Many have commented on and complimented OaklandPolitics.com, the new Oakland County political news source and community builder. The geographic niche there should be obvious.

Now, Zarko Research & Consulting announces "OutsideLansing.com," a statewide community designed to fit the "center-right" niche (coincidentally referred to by Newt Gingrich in his Saturday speech). OutsideLansing.com is not like the leading liberal blog/communities of the day - we neither arbitrarily censor and we encourage a broad-based community that isn't "automatically partisan," as Newt pointed out. This new community also isn't meant to compete with purely conservative forums like this very one at RightMichigan.com. It fills a niche somewhere in between that and the reasonable left and will hopefully be a place where some civil interplay among the often vitriolic competing sides. Hopefully, this can occur with some respect. It will also focus more on original journalism of a statewide nature, although commentary and editorializing is not discouraged. The name was meant to suggest that we should not, as many journalists have become, look on Lansing as insiders and that much of the political news of Michigan originates elsewhere anyway - hence OutsideLansing.com.

Check out our mission and editorial policy for more information. I'm looking for a few front-page authors, but I'd prefer at least an even mix of news writing to commentary if you're interested. Like OaklandPolitics, I'm also going to sponsor a small prize for the best investigative journalism on a statewide issue that is posted first to OutsideLansing.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Zarko Research was at Pontiac High School taping a political rally last night. We found this sign to be a particularly ironic thing to see at a school.

In addition to questions raised by a Pontiac city councilman about alleged "threats" made to stop Pontiac school from hosting a political event (the Councilman referred me to his wife, who refused to answer after a political operative told her who he thought I worked for, which ironically isn't true), the sign was about the most interesting thing we saw in a boring three hours. The meeting, advertised as a "Town Hall", was an orchestrated rally. No "Town Hall" style questions were asked, the audience was all partisan and given pre-fabricated "convention-style" signs saying "IMPEACH", and the 5 person panel a hand-picked, lopsided panel all advocating for an anti-war position. When I was asked by an activist/operative from the other side why certain Congressmen (Knollenberg or McCotter) "didn't show up," I clarified that I didn't know what the representatives' thoughts were but asked why Senator Levin didn't show up (answer: how interesting that Carl Levin, who voted to approve money for the war and is also up for re-election, wasn't "invited") and suggested that the event's rules and organization were so biased as to make such an idea ridiculous. This wasn't a "TownHall," as citizens of the 9th District (I am such a citizen) weren't welcome to ask questions and get response -- Bruce Fealk, its organizer, refused (again) to "give me a quote on [my] camera" when I started asking him questions -- I asked him how it was any different from him expecting answers to questions when he barrages into offices and camps out at private homes, but he just walked away. If Fealk really wanted to reach the public and persuade people from both sides of the aisle, he'd take all opportunities to answer questions (and to both Skinner and Peters' credit, they answered questions!).

Finally, I asked Nancy Skinner one question. Is she running. Her response is that she's not in or out and nothing is official yet. For those of you on the Republican-side "itching" for a Democratic primary, I've never been of the opinion that one side should care about whether the other has a primary or not. It's like sports playoffs - if you win too early sometimes the "rest" is good, sometimes the "rest" causes you to lose momentum (Tigers, 2006). Sometimes the "work" of playing into extra games both "steels" you (Piston', 2004) and sometimes it "drains" you (Pistons, in 2005). At best, Skinner adds unpredictability to the race and maybe slightly drains Peters (or even wins), at worst, she could help the Democrats. But it doesn't change the fact that there's a general election in November.

Gary Peters, who didn't give a speech like Skinner, was only available in the lobby afterwards. A Peters operative quickly pointed me out, suggesting I was there as an operative (which simply isn't true, although I have past ties with Knollenberg's son, I do not work for them currently, and am simply an interested 9th District citizen at this point, just as Nancy Skinner claimed of Bruce Fealk in her speech when she asserted that he wasn't paid for his activism). As he walked by, I asked Mr. Peters what his thoughts on the proposed racinos issue was, a reasonable question that I actually have an interest in hearing about from a perspective other than his race for Congress. His response as he walked by hurriedly was that due to Proposal 1 (2004), the people would have to vote on any such expansion and he left it at that.

The sign and councilman's comments prompted this letter and Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Pontiac's superintendent:

Dear Mr. Calvin C. Cupidore, Jr.:

I was at the Pontiac High School last night videotaping a political rally. I took the attached photo of a sign apparently directed toward students.

It is misspelled. It's amazing to me that hundreds of teachers would walk by this and not see to it that it was corrected. Not only does such a sign (errantly) teach students by example, it is embarrassing to find at a school district. I would hope you correct the situation forthwith.

As to the political rally, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, I request all records related to or that document any threats or communications with the district regarding the rally. A city council person claimed in a speech that threats had been made to stop the rally. Additionally, I request a copy of the contract between the rally organizers and district to lease the space, the school policy on leasing space for non-school purposes, and any check and invoice related to that contract. Finally, I request any e-mail or other communication which you or other administrators, or any member of the school board, received or sent on the topics of the rally, the war in Iraq, or any political candidate for office over the last two months.

Thank you for your time. Documents may be faxed to the number below, and email returned here.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Check this out. The State of Michigan Treasury bureau is repeating a fuzzy math trick in claiming that the state is a "loser" of revenues on the interstate Internet Tax compact "deal" where 22 states and retailers agreed to "voluntarily collect" taxes on internet transactions. The State never had the money to start with, and whatever it gets is money beyond what it would have received without the compact, but the Treasury representative says Michigan is "losing" $10 million a year. The trick is the same we see done by universities and Granholm in explaining tuition or seeking other taxes when they say we're "cutting" their budgets from "expectations". That is, we're actually not increasing their budgets as fast as they'd like and they call it a cut.

According Mark Hornbeck of the Detroit News Lansing Bureau, Dale Vettel, director of Treasury's tax policy bureau testified:

Michigan signed a pact with other states three years ago to recoup a chunk of the $264 million a year it loses in uncollected tax revenue on Internet and catalog sales to state residents from out-of-state companies.

But so far, this state is losing $7 million to $10 million annually on the deal.

Dale Vettel, director of the Treasury's bureau of tax policy, told lawmakers Thursday that Michigan is gaining $8 million to $11 million from about 1,000 retailers that are voluntarily collecting the sales tax in the 22 states that belong to the so-called Streamlined Sales Tax Project.

But, at the same time, Michigan is losing an estimated $18 million in revenue each year because, to make its tax laws uniform with the other states in the project, it had to stop taxing some items. The biggest losses came on formerly taxed prepared foods, such as party deli trays sold at grocery stores and baked goods sold for on-premises consumption at bakeries.

"So at this time, we're not breaking even," Vettel said to the Senate Finance Committee.

So much is said in that clip that it begs some analysis. First, Vettel's claim "we're not breaking even" contributes to the headline editorialization (the Detroit News missed the bias it relayed) that Michigan is "losing" on the deal. No, it's gaining every dollar that otherwise it would not have collected because no one was collecting those taxes prior to the voluntary arrangement. It's not "losing" 18M a year, its simply not gaining as much as the theoretical potential if the entire loophole were closed (and even then, I predict other loopholes would arise or become more used).

But more importantly, catch this point, "to make its tax laws uniform with the other states in the project, it had to stop taxing some items." Wow. That suggests that Michigan's sales tax is out-of-line with other states and not already competitive, meaning 1) we should reform the tax so that we're not losing other sales and business to out-of-state flight 2) the Governor's now-hopefully-dead 2% "service tax" is even more out-of-line in the context of the current sales tax not being "uniform" with other states. Unless you had radically different compositions of overall business and income tax burdens (like none, in the FairTax type of proposals), it makes no sense to have a sales tax that is different from other states. Any attempt to overtax simply causes you to lose business, kill jobs, and ultimately reduce your revenue in the long-run as the tax causes capital flight. This quote is proof we need tax reform (even if allegedly "revenue neutral") to bring out taxable terms in line with other states (although to be "in-line" would require reductions according to this point) That also means spending control and reform.

Unfortunately, Hornbeck identifies the Governor's response and even one of our own Oakland County Republican State Senators.

Skimpy collection of Michigan's 6 percent sales tax on out-of-state purchases has become a sore point in recent years, particularly in a state with declining revenues and a $1.8 billion deficit projected by the state budget office for the coming year. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed various tax hikes to help close the yawning gap.

"Prior to looking at the opportunity to increase taxes, we need to look at legitimate taxes that are not currently collected," said Senate Finance Committee Chair Nancy Cassis, R-Novi.

The Governor's DNA says tax increase. No surprise. But what's Cassis talking about. I sympathize with collecting what is due, but exactly how does Cassis propose to get this trivial amount of uncollected amount?

"If Grandma buys a sweater through a catalog, it's very difficult to balance the tax revenue benefit with the cost of collection," Vettel said.

It's not worth it. Go after the low hanging fruits - hundreds of millions in expenditures in health insurance reform, prison service outsourcing, and reduced spending.

Finally, and very telling:

Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the sales and use tax laws were too many and varied to foist upon interstate commerce, some states started banding together in 2000 to make laws uniform and therefore make it easier for businesses across the country to collect sales tax and send the receipts to state treasuries. The Michigan Legislature voted in 2004 to conform its sales and use tax laws to those in other states. Absent a federal law the states must rely on businesses to voluntarily collect the taxes.

"I don't understand voluntary compliance. Why not a federal mandate? All states must be having the same problem," said Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods.

It'd naturally be a Democrat that doesn't "understand voluntary compliance" and would ask for a "federal mandate." America is built on voluntary compliance - even if you have federal mandates, compliance with those mandates (as opposed to individuals holding yet another Boston Tea Party and not complying) is still ultimately voluntary. Sure, there is a logic to uniformity, and the ridiculous complexity and out-of-line nature of Michigan's pre-2004 tax proves the complexity of the system - but the Court ruling obviously had the reformative effect of creating some state cooperation where state's opted to do so (but they weren't required). And that's better than the federal government picking its own one-size fits all version and ramming it down Michigan's and everyone's throats. Why not a federal mandate, Gilda? Because there's a certain genius in no mandates. Because the Court isn't a legislature, and it wisely only set broad guidelines here.

In this investigative piece, the Flint Journal takes to task a group of school board candidates in the upcoming May 8, 2007 elections for having missed personal opportunities to vote in the past. By simply checking the qualified voter file maintained by the state, or a city or county clerk's files for local elections, one can come up with this fairly rapidly. Here's the upshot:

They're asking for your vote May 8, but five of 21 candidates for the Board of Education haven't voted in the past five Flint school elections, and five others have cast ballots in only one of them, according to city of Flint records.

None of the candidates voted in all five of the elections; five of them voted in four.

Some candidates with spotty records downplayed their significance; others said voters should take note.

"It's hypocritical to ask someone to vote for you when you don't participate in the democratic process," said candidate A.C. Dumas, among those who voted in four of the five elections.

ZR has a bit of a different take. While there is validity to the criticism that a candidate didn't previously vote, I'll bet many of you didn't even know there were school board elections on May 8, or if you knew, the elections may have been uncontested and it wouldn't be productive to spend your time casting a ballot in a non-competitive election. We suspect the lower voter turnout even among people now running for school board is that they didn't know about - or races weren't competitive enough - for them to vote in previous elections. That's a problem.

These elections are so-called "stealth elections," designed to have maximally low voter turnouts so schools or municipalities can more easily pass their millages and bonds by turning out teacher's unions members. A local election typically costs $10-50K to administer, so multiplied across the state, this would be a superb low-hanging fruit (low hanging in how it would impact government) to work on for consolidation. In 2004, Republicans lead by state Sen. Ruth Johhson thought they had a solution when they limited elections to 4 dates and encouraged localities to move elections to match larger even-year primaries or generals, but only two districts in Oakland County opted for the change. The law did have an effect on ensuring that all spring elections occur on one date (previously not the case), but the real savings haven't been realized. Politically though, this is a high-hanging fruit because unions, municipalities, and school administrators all agree on stealth elections because it increases their power in the lower turnout elections. It's corruption at its best. They have proffered two fake arguments to suggest that we need these unknown, low-turnout elections.

First, is that school board members "need the time to learn the complexity of the school board operations" and electing them in May is the only way to ensure that they come into office in June or July and have a couple months on a board before the school season starts during summer break. The variations on this are that this would "break existing law," (change it, although existing law allows Nov. elections, so school boards can choose it now) require charters to be amended (so what - do it - save the money), or allow current members to serve longer than they were elected for (shorten current terms by 7 months rather than lengthening them by 5). This is so easily solved and even flipped on its head that its laughable - ZR believes it is the first to recommend that schools vote in November for trustee positions and have an extended "Trustee-Elect" term where the members are required to actually sit in the 7 following meetings until June, when they take office. They would actually have more experience under this system. The second type of argument is that schools may need elections for bonds and millages or for unforeseen circumstances. Again, easily solved - aside from the fact that school boards are supposed to plan well-ahead for such things. ZR proposes that all school (and municipalities) elections be held in November of odd years OR August or November of even years, AND schools be given an option to hold their own special elections for millages once per year by special vote anytime they want leasing equipment from their counties (which often resides on school property anyway as they manage local precincts). The real truth of why this hasn't happened yet is that low-turnout elections are more easily controlled by a mobilized force with a vested interest in your tax money. In the meantime, ZR proposes to close the budget delay in school aid payments and make it uniform with the rest of the budget so that schools don't have to take out short-term (weeks sometimes) loans to cover gaps caused by state delays, which itself would save the state money in the long-run. If that happened, schools might actually warm up slightly to such a deal.

We need further consolidation. This legislation could easily be passed - and the time is ripe with the current budget crisis.

The Michigan High School Atlethic Assocation (MHSAA) request for review of a Title IX case on the length and timing of its girls sports seasons has been denied, effectively ensuring that the the Court of Appeals ruling requiring changed seasons to match other states "traditional" times continue in effect.

The case was a highly technical one, and it would have been a surprise for the Supreme Court to grant cert here, but as both a Michigan matter and gender rights question with S.C. potential, ZR had been tracking this one. The outcome is probably the right one (there was something unfair and off-balance about the sports seasons), but the courts' expansive interpretations of Title IX to every gender situation could be dangerous.

It was formed today - we don't even know the names of the filers, but this committee is one to watch, especially if you're an Oakland County client.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce formed a second committee, called dryly "Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC II", but it is not a PAC, it's a ballot question committee. Most likely, this has something to do with term limits. And there's a new PAC called Progessive Choices, out of Evanston, Illinois (ooo, evil out-of-state money from the left!).

Dave Gersham reports in the Friday Ann Arbor News of the lawsuit filed by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) in Washtenaw County Circuit Court to enjoin the University of Michigan (U-M) to comply with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2.

It's pretty basic stuff. CIR's argument is that U-M's decision to delay all admissions puts its client, Eric Russell, the same client that won the federal appeal last week, at risk and that Michigan has been deceptive and delaying in its tactics. They are no doubt right on both counts. It's also good that CIR has started the state court process, taking initiative now rather than solely playing defense or waiting for events to unfold. Of course, the movement is in a much better position to take that initiative after the federal court ordered that a state court must make some kind of ruling first.

It's nice to see CIR charge forward again. It is however a bit surprising that they chose Washtenaw County for venue, since Russell lives here in Oakland County and the judges here would appear to be more favorable. Jurisdiction would seem appropriate in any county, and I believe venue rules would allow venue in the county of either the plaintiff's or defendant's principle location or residence. Of course, CIR may wish to avoid the inevitable stalling move for change of venue that would result and may desire a winning fight closer to the lion's den, so to speak. However, my general experience with Washtenaw County judges is that, since they are elected in a county dominated by the economic engine that is U-M, they are recitent to rule against them. Sure, there are honest judges in the county, but even subconscious bias would be understandable. Then again, since it is likely to require an appellate court, it may all only be prologue. Some prolouge is important, some is not.

I just noticed recently that both my current political client and past client MCRI won with exactly the same 58-42 margin. Now with MCRI that was somewhat of a surprise (I was predicting between 53-55% for MCRI), and less of a surprise for State Representative-Elect Marty Knollenberg of Troy and Clawson (the 2004 Republican candidate pulled slightly less overall), but it is an interesting coincidence, especially given the highly anti-Republican tidal wave that impacted every single other Republican in what used to be considered a "safe" area (a County Commissioner was lost here to a hard-working Democratic candidate who flew under the radar of his opponent, and everyone else performed in the low-mid 50s). Other districts with that makeup were actually lost by Republicans. Despite this, the election was a disappointment since Knollenberg will be entering a Republican-minority state House.

There are many lessons to be learned from this election cycle. One of many is that no seat is ever safe. Let's learn the lessons and rebuild with stronger, fresh ideas. Hopefully, this blog will contribute some of them.

Pictured above and at right are examples of an illegal Granholm - Cherry sign. The red and yellow lettered sign, which says "Union Laborers" at the bottom, is quite different from the normal signs put out by the central committee for the Granholm campaign. But the sign fails to comply with the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA)(see the close-up only of the Granholm sign, the Levin sign in the distance shot complies with a fine print that can't be seen in the distance photo).

The Act requires that all printed material, with a few exceptions due to size or shape (balloons, pins smaller than a certain size, etc.) have a "Paid for by [identity, address]" statement somewhere on the printed material. Yard signs are explicitly included in the Secretary of State's guidebooks as requiring identification.

Of course, the Governor's campaign is not the likely source of the signs - but unions are typically fully aware of campaign regulations, and whomever is sponsoring this sign has simply failed negligently (if this is a mistake, I urge the sponsor to correct it honestly by appending some form of identification on their signs) or refused to comply with the law.

ZR reports the error as a matter of interest, and in hopes that the error will be corrected. We will attempt to identify the source of the signs, as well.

The Ann Arbor News' Dave Gershman reports some predictable details on the Zatkoff beating story, covered below in the two immediately preceding articles. Apparently, police have investigated, identified a suspect and the suspect knew Zatkoff previously from school. Gersham's description isn't fully supported by the quotes ("police said Zatkoff picked a fight" but he doesn't articulate what the editorial conclusion of "picked a fight" means, which could certainly fall within Zatkoff's constitutional speech rights), but there is no question the gist of it indicates that the likelihoodAnn Arbor police said Friday there's no truth to the rumors. Here's a key clip, but the rest of the story is chock full of reporting, most of it good (aside from the nitpicking about editorialization cited above):

While at a party that began last Saturday night, police said Zatkoff picked a fight with some of his friends, and got punched in the eye. Police interviewed Zatkoff at a hospital the next day and he didn't recall what happened.

People who were at the party told police Zatkoff had too much to drink, said Ann Arbor police Lt. Mike Logghe.

"We interviewed the guy who punched him,'' said Logghe. "He admitted to punching him. He said he was a friend of his from high school.''

So far, no charges have been filed in the case, Logghe said.

ZR is curious to know that that the guy hasn't been arrested yet, and even more curious to know what Zatkoff said that so offended him to cause the punching. While a first glance may suggest there is no political-speech-violence link here, we're keeping our eyes open for some additional news.

Pictured at left (source: Truthcaucus.com is an image of Justin Zatkoff, a College Republican from Oakland University, who was attacked in Ann Arbor recently. There has been speculation that the attack was politically motivated. ZR has reported on Zatkoff's conservative activism before. He is currently a director in the Michigan College Republicans, and previously published anti-abortion video to the internet creating controversy at Oakland University. He is also a vocal supporter of the Michgigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), and some believe there might be a relationship. ZR will provide an update.

UPDATE 1: This Zarko Research original story from February 25, 2006, about Zatkoff's Oakland University political activities, was hit an astounding 2547 times today by Fark.com referrers, and the number of google blog searches keywording Justin Zatkoff to that link is not measurable at this point. The Fark.com "comments" section and some other boards picking this up have a large number of so-called "liberal" fans of Zatkoff actually applauding this action.

Additionally, we have an email out to Zatkoff requesting comment.

As a reiteration of policy, Zarko Research makes no editorial comment as to the accuracy of outside sources referred to here, or the accuracy of the rumors as to the motive of this alleged beating. The story however has generated tremendous interest both in this blog (as one of the few sources of reporting on Zatkoff's past) and apparently on the blog circuit, and we'll pursue it here.

Here's a link from the "Rogan Board" quoting ZR. The quoter's editorial about the situation reflects the same lack of respect for the situation.

UPDATE 2:

The infamous liberal DailyKos.com site is now linking (here) to ZR's February 26, 2006 story on Zatkoff. The Kos persepctive is more civil although it does make some fun of the fark.com photos and the situation general, and several Kos readers show unusual vitriol against Zatkoff.

The reason for ZR's long hiatus of less posting is that we were working on the Marty Knollenberg for State Rep. campaign, which concluded last night with a 53.5 - 46.5 victory. The race was labelled by MIRS as the 4th most interesting race in the state.

I would like to thank our opponent, Mike Bosnic, for providing spirited competition, and I wish him well in the future (I would also like to work with him on some policy ideas for the Clawson School Board, of which he is a Trustee).

I anticipate resuming some more normal posting, but will not be on as heavy of a schedule as before. The issue focus is still the same though!

The Daily Tribune is a local Oakland County newspaper covering cities such as Royal Oak, Troy, Clawson, and similar communities in southeast Oakland County. Linked here, they quote ZR in response to a local taxpayer's group meeting that is opposing a road bond millage in the City of Clawson, my hometown.

The group, ClawsonTaxpayer.com, is run by Paul Garfield, another Clawson resident who has organized on such issues for many years. Garfield, who is against any new increases, has stated that he is against income taxes, but that the City has completely refused to consider any alternative. While Garfield is not advocating the an alternative tax, he has suggested it would be the lesser of two evils to finance road repair when compared to higher property taxes - if the income taxes were rebated to city residents and seniors. That twist to the hypothetical alternative is to pay for road millages not by property tax millage bond increases, but rather by having Clawson implement a city income tax, and rebating Clawson residents who own property for the amount they pay in income taxes. The City argues that this would be illegal under Michigan law, creating a tax inequity, hence, the City has for years rebuffed Garfield's proposal for an alternative tax financing strategy for road repairs. Nonetheless, up for election a week from Tuesday, is a City Bond issue that would raise property tax mills roughly 3.5 mills to finance road construction, with no alternatives such as the hypothethical thrown out by Garfield. ClawsonTaxpayer has also properly pointed out the millage proposal language is vague, and would allow the City to use the taxes for other non-road purposes, in addition to not being needed until 2009 when the first construction was needed.

The City is right about the income tax idea, although it's not clear whether its legal or not, its a bad alternative because it creates a new tax without guaranteeing an elimination of another tax. When governments have multiple sources of revenue, each source incrementally inches back up over time. Garfield is right though that the ballot language is unclear, and the Clawson Mayor, Lisa Dwyer (a lawyer connected to Geoffrey Fieger and the ACLU), has admitted that the City intends to use the pot of money for some non-road Downtown Development Authority uses that are not in the proposal. That's the central message that should be the focus of opposition to this tax increase. The proposition should be resisted because it doesn't clearly earmark each dollar, and will give the city spending authority. When we give governments large pots of money, they spend them, much of the time without accountability.

Here's what the reporter, Elizabeth Katz, reported of my concerns in today's issue:

Resident Chetly Zarko said he's all for lower taxes but was uneasy about an income tax. "Being a new resident to Clawson and talking about putting in place a city income tax, I would move out of Clawson," he said to Garfield. "I know you say you're not advocating that, but a lot of the presentation was about that. To replace one tax with another tax, what usually happens is you get two taxes that are twice as much and they never go away."

UPDATE: 4:03pm 4/29/2006 and 12:42pm 4/30/2006: A slight factual clarification was made to second paragraph of this blog entry when a reader suggested it could be slightly clearer. Although not inaccurate originally, I believe is now more in line with my actual quote in the last the paragraph, and I always strive for more clarification when appropriate.

Here's my simple proposal to the Michigan House of Representatives, now that the Senate has made a move to raise the minimum wage in response to recent polls that show that even 60% of Republicans support the idea, and to take away the motivation for the signature gathering of the ballot initiative.

COMBINE the Repeal SBT legislation also pending before the House for a separate vote into one package with the Minimum Wage hike and put that package in front of the Governor. It would provide a nice counter-balance to some of the pain the minimum wage hike will put on small business, and if the Governor refuses hammer her for veto both bills. I'm afraid that simply "caving" in to the Democrats on the minimum wage (which I have mixed feelings about) without standing up for some principle in return will encourage them to try to take more (Mark Brewer is already suggesting that they may go ahead with the ballot proposal because it contains permanent indexing provisions), and if you're going to increase the minimum wage, something needs to be done to offset the damage to our already poor business climate. The SBT repeals is the right place to start.

The L. Brooks Patterson inspired petition drive to qualify a proposal to repeal the Single Business Tax appears to be headed to the streets for petition-gathering. The initiative announced that it had raised most of its pledges and the balance in loan guarantees, and will start petition-gathering today. The link above is the official SBT site.