (and the State Police could do more specialized things that it was designed for, like investigating crimes that move across counties, high level crimes, lab work, etc.). One could imagine benefits and efficiency from greater local control in this scenario as well.
I don’t know that I’m fully on board with that particular idea — but to characterize it as a service cut is wrong, unless it simply doesn’t replace service with the alternative, at which point it would be fairer to characterize the way you have.
By christine on Aug 26, 2007 | Reply
Local entities cannot count on getting any state or federal funding to pay for anything. Our Maternal & Infant Health Program was just cut, on the basis that the state & fed couldn’t figure out the funding.
I’ll tell you how this game works …
1) give state work to the locals & promise them money for it
2) in about a year, demand that the state budget be cut, taxes be cut, etc. (and threaten to recall people who want to provide the state with revenue)
3) Oops, we have to cut funds to the locals … sorry about that, but why should the state have to fund the county anyway?
We don’t have enough money now for our Sheriff & jail. So if the state wants to hand out money to our counties, that’s fine with me, because we need it to pay for what we are already doing. But I don’t think anyone is fooled by the idea that if we do more work, the state wil pay us. When the time comes, no conservative will be there to make sure we get funded.
On paper, Chet, maybe it isn’t cut. In reality, it is.
By Chetly Zarko on Aug 27, 2007 | Reply
If the legislation is written right (look at Prop 1 last year - I have no problem with such fiscal locks to prevent raiding), your slippery slope doesn’t occur. And by the way, the Dem. Governor is the one who wants to put the whack on real cuts to state police and wants to decriminalize everything so that the Counties are forced to pick up the tabs on prisons since they will get them on new, lower sentences that fall below the year threshold.
So get off this moral high horse. Your Governor wants to put the axe to services that are not part of her core constituency.
And I’d like an answer to my thoughts on education — you think more money there is going to fix the core problems of education? I’ll go with you in not cutting K-12 education and every penny we find I’ll agree to pump back into the classroom. So dollar to dollar in that scenario, every dollar the MEA rips off of schools through MESSA is STEALING FROM OUR CHILDREN. I’ll even reprioritize our money from higher education - which I think is either over-funded, or funded without accountability, and move those dollars either to K-12 or to a portable grant of $6200 for every student every year. But those things won’t happen when the “time comes”, because no liberal will betray their MEA PAC donations or President’s Council of Universities of Michigan allegiance (and I should be fair, there are even a few Republicans who won’t betray their MEA donations).
By christine on Aug 28, 2007 | Reply
Chet, if I say I am opposed to ‘A’, you telling me that a Democrat says ‘A’ is ok doesn’t change my mind. So this “Dems said this, Dems said that” does not impress me, nor does it change the fact that I am opposed to pushing more state services on to the county.
How did the subject of education get in here?
By Chetly Zarko on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
You brought up police in the post, and you brought up the idea that you’d “save our schools” by standing “up to the bully” Leon, which implies that more money to schools is necessary to “save them”, or that Leon plans to cut school funding, neither of which are evidenced in fact.
I understand that you aren’t bound by every Democratic action — but if the Governor, who advocates a tax increase, is the one wants to cut your state police services, and in fact already has, then why are you blaming Leon for that when in fact he has explained his proposed reform (which is one of dozens and there is no single magic bullet) that was isolated in the news article does not indeed cut ANY services.
While you may have a fair gripe with Leon in your argument against recalls for philosophical reasons (such as the use of recalls should be limited to extraordinary situations, which is mildly persuasive but not a legal limit on them, or that you believe a majority of people support tax increases to fund services), saying that his particular proposal dealing with road patrol reorganization would “cut services” when in fact the legislation has been proposed in a form that merely changes by consolidation the way they are operated is simply unfair.
I do like one irony though. You say you “can’t trust legislators” to make sure counties are funded properly after they are given state obligations. First, I agree (and that’s why we have Headlee and prohibitions on state unfunded mandates), but second, “I don’t trust legislators” to spend my money efficiently (or even for the services they promise to put them towards - look at how lottery was used to shell-game money away from education and that was a bi-partisan “tax on the poor” expanded mostly during the Blanchard administration) once they increase taxes, and particularly don’t trust them to when they say taxes are “temporary”. Taxes are rarely if ever repealed or reduced once in place.
By Chetly Zarko on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Christine,
Since I can’t ask you there, What’s your source for the inflation-adjusted “budget cuts” data in your latest post on BFM?
Chet
By Christine on Sep 7, 2007 | Reply
Chet, sorry to take so long to get back to you.
Are you talking about this post? If so, that came directly from MI Tax Truth, in the pdf at the top there.
I don’t think I am being any more unfair to Leon than he is being unfair by presenting new revenue as pork. Spending money is not the same thing as wasting it. The state needs revenues, and neither you nor I nor Leon can make the government more efficient simply by defunding it.
Also, to the point of “I don’t trust legislators” … that’s true, I don’t. I don’t trust any individual who has so many competing interests pulling him in different directions. But, I am more inclined to trust a progressive or a moderate, than a conservative, because I honestly trust their intentions more. (among people I don’t know personally) Second, if given the choice, I would rather waste my money on an inefficient program, than see services go unfunded.
Which is not to say that I support just throwing money around. I’ve voted against several millages locally, simply because they were irresponsible. On the other hand, I’ve voted to support SATA and district library every time. Is SATA efficient? The bus is usually empty when I see it. But I believe in that service, and I want it funded. I suppose SATA could be cheaper, but I don’t know that making it cheaper would make it better.
I think there could have more productive debate on reforms and spending cuts in our state government, if the legislature hadn’t waited until the 11th hour to push this through. Now we’re basically to the point where we have to draw our lines and hold our ground.
I would be more willing to listen to Leon if he wasn’t threatening recalls. I just have such a strong dislike for that kind of tactic. I still think we would be on opposite sides of the issue on state revenue. But if he was out there fighting for unicam, or a part time legislature, or a cut in the benefits & perks of our elected officials, I could get on board with that.
By Chetly Zarko on Sep 13, 2007 | Reply
I’ve looked at the data. Some of it is interesting, some of it clearly skewed, and with all of it nice to know how much money is behind the research (the org. is clearly designed for one political purpose). At some point I’ll try to squeeze out some time to analyze it (for example, if you use the state employee number test, then be consistent and yelp at U-M with the numbers I showed you about their employee growth over time — that becomes an obvious area of reform), but I don’t have much time.
As to recalls, do you think the pro-funding lobby-side plays fair? Do you think the MEA is polite when it asks for more money? Leon’s just up front and public in his arm-twisting rather than behind the scenes and slick, plus he’s using a wholly legal and Constitutional method.
Unicam is horrid idea — removes checks and balances (I’d rather simply cut the number of legislators by almost half - 60/30 ratio, which would also decrease gerrymandering by requiring the 30 senate D’s to be divided in half exactly and by having larger districts there would be fewer “safe seats” as a percentage of districts) — although I have no problem with the people fighting for unicam because I know what they want to accomplish and its a constitutional method of reform. PT-legislature might help but I don’t think its a highly-important thing since it won’t do that much to break up the system. I support Right to Work because I believe in fundamental choice - unions can still operate but they simply have to perform service to earn the choice - I suspect you’re not on board with the cause, but you shouldn’t oppose the “tactic”. I wonder whether it really is the cause that the motivates your opposition to the tactic, but if you’re being honest with yourself (I don’t think your intentionally doing anything here), or the tactic. Leon’s battle is different than mine because we’re pursuing different paths and methods to a similar goal - but don’t think his method is out-of-bounds or less valid than legally bribing (because that’s what it is) legislators with PAC money, and I’m not even really criticizing PAC money since people have a right to spend their money.
Since some my guys (Knollenberg) have been fighting to cut benefits and perks for elected officials and the Dems stopped it cold when it came to applying it to themselves, I guess we’re on board. Draft a letter to Dillon telling him his obstruction on that bill was wrong and you’d like to see him reintroduce it.
By Chetly Zarko on Sep 13, 2007 | Reply
You know, another thing strikes me, and it deals with consistency.
You criticize R’s for being unwilling to consider a tax increase before specific tax increase plans are put into play. Yet you and others criticize R’s for wanting to “cut to bone” without seeing what specific cuts are being proposed, or without criticizing the specific cuts themselves. The conversation should be what cuts are bad, and if we exhaust all the cut possibilities are bad, then we might consider a tax increase. But rather, the Governor has started from a premise that we should have a tax increase for the whole smash, plus spending increases to boot. Why should we trust that approach to produce ANY cuts. And if that is the Governor’s extreme starting point, why blame Leon for staking out the other extreme.
By Chetly Zarko on Sep 13, 2007 | Reply
Comment 13 wasn’t my best grammar of the day. Sorry.