Over at the fabulous "Empirical Legal Standards" blog, a new program unveiled by the University of Michigan Law School called "Wolverine Scholars" is criticized as a move away from standards and a "rankings grab" designed solely to artficially bump U-M's average Law student GPA so as to also bring U-M up in national prestige rankings (which include GPA as a criteria).

One of ELS's comments points out the "elephant in the room," that the program, which would allow only U-M undergrads with a GPA greater than 3.80 who have not yet taken an LSAT to apply to Law School under "holistic review", would give U-M a perfect opportunity to bypass Proposal 2 (since it can't ask other undergrad schools for racial IDs, and since a student on U-M's own campus will have a reputation including racial identity that can be easily ascertained by fellow U-M Law School admissions officers with a few phone calls) because it further clouds the process and eliminates a standard of measurement (the LSAT test, meaning that future racial compositions couldn't be easily challenged because some of students wouldn't have comparative LSAT data EVEN AVAILABLE for review). The nice think about ELS's though, in a way, is that it ignores the race preference issue and is critical of U-M solely because the new system is standardless and will create other unintended consequences.

Read the whole analysis, and you'll get the gist of what's going on. We're following the story deeper as well, so stay tuned.

Where Ward Connerly's civil rights initiatives have qualified (Nebraska, NCRI, and Colorado, CoCRI), he is facing the sharpest personal attacks yet to be aired on TV against him. The ads get nasty, with stretched claims about how he's made money (so what) working for his causes. Linked is the YouTube video by user "BigMoneyConnerly".

What's interesting is that the ads were put out by the so-called Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), according to this The Daily Voice story. We recently discovered that the BISC Foundation (the 501c3 tax-deductible arm, as opposed to the 501c4 BISC which is non-tax-deductible) gave money directly to the failed Health Care for Michigan ballot drive.

The irony of BISC's attack on Connerly's funding is that one could equally criticize it for its funding sources. Funding simply has nothing to do with the issue Ward raises - is it right, or wrong, to give preference based on race or gender? In each case, only the voters of the state ultimately decide - if their government doesn't short-circuit the process before they can.

Been reading the Judge Lawson 55 page tome on why BAMN's (and a novel new ACLU generated argument) convoluted, but I guess creative in its own perverse sense, arguments on why MCRI should be unconstitutional.

What's interesting is this new argument by the ACLU - that amending the Constitution is too hard and that MCRI, by amending the Constitution, has "changed the political structure" in a somehow unfair sort of way such that groups can no longer (as easily) lobby their universities for policy change. By changing the political structure, MCRI has violated equal protection.

These (ed: the "Cantrell"/ACLU) plaintiffs support their claim that obtaining a voter-approved constitutional amendment is more difficult than successfully petitioning individual university governing bodies to alter admissions policies by alleging, inter alia, the fact that access to the state ballot requires gathering signatures totaling “‘not less than eight percent . . . of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election.’” Id. at ¶ 53 (quoting Mich. Const. art. 2, § 9).

Of course, it is true, in an off-hand way, that petitioning individual university governing bodies is "easier" when you happen to control all the lobbying buttons in that arena (from professors to university administrators). The question is - does the ACLU, rife with resources, have equal access to the ballot system? Of course it does. But when you play on an unequal playing field for years, and control all the decision marbles at universities - save one, the voter who ultimately owns the universites - you might suddenly come to think that the world got awfully uneven.

But here's what I take from this perverse ACLU argument, by its own admission - what we accomplished at MCRI was awfully hard. Really, really hard. Of course, that's beside the point, and Judge Lawson thankfully saw through this - everyone has the same obstacles to face in amending the Constitution.

But here's another upshot - a contradiction. It was often argued, and indeed cited as a justification for legislation to make signature gathering even more difficult or impossible (through "buttons" identifying paid status, prohibitions on payment by signature, etc.) -- it has been repeatedly said that "signature gathering is too easy" and rules should be put in place to slow it. Well, from none other than the liberal "Ballot Initiative Strategy Center," a Soros operation that supports liberal ballot drives and helps (try to) utterly crush conservative or libertarian drives, Kristina Wilfore, says that the Michigan process is tough. Really tough.

There is also some ambiguity concerning just how onerous it would be to secure an amendment repealing Proposal 2. Kristina Wilfore, executive director of Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Inc., a non-profit organization that researches and trains people in the ballot initiative process, has submitted a declaration on behalf of the Cantrell plaintiffs positing that state-wide ballot initiatives are typically expensive and time-consuming and often unsuccessful. She has also suggested that repealing Proposal 2 would be particularly difficult due to unique features in Michigan’s ballot initiative process and specific factors inherent in the subject matter of affirmative action. According to Wilfore, Michigan poses obstacles because (1) it is a “politically competitive state . . . with a large number of initiatives vying for voters’ attention on any given ballot”; (2) its media market is expensive when compared with other states; (3) the state constitution requires filing of petitions.” Cantrell Mot. for Summ. J, Ex. C, Wilfore Decl. at ¶¶ 29-32. In addition, she says that Proposal 2 would be particularly challenging to repeal due to the fact that (1) polling data regarding affirmative action is unreliable, i.e., individuals often behave differently when they get to the voting booth; (2) affirmative action is a tough cause to market because it is complex and elicits emotional responses; and (3) “[t]here is no single obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy.” Id. at ¶¶ 36-37.

Other than blatant and bold lied (no "obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy") at the end, Wilfore makes amending the Michigan Constitution sound sufficiently difficult. Add that to a list of contradictions MCRI opponents have uttered.

And while I'd admit the process is difficult, it is no more or less difficult than anything else in politics. In fact, in the case of this issue, the pro-Proposal 2 side faced a far more difficult signature-gathering task than a pro-repeal Proposal 2 petition-drive would ever face, at least on the signature end. That one side or the other might face a harder time with the voter is a political question - not judicial one.

... and an Arizona CRI update.

Three must reads from our sister-site, OutsideLansing.com, all dealing with campaign finance research we've done, and on statewide stories. 

First, a story of shady self-dealing from the newest, revived pro-stem cell ballot committee. $10K goes into the pocket of the same non-profit executive director, while $7500 goes to the non-profit.  $2500 was spent on the aborted 2004 ballot operations, out of $20,000 raised.  Not a good deal for donors.

Second, the analysis of a new Jon Stryker Michigan PAC, Communities Voting Together, and some odd accounting.

Third, the campaign finance complaint this author filed today against the Stryker committee.

And here's some interesting updates on other issues.

Same old tactics in Arizona against the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI). For example, its "divisive" (all political questions are) and programs for women's violence might be stopped (not so at all since its "public education, contracting, and employment" only, and educational programs against violence should be broad-based anyway, and physical protection programs even without the categorical protection would be protected under the "bona fide" sex-based differences clause):

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said she feared the initiative would wipe out the Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women and the Women in Applied Science and Education program at Arizona State University aimed at helping women in the College of Education.

But Max McPhail, director of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, said the University of Michigan still has programs aimed largely at helping women in science and engineering despite voter approval last year of a ban on discrimination in education “But they don’t discriminate against men,’’ McPhail said. “So if men want to come to the program, they’re allowed.’’

McPhail's response is correct, and he probably also hit the violence argument hard too but it didn't get put in the paper. There are just too many of these bogus arguments out there.

As most people now know, Michigan government shut-down last night for a few hours while most of us slept. It came back online at 430am with a bunch of new taxes, mostly increases in income tax and a few services added to the sales tax mix (23 services, to be exact).

While the Governor has seemingly won this victory, there are some possible responses. All involve the people and petition-process. While a referendum on budget matters can't directly be called by petition because it is constitutionally excluded from the process, an amendment proposing tax reform, like a FairTax, would be the best use of scarce signature-gathering resources and money to obtain them. Another option would be enhanced Constitutional protections against future tax increases.

And in the meantime, the establishment on both sides appear to be trying to blame this shutdown crisis on term-limits, rather than accept the responsibility individually. According to their logic, if legislators had "better relationships" with each other, this wouldn't have happened. Think about that for a minute - they are right. It wouldn't have - taxes would have been increased much faster and earlier, with less thought and less fighting for the people to ensure additional spending reforms in the process. That's perhaps the most damning argument against term-limits - I don't know if I want my legislators to have "better relationships" and be more cozy with others including lobbyist (I heard one commentator suggest that term-limits lengthening would hurt special interests, but for some reason all the lobbyists support the lengthening -- I can't imagine why they would if it hurt them). If term-limits increase coziness and cause tax-increase compromises, is that what tax-control activists want?

Bill Nowling at Lunchbucket Conservative has been pointing out the ties between Norman Hsu and Michigan's Democratic leaders Debbie Stabenow and Jennifer Granholm.

Democrats have taken a liking to continually beating on the Jack Abramoff scandal that is now a year in the past to point to Republican corruption. But here we have it in spades on the other side, straight from a Ponzi-scheme artist, Norman Hsu. First, Hsu is a bad guy, as the New York Times points out:

According to court records from the case, Mr. Hsu ran a Ponzi scheme that took in cash from dozens of investors and returned profits to some of them before shutting down with more than $1 million missing.

Now Hsu is accused of a political-Ponzi whereby he would act as conduit to evade campaign finance limits.

With RightMichigan also noting the additional money going to Michigan Committees. Stabenow has returned $4200 of the donations to a charity, but apparently hasn't donated remaining $27,000. The Michigan Democratic State Committee apparently accepted $35,000, and Granholm's gubernatorial committee over $13,000.

Obviously, candidates receiving such money aren't necessarily aware of crimes before they become known (bad that our system is such, but reality). But it would be hypocritical to continue railing on 10th degree of separation links to Jack Abramoff, as well.

And its also time to give it all back, ladies, and Mark Brewer.

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

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

In what will likely be the hottest Congressional campaign in Michigan, Bruce Fealk has declared himself essentially to be a shill for Gary Peters against Joe Knollenberg in the 9th District. He doesn't want any Democratic challengers to mess things up, according to this statement on a statewide political blog:

The jury is pretty much in
The Michigan Democratic Party has thrown its weight behind Gary Peters. Gary has garnered significant union support, crucial to any Democratic candidate and is busily fundraising. Gary's resume' is very strong, even earning the Sierra Club's Enviromentalist of the Year.

Other candidates should see the writing on the wall and throw their support to Gary Peters.

I say, let's all play nice and throw our support to Gary Peters. How about it Nancy and Rhonda?
by: bfealk @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:38:51 AM CDT

Fealk is hardly one to suggest people "play nice", being known for his outrageous personal religious attacks on Congressman Knollenberg and his odd behavior while tracking people down at their homes.

The following letter to the editor by ZR appeared in Friday's Oakland Press. It's not online, so I republish it here:

MoveOn.org’s criticism of congressman too extreme I’m pleased to see criticism of the ridiculous personal and vindictive efforts of Bruce Fealk and his MoveOn.org-fi nanced Web site (these sites appear to follow a “formula” across the country).

While I respect citizens and bloggers who do original research and often post cutting and incisive commentary, Fealk’s Web site is a train wreck of unsubstantiated charges and occasionally outright fabrication.

There is also a difference between “negative” and “dirty.” While it is appropriate to honestly and respectfully point out factual issues that one would disagree with, dirty campaigning involves fabrication, trickery, distortion and disrespect.

While those are in the purview of Fealk’s First Amendment rights, it is within our purview to appropriately condemn them. While I’ve occasionally criticized Fealk on his Web site — his ability to listen or read is outpaced radically by his constant drone. He’s been trained to stay on his negative message.

I have found that I have never agreed with a candidate I support on every issue. While Congressman Joe Knollenberg’s constituents may disagree with him on one or two issues, they know he has their overall interests at heart and has represented them well over the years.

It seems that Fealk and MoveOn are willing to disagree with Knollenberg on every issue, even if it means jumping off a cliff of rationality.

Chetly Zarko
Clawson

It seems Bruce Fealk decided he'd criticize Knollenberg's religion, and suggest that he be "good Catholic boy" and "atone for his sins" on the Iraq war. Is Fealk part of the "radical religious left?"

In the meantime, I encourage all of my local readers to use the power of the letter to the editor. The left is using the medium as loudly as it can - its our duty to make it known to editors there's more to the stories the left is trying to drumbeat.

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.

The Michigan State University tuition is rising 9.6%. It's president, Lou Anna K. Simon, is making excuses at this very moment on WJR 760 AM radio's Paul W. Smith show. The question is why?

For several months, Zarko Research has possessed the complete salary database of MSU (and the University of Michigan), for several years. Enough data that, unlike the Lansing State Journal's publication of one year's worth of state employee data, can be analyzed for trend and aggregate information.

The biggest reason for these tuition increases is that outrageously paid administrators can't help but continuing to both increase their own pay and their own number of employees. For example, U-Michigan has roughly 38,000 employees, up 5% from last year, with nearly all of the top 1000 employees in 6 figure incomes. President Mary Sue Coleman makes more than the President of the United States or Governor of Michigan, by over 50% in the former case, at an outlandish and ever increasing $600,000 annually. The argument is made that U-M needs to pay these rates to "remain competitive" - yet Ms. Coleman is the highest paid public university president in the nation. A slow reigning in of the salary - even if we weren't number one in the category - would hardly destroy the university. Indeed, we may be "competitive" in elite liberal circles of thought, and professors might love us mightily for what we do to their pocketbooks, but "competitiveness" is also measured by price and value. As a former U-M alum, I love the school, but the price-value delivered to students isn't "competitive" from an outsiders' perspective.

At 38,000 employees, U-M is both approaching a 1-to-1 ratio of employees to students and is nearly as bloated as the State of Michigan, which employs 55,000 persons (on a much larger budget with larger mission). And that's not saying there isn't room for efficiency in the state - its saying U-M is a bureaucratic beast - not a lean wolverine.

The story at MSU isn't quite as bad in raw appetite but the outline is similar.

ZR will be publishing these lists - at least their top 1000s, along with contextual analysis and statistics.

Smith Interviews Cox on Libby
In other radio interview news, Attorney General Mike Cox is criticizing the George Bush pardon of Scooter Libby. Smith's logical question to the AG is whether he was taking the position to buttress his potential 2010 run for Governor. I'd suggest it reinforces recent on-the-street speculation that Cox might run against Carl Levin for US Senate - a move that would be endorsed by ZR. The Libby question is more focused on foreign policy and judiciary questions that such a race would entail, and Cox's maneuver makes sense. With even left wing blogs reporting on Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski's recent fundraising letter to challenge Levin a second time, the time is now to think about who will challenge Levin. And Rocky - although a nice guy - shouldn't be the person. There would be little downside in having Cox run in 08 for the seat - and while even a Cox win is remote, he's a serious contender - serious enough to require some thought and resource from Levin, whereas Rocky isn't.

State Representative Marty Knollenberg (R, Troy, Clawson) writes yesterday in the Detroit News this fabulous op-ed. As a matter of full-disclosure, I believe it important to let readers know that Marty is a former client of mine from the 2006 election-cycle, when he was first elected. Rarely do I blog on former individual clients, but this piece is worth highlighting because the overall vision is one of both sharpness in reform and savings and it reflects a tone that should be something that could receive bi-partisan support. I won't say "moderate" tone because I don't believe the reform is moderate - it cuts to the core of failures in our benefits systems - but it is one that objectively answers the **realistic** (sure, the left will throw up insincere and non-realistic obstacles) concerns of current government employees and it thinks in the long-term, rare for legislators today.

This is a solution everyone should get behind, including current employees, and Marty has the courage to apply to himself what he applies to state employees. I include the whole piece because legislators work and write for the people:

Friday, June 29, 2007
Get more money in classroom by reforming health benefits

Michigan ranks 48th in the nation in the amount of school operation dollars actually getting into the classroom. With an average of more than 17 percent of each school district's payroll being spent on retirement, Michigan needs to overhaul the system with the state's best interest in mind.

Under the current retirement system, the state could pay 100 percent of retiree health-care premiums after as few as five years of employment. Imagine a part-time employee drawing lifetime health care coverage after five years on the job.

Our education system is broken. We fight to get enough funding into classrooms while our schools face skyrocketing health care and retirement costs. It is clear, and has been for some time, that we can no longer wait to fix this structural problem. We must take action on necessary reforms now.

Unfortunately, in a recent House Education Committee hearing on reforming school employee retirement health care, some of my colleagues actually argued that if we passed much-needed reforms on retiree health care, we would no longer have anyone willing to work in public schools. I almost fell out of my chair.

While House Democrats were busy talking, the Republican-led Senate approved a legislative package sponsored by Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, that phases in eligibility for retiree health care, closes some of the more egregious loopholes and caps the state's cost at 90 percent of retiree health-care premiums. House Education Chairman Tim Melton, D-Pontiac, introduced this package in the House.

Under the Senate plan and similar House proposals, if you became fully vested after only working 10 years, you would get 30 percent of your health care cost paid for by the state. If you worked 30 years, you could qualify for 90 percent of the premium paid for by the state.

It is time to change retiree health-care benefits for school employees. The common sense reforms reward employees for service much like what the private sector has done.

This is a move state employees made long ago, and one that would save millions of dollars each year. The nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency reported that nearly $300 million would have been saved in 2006 alone if this legislation had been enacted 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, savings wouldn't occur immediately in this legislation because it would affect only new employees hired after the legislation takes effect. It would not affect any current teachers, custodians, food service personnel or bus drivers. This type of long-term thinking will help eliminate future budget crises rather than accounting gimmicks and quick fixes.

The intent of this plan is not to single out school employees. I have introduced similar legislation to reform another lucrative retirement system -- lifetime benefits for lawmakers.

It is simply absurd for the taxpayers to fund lifetime benefits for myself and my colleagues after six short years in the Legislature, the same way it is absurd for the taxpayers to pay for lifetime benefits for school bus drivers after only five years of work. I hope my House colleagues agree with me and support this legislation.

State Rep. Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy, sits on the Michigan House Education Committee.

Linked is the Flickr upload location for ZR's coverage Wednesday's anti-tax hike rally in Lansing (by the way, our Flickr location contains an interesting mix of ZR professional photography and event coverage, so stay tuned to it).

Linked here is ZR's YouTube location, including this particularly priceless clip of Lieutenant Governor John Cherry (Democrat), receiving a symbolic teabag from Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis. While others have covered this particular action, ZR includes a longer-clip of the context, which is interesting because Cherry gives a "non-answer" to reporters on the issue of whether the protestors were right or wrong (he starts the non-answer by saying protest is an American right and good essentially no matter what the position protested (which indeed are fair observations, but non-responsive to the question), and finally refuses to say the protestors are wrong or crazy and only acknowledges differences of opinion with them. The clip concludes with Justin Zatkoff, ironically in body paint, introducing himself as the Michigan Federation of College Republicans Chair, and asking Cherry to help make sure there were jobs available for him as a soon-to-be college graduate. If you look through the entire YouTube archive, there will be other clips from the event.

Counterprotesters.
No Cherry for a Teabag.
Skubic Interviews Fulton Sheen on Frank Beckman controversy.
"No Shift or Shaft" - Sheen Finishes remarks, Justin Zatkoff coordinates chanting.

Several weeks ago, I was sitting at the computer catching up on late work at 3am listening to the TV in the background. When I heard the topic of the PBS re-run was "Michigan Feminist History" and the University of Michigan was a co-sponsore, I began to pay attention. As the show unfolded, a comment was made without any backing whatsoever that the previous Republican Governor, John Engler, "rolled back women's rights", and the sitting Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm had restored them.

It hung there in the air for a moment.

I was shocked. And I'm not typically one to be overly critical of PBS (though I see no reason for taxpayer money to it) and enjoy much of what they air, this bothered me. Both PBS, and this sponsor, have some obligation to the public not to use public money to further one side's political interests. This was blatant, and there was no evidence or reasoning to back up even an argument for it. It was just plain political.

So I sent an email to the station during the middle of the show. And I received a response. Rather than repeat all the analysis, I'm reposting the email, the response, and my final response, which I think nicely capture the exchange. The upshot is that the "substantiation" of this statement by the film's producers - that Engler "rolled back" civil rights for women - was hinged on the laying off of one employee in a sub-department of Michigan's civil rights infrastructure related to the monitoring of Title IX, and that Granholm allegedly restored that single job upon which the rights of Michigan women so-hinged (set aside that rights are better enforced by private litigation than government monitoring and tinkering). When we've reached a point in civil rights where such rights depend on the existence of government employees, we've identified what the motivation behind the movement really is.

It's classical liberalism's desire to expand government. What better way to do so than to create whole classes of jobs like multicultural officer and diversity guru that can not be removed.

In another recent previous post, I noted how the Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, got himself into hot water by firing an affirmative action officer and changing the status of the office. Here, Governor Engler "rolled back" the entirety of women's civil rights through the elimination of a single mid-level job.

The diversity industry takes every government job it entrenches seriously, no matter how inefficient or what the budget constraints, as this Zarko Research exclusive will show below the fold.

Read more »