Senate Democrats protect utility workers, and citizens from unauthorized utility hookups

A package of bills sponsored by Senate Democrats o prevent energy theft from dangerous unauthorized utility connections and protect utility workers when they go out to disconnect those hookups unanimously passed the Senate today.

The four-bill package aimed at protecting citizens and workers —Senate Bills 1310-1313— were sponsored by Sens. Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit; Tupac A. Hunter, D-Detroit; Dennis Olshove, D-Warren; and Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit.

“Unauthorized utility connections are dangerous and can cause damage, fires, and even the loss of lives,” Hunter said. “These bills will help protect citizens and utilities from the problems these unauthorized connections cause.”

This package caused some tension in the Republican Caucus last month when Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, blasted his caucus leader, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, with a press release accusing Bishop of playing “insider political games” that “put Michigan lives at risk” after Bishop referred the package to the Judiciary Committee instead of Patterson’s committee - the Energy Policy and Public Utilities Committee - where preliminary work had been done.

SB 1310, sponsored by Hunter, would require a utility to use a best practices approach to stopping theft and the unauthorized use of service. In the event of unauthorized use, a customer would be required to provide proof of residence or property ownership and payment of damages and any past due charges before service is re-established.

SB 1311, sponsored by Thomas - the Senate Democratic Floor Leader - would make it a crime for a person to attempt to sell or transfer electricity or natural gas with penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both. SB 1312, sponsored by Olshove, sets sentencing guidelines for energy theft.

“Whether it’s a car, money or energy, we cannot allow people to take what’s not theirs,” Olshove said. “We need to take strong measures to protect our energy resources, the people who legally pay for them, and the workers charged with distributing them.

Clark-Coleman sponsored SB 1313, which would create penalties for an assault on a utility worker while performing duties ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony with a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a $10,000 fine for causing a worker’s death.

“It is our job to protect the public and those whose jobs are essential to everyday life,” Clark-Coleman said. "Utility workers should have the same protections as postal workers and others who directly serve the community.”

The package now goes to the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

Corriveau withdraws from Senate race

With the deadline to withdraw for the Aug. 3 Primary Election just hours away, the biggest name to withdraw so far was that of Rep. Marc Corriveau, D- Northville, in his race for the 7th District Senate seat held by term-limited Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton.

Subscription only Gongwer reported Corriveau dropped from the race. The race in the 7th was one of the top five seats most likely to switch parties. It deals a blow to Senate Democrat’s hopes of taking control of the Senate. Corriveau did not give a reason for dropping from the race, but Gongwer said he is expected to release a statement later.

That leaves former Rep. Kathleen Law, D-Gibraltar, as the Democratic standard-bearer. The good news is there is still a good chance this swing district could land in the D column. There is a weak Republican field, and Law is a good candidate.

Patterson blasts Bishop in press release

LANSING – Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, blasted his caucus leader, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, with a press release Thursday accusing Bishop of playing “insider political games” that “put Michigan lives at risk.”

A brief meeting of the Senate the Energy Policy and Public Utilities Committee on Thursday, chaired by Patterson, touched off the controversy. The committee was to hold a discussion of a bipartisan package of bills, Senate Bills 1310-1313, addressing stopping utility theft, but Patterson learned the bills had been sent to the Judiciary Committee instead.

Patterson said the bills were carefully designed to address the problem of stealing energy, both electricity and natural gas, and instead of being referred to his committee which had been working on the matter for nearly a year “the petty Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Michael Dean Bishop, sent them to the unrelated and ill – prepared Judiciary Committee.” Patterson said for more than a year, he has worked with Rep. Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City, to craft the bills, and that both he and Mayes have held hearings on the legislation and conducted field investigations.

“Energy theft not only increases rates, it’s an extremely dangerous activity that puts families and our neighborhoods at risk,” Patterson said. “Republicans support this legislation; Democrats support this legislation. The only road block is Senator Bishop. It makes no sense.

Patterson said instead of seeing quick action, the legislation is now languishing in the Judiciary Committee, where members are working to educate themselves on the highly complex, multi-faceted legislation. Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is also a member of the Energy Policy Committee, and Patterson said Kuipers confirmed the bills were only referred to the Judiciary Committee “to mess with Patterson for his continued independence and because of the pretext that the bills were about theft as opposed to energy.”

Patterson had been at odds with Bishop in the past for on occasion voting with Democrats, and he even stripped Patterson of a committee assignment two years ago for helping Democrats discharge a bill Patterson wanted action on.

“If Senator Bishop wants to punish me for my independence, fine; we can address that as a separate issue,” Patterson said. “But assigning this legislation to a committee not prepared for it is recklessly putting Michigan citizens in danger.

Senate Republicans fiddle while Michigan smolders

LANSING -- If anyone wants to know why bipartisanship and cooperation are hard to come by in Lansing just needs to take a look at the action on Wednesday of the Senate Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop in unilaterally rejecting appointments Gov. Jennifer Granholm made to six university boards for terms that begin the day she leaves office with no hearings.

Granholm made the bipartisan appointments on April 7, and she followed previous precedent set by former Republican Gov. John Engler in making the same type of appointments. In fact, at least one of the 14 people on the list, Doug Roberts, was one of those appointed by Engler. None of Engler’s appointees ever had to go through the advise and consent process.

Granholm laid the blame squarely where it belongs.

“Senator Bishop rejected qualified appointees to serve our state universities, making them nothing more than partisan political pawns,” Granholm said in a statement. “He chose to ignore the advice of an attorney in his own caucus and rejected sitting board members like Doug Roberts, who Republicans have confirmed in the past, just to make a partisan point.”

Republicans tried this last Thursday, but Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to thwart them. Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, made a motion to adjourn and Lt. Governor John Cherry Jr., the Senate's presiding officer, granted it - in accordance with Senate rules - over the objection of Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt.

Republicans were a little more prepared yesterday. They took a recess for an hour until Cherry left the chamber, and they then reconvened with Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, in the chair and took up the issue.

While the budget waits and people are unemployed, Republicans killed an hour until the Lt. Gov. had to go to another appointment and left the chamber. That is just sad. They again proved that petty politics and keeping power is more important than anything else.

“In addition, it shows that we are having another unproductive and self-serving day in the State Senate,” said Sen. Deb Cherry, D-Burton, “After focusing a full session day on this last week, Senate Republican leadership continues to focus on this political issue instead of addressing the bills to create jobs and help Michigan workers.”

Cherry them brought a motion consider each of the 14 appointees separately. That failed along party lines. Last Thursday, the same motion almost passed, and two Republicans sided with the Democrats while another Republican did not vote because they supported some of the 14 appointees. The effort failed 18-19. Ironically, Richardville voted with the Democrats. He must have gotten a good talking to and went along with the party line.

Only Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, voted with the Democrats for a second time. Patterson - one of only three attorneys in the Senate - said summarily rejecting the appointments appears to go against the Constitution. He is a stickler for the constitution, and he spent the weekend researching the issue, as well as discovering that Governors as far back as Republican Gov. William Miliken has used the same procedure that was rejected yesterday.

“Here we are taking action en masse, even rejecting people we’ve approved in the past,” Patterson said. “When we look at Article VIII, Section 6, it talks about the boards of control and how they are to be constituted,” Patterson. “But, again, that’s just picky,picky, picky little details.”

Senate Minority Leader Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming, challenged anyone to "look me in the eye" and say the appointees were getting fair and equitable treatment.

“The Michigan Senate has not rejected university appointments without hearing in recent history,” Prusi said. “Over the last 20 years, no gubernatorial appointee—and that includes Governors of both political parties who have made appointments to the boards of control—has been rejected without at least giving them a hearing.”

Whitmer and House Democrats push for restoring consumer protection

LANSING – Michigan consumers could again enjoy some basic protections from predatory businesses that it once enjoyed a decade ago.

The House Democrats introduced legislation last week that would amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to restore its original intent to protect Michigan consumers and properly hold deceitful businesses accountable for their practices. A 1999 Supreme Court ruling from the GOP-controlled court essentially gutted the law, and since then Michigan has been a buyer beware state. The original Michigan Consumer Protection Act was approved with bipartisan support in 1976, making it a leader in consumer protection.

Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, has been a long-time proponent of consumer protection, and she joined House Democrats at their press conference in support of the legislation. She sponsored the same measure in the Senate, Senate Bill 573, but it has been stalled in the Senate for some time. She is hoping the House action will get the ball rolling and break the log jam like it did for the workplace smoking ban.

Whitmer said with the economy as it is, it is important to protect residents' pocketbooks with these common sense reforms.

“During these difficult times the last thing Michigan consumers need is to be taken advantage of by a dishonest business,” she said. “It’s time that we stand up for our citizens and reject the Supreme Court’s partisan rulings that allow companies to rip off the hardworking people and honest businesses of this state.”

Michigan was once a leader in consumer protection, and the plan would simply restore the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to what is was 33 years ago. It would apply to all businesses and industries it originally covered – giving consumers and authority’s ways to hold companies that commit fraud accountable. It would also require companies that engage in dishonest business practices to pay back money to consumers and face stiff fines of up to $25,000 for fraudulent practices.

Obviously, the Republicans objected, and they went so far as to accuse Whitmer of campaigning for Michigan Attorney General by appearing at the press conference. Whitmer announced earlier this month that she is seeking the Democratic nomination for AG, but she introduced SB 573 back in May.

“We believe it's really not appropriate for her to be trying to run her attorney general campaign from the Senate floor," said John Truscott, spokesperson for Mr. Bishop's attorney general campaign, in subscription only Gongwer. "Senator Bishop will not be bullied into taking up legislation that is basically a full employment act for trial lawyers."

Truscott, the former mouthpiece for former Gov. John Engler and the Bush/Cheney campaign in Michigan, trotted out the standard GOP excuse for stalling bills that do not benefit corporations: “There are far more important issues the Legislature is dealing with," he said.

But a former GOP candidate for AG and a member of the Senate Republican caucus went to Whitmer’s defense.

“Everything Mike Bishop has done is through the prism of running for Attorney General," said Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, in subscription only MIRS. "I actually think that consumer protection is an important concept."

Thinly disguised campaign piece sent out at taxpayer expense

LANSING - There is little doubt that Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, is running for Michigan Attorney General, and because the nominee is chosen at the party convention, Patterson has been very busy playing to the base that has taken an extreme right turn.

He got the GOP-controlled state Senate to approve a pair of useless resolutions he introduced that affirm so-called “state’s rights” and “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” This ridiculous argument has been a rallying point for extremist right-wingers since the militia was widespread back in the mid 1990s. However, Liberals are picking up on what Patterson is really trying to do.

But what was even more blatant was a so-called “Legislative Survey” he sent to residents of the 7th Senate District at taxpayer’s expense. This so-called survey is the absolute definition of a push poll. The survey is referenced on his tax-payer provided web site, but you can no longer get to it.

It should be noted Patterson is a state Senator, yet only one of the six questions on the survey deals with a state issue; two if you are generous. However, all of the questions are hot button issues with right-wingers.

The first question asks if you are in favor of the federal cap and trade bill. If it wasn’t bad enough that he is using state funds to ask a question about federal legislation, the no option clearly spells out Patterson’s position.

“No, I do not want to pay higher costs when the coal, nuclear and hydro energy available (sic) to sustain our needs.”

That’s a no brainier. Who wants to pay more for their electric bill? The problem is Cap and Trade is not about the availability of dirty energy, it’s about setting limits on pollutants. In fact, just on Friday in a press conference in Lansing, more than 100 doctors, nurses and other medical professionals called on U.S. Sens. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, to help push climate change legislation through the Senate because it is a threat to public health.

Question 2 is the only state issue, and it is on whether Michigan should be a so-called “right to work state.” The question reads, “Do you believe Michigan should be a right to work state so union membership is not a condition of employment (sic).”

The problem is that the question itself is simply a lie, and union membership is not a condition of employment. The right to work for less scam is just a way to break unions. Federal law already protects workers who don't want to join a union to get or keep their jobs, and gives workers the right to opt out of a union.

The third question is not bad, and it asks a pretty straight forward question on a federal and not a state issue. It asks about the federal stimulus package, but the option for no ensures most people will choose that option: “No, I believe the stimulus will lead us into huge debt that, in turn, will bring on inflation and a declining standard of living.”

Question 4 is on health care coverage: “Do you think health care coverage is a right or a privilege.” The answers are very straight forward, but the no answer adds a few extra words: “I believe health care is a privilege that is earned.” So, does that mean that if somebody deems you are worthy, only then can you receive life saving treatment?

Question 5 is the kicker on health care, and this is a text book example of a push poll question: “Do you believe that the government should control all aspects of your health care, such as testing decisions and end of life counseling?”

Wow. The answer is very obvious, especially if you don’t realize everything he said about health care was a false rightwing talking point. Just to be sure you say no, here’s the choice he proved for yes: “Yes, I think the government knows what is best for me.”

The final question is not much different, and it’s a question on the 10th Amendment, but to make sure you support it, here’s the no answer:

“No, I believe the federal government knows what is best for the states.”

What should happen is Paterson should reimburse the taxpayers for his campaign piece out of the money he has raised for his run for Michigan AG.

Right wing performance art featured at committee meeting

LANSING – In an out of control Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, the committee approved a pair of Senate Resolutions to ask the President and Congress to declassify intelligence information regarding the Gutantanamo Bay detainees before a decision is reached to house them at the soon-to-be-closed Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in northeastern Michigan.

Originally, only two items were supposed to be on the agenda; a pair of non-binding resolutions that “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” That resolution has been a rallying point for years for the extreme right-wingers, and the audience was made up primarily of “tea baggers” and “birthers.”
But committee chair Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, introduced the two resolutions on the Senate floor earlier in the morning, and they were considered a few hours later. U.S. Rep. Pete “Twitter” Hoekstra, R-Holland, a critic of housing the detainees in Michigan and a candidate for Michigan Governor, testified for most of the meeting.

The ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, he said he had info that no one else had on the prisoners, and they were too dangerous to be in a Michigan community like Standish. I’m not sure how much different Standish would be when you consider how many Navy families live at Gitmo. Hoekstra also said there were legal questions that needed to be addressed.

“We do know that when we move them onto U.S. soil, they receive some of the same civil rights U.S. citizens have,” he said. “We are unclear what civil liberties they have in Gitmo.”

Federal officials toured the prison in Standish this week as a potential place for Guantanamo Bay detainees, and the President has vowed to close the prison there because it stands as a symbol of oppression to the rest of the world and mars the America’s reputation as a beacon of freedom.

Last week, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Corrections Reform held a hearing on the question, but they had both opponents and supporters of the plan testified, including Standish residents, the city manager and county commissioners. The Senate hearing had just Hoekstra and a few “tea baggers” there for the 10th Amendment show who testified.

The Republicans used the show to take numerous shots at the President and Democrats.

“The President is going to have to come up with some convincing answers as to why Gitmo should be closed and why they should come to Michigan,” said Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, and one of the most rightwing members of the Senate.

Although this was clearly a show and the Republican’s minds are already made up, Democrats supported the concept of getting more information.

“I’m going to support this, but it is with some angst,” said Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing. “The money we will receive is not the bottom line, and we need to have a robust debate; but I was just handed this a few hours ago on the floor.”

There are supposed to be no demonstrations at committee meetings, but Kuipers let that go on, as well as attacks on Democratic members. Sen. Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit, brought up the irony that information on Gitmo has been restricted to just the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee, but the resolution is asking that same info be released to the entire Michigan Senate. That brought an unprovoked and unbelievable attack by Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, that Clarke was trying to make it partisan. Like the show put on by the Republicans was not partisan.

“I try to keep an open mind, but I don’t appreciate these personal attacks,” Clarke said.

Rochester Hills “tea bagger” Jeff McQueen made the unbelievable and racist point that Michigan should be the last place to consider housing Gitmo detainees because of the large Arab-American population in Dearborn.

“A cell of Middle Eastern men would stick out like a sore thumb in Utah, but not in Dearborn,” he said.

That brought a rebuke from Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, who said as a retired Ford employee he has spent lots of time in Dearborn, and said the most dangerous terrorists before 9/11 was Tim McVeigh.

“I have lived and worked in the Downriver area for more than 30 years, including Dearborn, and I have never met a terrorist,” he said.

Senate Republicans throw fake ‘tea party’ during Judiciary Committee meeting

LANSING - Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, threw a fake Astroturf “tea party” Tuesday, but the only problem was he chose the Senate Judiciary Committee to do it, and six other Senators had to hear the drivel usually spouted at the fake “tea parties.”

With a boatload of meaningful Legislation the Senate Republicans could take up, like the budget, the workplace smoking ban many people have been clamoring for, laws to make voting easier that has bipartisan support and were passed in the House or the unemployment bills that will give Michigan families running out of unemployment access to $140 million in federal funds. Instead, the committee wasted almost two hours on a pair of resolutions that mean absolutely nothing.

The Judiciary Committee approved - there was no reason to vote against them - Senate Resolution 17 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4. Both resolutions “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

This has been a rallying point for extremist right-wingers since the militia was widespread back in the mid 1990s; it’s no coincidence they are back.

The sponsor- Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, - said it was a no-brainer. He was right. This was simply playing to the base.

“There is nothing to debate,” he said. “All this does is remind us of what we already agreed to.”

I agree. So, why did we waste two hours listing to extremist Republicans rail against the Democratic administration and crap about “state’s rights?”

Representatives of rightwing extremist groups tramped up to the microphone one after another to read their talking points. We heard from groups like the rightwing Republican Washington, D.C. lobbying group and think tank Americans for Prosperity - the people behind the “tea parties” and disrupting town hall meetings - something called the “campaign for liberty” and even a rightwing blogger who said she helped organize the fake tea party in Lansing.

The hearing raised more questions that were answered. Like where were these people railing about the federal government when George Bush was shredding the Constitution?

Where were these people when Bush conned Americans into a useless war that did nothing but endangered this country?

Where were these people when Bush violated the separation of powers with the signing statements that said he wasn’t going to uphold the law?

Where were these people when Bush was spying on American citizens?

Where were these people when Bush was dictating what we had to teach with no dime left for any child program?

Where were these people when Bush was blowing the cover of undercover CIA agents?

Where were these people when Bush was politicizing the U.S. Justice Department?

Where were these people when Bush was giving no bid contracts to his cronies in Iraq?

Where were these people when Bush was giving out bank bailouts?

We even got a long, rambling speech from former extremist Republican State Representative Jack Hoogendyk, a board member of Michigan AFP and a candidate for just about every office in Michigan.

“The first 10 amendments were therefore added to include the ancient, unalienable rights of Anglo-Saxon freemen so there could be no question as to the strictly limited authority the people were conferring on their central government,” he said.

In an earlier time in this country, the states used the 10th amendment to justify repressive and immoral policies, including slavery, to secede from the union, to deny African-Americans the right to vote and southern states invoked it as a barrier to enforcement of the 14th Amendment and to justify segregation and Jim Crow.

Democrats poised to take back traditional Democratic statewide offices

A poll conducted by Marketing Resource Group for Bill Ballanger’s Inside Michigan Politics of possible match-ups in the 2010 races for Michigan Secretary of State and Attorney General show Republican candidates having a slight lead over Democrats.

For secretary of state the poll showed Sen. Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau, at 33 percent to 28 percent for House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Kathy Angerer, D-Dundee. There are three other GOP candidates for the position, and until I heard Angerer’s name mentioned, I thought Wayne State University law Professor Jocelyn Benson was the only Democratic candidate.

Benson has an excellent and impressive resume, and I think she would be a top-notch SOS, especially after six years of the most partisan SOS in Michigan history. That’s until I heard about Angerer possibly running. With zero publicity and not even a mention of her running, Angerer is just 5 percentage points behind with 37 percent undecided.

There are at least three other potential candidates for the GOP nomination, but none of them compare to Angerer or Benson. I wanted Angerer to run for Senate in the 17th District in 2010. My hometown should not have a Republicans representing it. Angerer unseated a Republican incumbent in 2004, and she can do it again.

I worked in Angerer’s House office as the world’s oldest intern. You can’t find anyone in Lansing who doesn’t respect her.

After Angerer unseated the incumbent Republican, she was a target of the Republicans in the GOP-controlled House for tow years, and Republicans refused to let her even get the simplest of resolutions passed. She spent those two years building the best constituent operation in the state and really learning the issues. In the meantime, the person she unseated spent those two years in the district campaigning and raising money. She won even bigger in 2006, along with the Democrats who took control of the House.

She has earned the respect of colleagues, opponents, staff on both sides of the aisle and House employees down to the janitorial staff. With her seat safe last November, Angerer campaigned for other House candidates, helping Democrats increase their lead by nine seats to give them 67 seats.

The same numbers played out in the poll for attorney general. Republican Bill Schuette edged out Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, 33 percent to 28 percent with 39 percent undecided. Whitmer, like Angerer, has not announced she is running. The poll did not include the other two Republicans; Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and Sen. Bruce Patterson. Bishop has been campaigning in the Senate by pandering and irresponsibly blowing a hole in the budget.

Bishop punishes Michigan voters for his ignorance

LANSING -- Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, punished the Democrats and a member of his own caucus who briefly took control of the Senate to move three important bills out of committee on June 19 by further disenfranchising voters.

Subscription only MIRS reported last week that Bishop took away the vice chairmanship of the Senate Health policy Committee from Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, who joined the Democrats in discharging an annexation bill – House Bill 5779 - he wanted and the so-called Kreiner fix bill Democrats wanted. He was also booted off the Senate Government Operations Committee. Of course, that committee is chaired by Bishop and rarely, if ever meets. It’s where Bishop sends bills he wants to block from ever being voted on.

Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, was kicked off the useless Government Ops Committee and the important Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee, for a second time. The person who came up with the rules to take advantage of the Republican ignorance and move the bills, Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, was kicked off the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will go from seven to six members.

House Bill 4301 is designed to address the recent interpretation by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case Kreiner v. Fischer. This bill was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives on March 14, 2007 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary where it remains, and it would go a long way to helping people injured in automobile accidents recover damages.

The bipartisan HB 5779, the annexation reform bill, was introduced by Rep. Mark Corriveau, D-Northville, and it has overwhelming support. Last week 1,300 letters against the proposed annexation of part of Northville Township to Livonia were hand delivered to Michigan Senators.

All three bills were sent back to committee to die.

Indoor smoking ban decreases cases of heart disease

Hard evidence that indoor smoking bans are benefiting the health of people are beginning to come in, and one of the first national smoking bans is showing positive results.

In just one year after Italy enacted a national smoking ban, researchers in Rome found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74, according to a study in, “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.”

Researchers in Rome compared the rate of acute coronary events from 2000 to 2004 to those occurring in 2005 after the ban was enforced, and they came up with the significant numbers. This was the first study in Europe to show the long-term health benefits of smoke free legislation in public places. Other European countries that are entirely smoke-free include England, Germany, Ireland, Scotland and France Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in Italy, and this study affirms smoking bans have a tremendous positive effect on public health.

“Smoking bans in all public and workplaces result in an important reduction of acute coronary events,” said Francesco Forastiere, M.D., Ph.D., co-author of the study and head of the Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology, Rome E. Health Authority, Italy. “The smoking ban in Italy is working and having a real protective effect on population health.”

In Michigan, studies have primarily focused on the economic effects on bars and restaurants, such as the recent study by Public Sector Consultants that showed there is no drop in business and revenue after a smoking ban is enacted.

Although critics of smoking bans are ignoring the two reports by the U.S. Surgeon General that says there is no amount of secondhand smoke and it is killing thousands of people every year, policymakers are not. Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, said the report is what changed his mind when he voted for the ban last month.

The Senate is currently considering House Bill 5074 that bans smoking in workplaces, with the exception of non-Native American casinos, bingo-halls and so-called “cigar bars.”

Say no to amateur government

Some people, at least I am, are questioning the logic of addressing the problem of a group of people unable to get a complex and difficult task accomplished within a timely deadline addressing that problem by cutting the time they are working.

That is the logic of Republican Senators Bruce Patterson, Jud Gilbert and Tom George, who introduced a Senate Joint Resolution in February that will amend the Constitution to limit the Legislature to meet not more than 90 consecutive days. As I am writing this, I am watching the Senate Committee on Government Operations and Reform, chaired by the chief obstructionist - Mike Bishop – hold a hearing on the concept of a part-time legislature. The resolution says simply that: it doesn’t set salary rates or talk about committees where most of the real work is done.

The budget fiasco and the quest to replace the Single Business Tax (SBT) demonstrate that term limits have stripped the Legislature of experience and trust. This will make that problem even worse. I’m not sure what problem this move is trying to address.

For full disclosure, I intern in a Michigan House office, but this also gives me a bird’s eye view of the process and the workload. Seeing the workload of the member I work for and seeing her rush from appointment to appointment it seems inconvincible that she would work less hours. The demands on her time are tremendous.

The budget crisis is driving this, but the money saved is just a drop in the bucket. I’m an advocate of good government and experience, and it seems to me this will give us lots of experience, but little else. Less professional people will run for office, and the majority of Legislators will be retirees, those who are self-employed or the independently rich. Are there 148 Dick Devos in Michigan? Experience is a good thing, but we will take a hit on diversity. That also brings up the issue of conflict of interest. Can a legislator sit on the judiciary committee and try cases, can a teacher sit on the Education Committee or can an insurance salesman sit on the Insurance Committee?

Newspaper reports say Michigan is only one of four states that have a full-time legislature, but the representative of the nonpartisan Legislative Service Bureau testifying says there are nine states with full-time legislatures. That number may be high as 11, depending on what criteria is used to define full-time.

A part-time legislature also seems to violate the separation of powers. The legislative, executive and judicial are supposed to be equal branches of government. Why is no one advocating the other two branches go part-time? The Legislature is supposed to serve as an oversight protection on the executive branch, but how can a part-time legislature do that when it barely does it now?

As government, technology and everything else gets more complex everyday since we went to a professional Legislature around 1969, the power has shifted to lobbyists who are the subject matter experts. It seems to me that will only get worse with this scheme.

This will have to go on the ballot, and with the current mood of the voters, it’s a no-brainer that it will pass. It’s a mistake. This is the first of many meetings, and Bishop says he will support the concept if it does away with term limits. I support a professional legislature and lengthening term limits so that term limits gives us a high level of expertise that eliminates lawmakers from always looking to the next office but does not entrench them in office. This does not address the budget crisis or make government better, what it does is punish Legislators.