Insurance companies threaten to flee after being forced to finally pay their fair share

The one industry that paid little tax under the old Single Business Tax (SBT) is threatening to leave the state now that the new Michigan Business Tax (MBT) is finally making them pay their fair share.

William F. Woodbury, assistant vice president and associate general counsel of Lansing-based Auto-Owners Insurance Co., had a column in the Lansing State Journal last week complaining that “this tax increase makes it more expensive to do business in Michigan and it will have a direct impact on consumers, who ultimately will pay the price for the decisions made in Lansing.” Meaning: we are going to raise your premiums so we can still rake in record profits.

According to a story in the Detroit News last month, a recent study by Missouri's insurance commissioner from 1993-98 concludes that Michigan’s auto insurance companies have been piling up huge record profits and excessive surplus funds.

AAA of Michigan was used as a focal point in the study, because most of its business is done within the state. AAA's profit more than doubled to $104.2 million last year from $50.9 million in 2002. AAA's surplus -- money set aside to pay for future claims payments -- swelled by 68 percent during that period, increasing to $1.53 billion from $915 million.

Apparently doubling its profits is not enough, and Woodbury plays his trump card: threatening to go where the tax is lower and move out of Michigan.

Make no mistake; other states are lining up to handpick Michigan's most profitable companies. Their aim is clear: They want the jobs and tax revenues that go with growing companies. Many states, like our neighbor Indiana, are looking at lowering taxes on insurance companies to lure them across the border. The MBT makes it easier for them to do that.

I say good luck with that. According to the Lansing Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies have not been paying their fair tax share for years.

Insurance companies in Michigan have long enjoyed preferential tax treatment – Michigan’s tax on insurers is the fourth lowest in the country. This legislation will create a 2 percent premiums tax that will make our tax system similar to other states and bring insurance taxation in line with the national average.

Not only that, but Michigan insurance companies have been allowed to legally discriminate against Detroit drivers and other urban drivers for years in the form of Redlining. Redlining is the practice where an insurance company refuses to insure an auto or home based solely on the geographic area where the person lives or provides an inferior product based on geography or at a higher price. Sen. Martha Scott, D-Highland Park, has been fighting the practice of charging Detroit drivers as much as 365 percent more than people in other Michigan urban areas.

It’s hard to feel sorry for insurance companies. I have been paying auto insurance premiums for some 30 years and have never had a claim. That adds up to a lot of cash in their pocket. Michigan’s no-fault insurance law even gives them an unfair advantage, in my opinion. In what business do you have a law that requires you buy their product, and we have law enforcement ensuring you do buy it? If you don’t buy it you face a heavy fine. I think there should be a law that says you have to subscribe to a newspaper to insure you know what’s going on in the world, or you should buy a gym or swimming pool membership to insure you are healthy.

It’s time other businesses and companies in Michigan stopped subsidizing insurance companies, and they are now required to pay their fair share.

House Republicans launch campaign events disguised as town hall meetings at taxpayer expense

House Republicans are beginning to show their frustration over being in the minority for a scant six months. A recent AP story said “A frustrated group of state House Republicans” plan to tour the state and host a series of public task force meetings.

Are they kidding? The only thing they are frustrated over is losing control of the House in November after ruling it with an iron fist for a decade. Instead of addressing the projected $1.8 million budget deficit they took a two-week vacation this month. Apparently, they spent the vacation plotting for political gain instead of addressing the state’s problems. This has to be the PR move of PR moves from a party that’s all show and no substance.

House Republicans will form panels to travel the state and talk about government restructuring, small business development, tourism, child protection and border security issues including immigration. The group's public task force meetings will begin this month.

Another obvious question is what do Republicans know about child protection, and since when is immigration a state issue? Another question is will these alleged town hall meetings follow the tradition of Bush Republicans town hall meetings where the audience is carefully screened, and if anyone exhibits any tendency of sanity and non-support of Republicans they will be rudely escorted out? Will they be put in “free speech zones” where they can’t bother anyone? Only time will tell.

This has to be the most absurd quote of the entire short article.

"Lansing is dysfunctional," House Republican Leader Craig DeRoche said in a statement. DeRoche has been critical of the Democratic-run House for inaction. Democrats gained control in the House after last November's elections.

Let’s talk about that alleged inaction. They balanced the current budget that had a deficit of $800 million, adopted the Single Business Tax (SBT) that Republicans irresponsibly ended early in a move to look good on the campaign trail, ended immunity for drug companies if their drugs kill or maim the people who take them, slowed down the glut of Canadian and out-of-state trash by banning landfills from expanding until 2011 and raised the absurdly low tipping fees and adopted some lobbying and campaign finance reform.

You also need to remember how the Republicans oppressively ruled the House when they controlled it just six months ago. They were so heavy-handed and so soured the relations between the two parties that they refused Democrats even the commons courtesy of giving Democrats a daily agenda of House actions, they completely shut out Democrats from the process, especially ones in seats they targeted.

Democrats gave the minority a voice again by bringing back actual debate on the House floor, and the Speaker has given both sides of the aisle the same allotment of money to each member to maintain their offices and provide office staff. If this crap from the Republicans keeps up the Democrats might as well treat the Republicans like the Democrats were treated when they were in the minority if they are going to be accused of it.

There’s no schedule – at least publicly – of where and when these “town hall” meetings will be held, but by guessing what these campaign events are really about, I’ll bet they will be held only in House districts where the Republicans have targeted that seat, proving this is just a PR, campaign appearance just like Bush’s staged town hall meetings at taxpayer expense. Anyone want to take that bet?

Editorial ignores real reason for no lobbying reform in Lansing in favor of cheap shots

An editorial on the need for lobbying reform in Lansing that ran in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus speaks more for the problem with newspaper consolidation than it does for the need for checks on lobbying.

The editorial was picked up from the Lansing State Journal, which is owned by the same company that owns the P & A. The editorial laments the need for lobbying reform and takes some easy shots at the Legislature, but it does not even mention why there has been no action addressing lobbying reform or any meaningful ethics measures. It ignored the fact that the Republicans have controlled both the state House and Senate for more than a decade, and up until five years ago the GOP also had a veto-proof edge with a Republican governor as well. Why no reform then?

The editorial does hint at the real problem with any ethics reform, but it never comes out and says what the reason is.

In late March, Sen. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, filed Senate Bill 380, which would prohibit public officials from accepting out-of-state travel paid for by lobbyists. The bill's gone nowhere.
Earlier in March, the House actually passed an ethics measure, House Bill 4313. This bill would force ex-elected officials to wait one year before lobbying state government. It passed the House 99-6 and moved to the Senate, where it has vanished.

What’s the one thing that’s common to both of those bills? The answer is the lack of action in the Republican-controlled, obstructionist Senate. Vanished is a good word, but ignore is a better word. Even a fellow Republican can’t get a bill through that addresses lobbying. HB 4313 was introduced by Rep. Marc Corriveau, D-Northville, and passed with bipartisan support, and it has sat in the Senate since March 1 with no action. It’s also kind of ironic that the editorial mentions who introduced the Senate bill that the only action it has seen is being filed with the Senate bill clerk, but it neglects to mention the sponsor of a bill that has actually been approved.

There was actually a bill overwhelmingly approved in the last session by a vote of 104-2 on Sept. 13 in the House that would prohibit “a public officer from accepting a gift or reimbursement of out-of-state travel expenses from a person required to be registered as a lobbyist agent.” What do you think happened to that bill? You guessed it; it went where all ethics bills go to die, in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Livingston County voters will recall that this was part of an ethics and so-called "election campaign finance reform" package of five bills being pushed by Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton, then the House Majority Floor Leader. All but the bills passed, and the only one that received any opposition was the one sponsored by Ward. All five bills were then sent on to the Senate where they – you guessed it – died in the Senate. In fact, Ward’s bill only passed by five votes because it really benefits his party. Rich Robinson, Director of the non-partisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network, said in published reports in June of last year that the bill favors Republicans, but the Senate still let it die.

Obviously, the budget has taken up the lion’s share of the House’s time, but they kept some important campaign promises in the short six months they have been in control by replacing the Single Business Tax (SBT), ended immunity for drug companies if their drugs kill or maim the people who take them and slowed down the glut of Canadian and out-of-state trash by banning landfills from expanding until 2011 and raising the absurdly low tipping fees. They accomplished this while bringing actual debate back to the House floor that had been absent for many years and addressing perhaps the worst structural budget deficit in the state’s history.

The House still managed to address some ethics issues. Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, introduced House Bill 4285 that will require “candidates for state office or judge, state department heads and current office holders to file personal financial disclosure statements that include the names of all family members; his or her employer; the source and amount of earned income and other or her spouse; a list of assets including real and personal property, stocks, bonds; a record of transactions involving the previous items; a list of liabilities over $10,000 of the candidate or a family member; any business ownership; any trustee, director, etc. positions held by the individual in a business, union, non-profit, educational or other institution; any future employment agreement, including leave-of-absence agreements; any honoraria received by the office holder or spouse; and more.” That also received bipartisan support, winning approval 89-19 on March 15. It is now in the Senate where no action has been taken, and something tells me it will receive none in the future.

The obvious question that needs to be asked is why take up any ethics bills with the pressing budget issues when you know it will just be ignored by Mike Bishop and his cronies in the Senate? That’s the question that should have been asked and answered by the editorial, as well as why “lobbying restrictions go nowhere at the Capitol.”

Decision to embrace Coulter stains community asset

A Livingston County community asset has recently taken a beating across the state, and rightly so, for its shortsighted and awful decision to embrace and endorse the hate speech and discrimination of hatemonger Ann Coulter by paying her $30,000 for a 90 minute rant.

But the truth is Cleary University is an excellent school, and it truly is a community asset. Hopefully, the leadership at the school will come to its senses before Oct. 1 and be a leader again. One Cleary program that has greatly benefited the community is holding a breakfast next week for anyone interested in participating in the program. Leadership Livingston has inspired community leaders for 14 years, and the movers and shakers of the community are among its graduates.

Leadership Livingston was formed as a partnership in 1992 between the school and the chambers of commerce in Brighton and Howell. Its many goals include identify existing and emerging leaders and to expand the number of informed, civic-oriented volunteer leaders; to provide information on community resources; to challenge participants to increase their knowledge and become actively involved in problem-solving in the community; to develop a core of individuals who will serve the county as a source for informed, motivated project leaders and to have an immediate positive effect on the participants, their organizations, and the community.

One a week from September through May the group of about 20 diverse people from the community in the program meet to learn about a particular area of the community, such as the local judicial system, state and local government, schools and human service agencies. Where LL has had its biggest positive effect on the community has been through its required community service project.

The class is divided into small groups of four to five people, and they choose a project to benefit the community that no one in the group has a background with, In other words, a person who works in the judicial system could not work on a project to benefit juvenile delinquents. He group must work on the project outside their normal meeting time.

The project I think that has had the biggest present and future positive effect – and the one I came in very close contact with – was the project to establish a YMCA in Livingston County.

The quest to bring a YMCA to Livingston Country – the largest not-for-profit service organization in the U.S. - began in October 2000 when a group of five people from the 2000 class of Leadership Livingston chose to conduct a feasibility study to see if there was interest in establishing a YMCA here. There was a groundswell of support.

The original group from LL stayed together after the program was over and held community meetings to gauge interest in bringing a YMCA to the county in July 2001, and the support was overwhelming. In October 2001 the YMCA of the USA conducted face-to-face interviews with 45 community, business and religious leaders in the county. That also revealed overwhelming interest.

The group eventually evolved to the YMCA Founding Committee, and organizers formed several study committees and then formed a board of directors. In 2003 the board decided to affiliate with the Metro Detroit YMCA instead of forming an independent YMCA. The Livingston County Family YMCA Founders Fundraising Campaign began in January of 2006 and continues. The YMCA requires three years of programs before it will allow any fundraising for a building, and programs have been underway for the last two years at various locations, mostly at Cleary. The executive director of the Livingston County Family YMCA - Dawn Palmer-Van Camp – was a member of that LL class back in 2000 as well as a former employee at Cleary.

An informal “Prospective Applicant Breakfast” for individuals interested in participating in the 2007-08 Leadership Livingston program is being held Tuesday, July 17 from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. at Cleary University in Genoa Township, 3750 Cleary Drive. Anyone interested in attending the breakfast, please RSVP to Program Director Janet Filip at 517.548.3670, ext. 2228 or via e-mail at: jfilip@cleary.edu.

Coulter Quote of the Week: They can’t be paying her $30,000 for her punditry skills

This is the 16th straight week of the Ann Coulter quote of the week, and we never seem to run out of quotes from the blond hatemonger sticking her foot her mouth, saying something racist and offensive or just illustrating how worthless she is.

The good news is we only have 11 more to go before queen of hate makes her appearance at Cleary University’s Economic Club Speakers Luncheon Series in Howell. So just 11 more weeks before Cleary antes up $30,000 for Coulter to spew her venom for 90 minutes. This week focuses on her great skills as a political pundit because, after all, that’s why Cleary is throwing money at her for, right?

Actually, that can’t be it because as the quote shows, she has no idea what she’s talking about. To make up for that, she says the most hateful, outrageous things she can, and people like Cleary and the Livingston County Republican Party enable her and make her richer.

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98

South Carolina county GOP chair pulls an Anuzis

Spartanburg County Republican Committee Chair Rick Beltram pulled a Saul Anuzis when he tried to exclude Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul from all party functions in the South Carolina county, and, like Anuzis, Beltram was forced last week to extend a personal invitation to the conservative candidate.

What was Paul’s crime that he was excluded from the small, narrow tent known as the Republic Party? He dared to question the government, its foreign policy and its failed policies in the deadly occupation and civil war in Iraq. Funny, I always thought that’s what the Founding Fathers based the Constitution and government on.

According to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Congressman Paul said at the GOP debate in Columbia this year that American intervention in foreign affairs as far back as 1953 was, in part, a catalyst for the 9/11 attacks. Again, it’s funny that any criticism of the government translates to hating and blaming America for Republicans. Saying it was a reason or contributed to it in no way means it was correct, it was the proper response or the innocent people who died in the attack asked for it. Beltram, apparently, decided to boycott Paul from any future county party events. "He can stay home," Beltram told the Herald-Journal, who for months held that this county would welcome all Republican candidates. "Well, the door's closed for him."

According to Ron Paul’s campaign blog, Paul supporters flooded Beltram’s phone lines (864-542-1992) and email inbox (rick.beltram@intedge.com) with protests, and that led Beltram to extend a personal invitation with a very condescending and snotty note. The note invited him to a question and answer forum and a meet and greet before Aug. 15 “to convince us that have incorrect information about Dr. Paul's political platform.” I have no idea why Paul has to convince or prove anything to Beltram. It seems to me Paul has plenty of supporters without Beltram’s help, and isn’t the job of any party chair at any level during a primary simply to allow members the most access to candidates and get their views out to as many party members as possible so the best candidate can be chosen by the party members?

Following the same debate in May, Anuzis said he would circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. However, the response was so overwhelming negative against Anuzis trying to censor Paul that it shut down his web site and email. Published reports said “party outcry was so great that it took a visit to Detroit by RNC chairman Mike Duncan to convince Michigan Republicans that Anuzis was still cut out to be their leader.” It also led Anuzis to issue a contrite but insincere letter on his unblog.

Senate heads off the LSJ and publishes salary info of employees without name

The Michigan Senate is apparently not waiting around for a Freedom of Information request from the Lansing State Journal for salary information on Senate employees and has established a web site with that information, according to an unnamed source in the Senate.

Last month the LSJ posted the public information on 53,000 non-exempt public employees that includes name, title, department, county of the workplace and salary, and it caused an outcry from state employees calling it a callous invasion of privacy. The timing, just days after Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop falsely claimed state employees were overpaid and demanded the governor rescind a previously negotiated pay raise, so angered state employees that some are talking about a misguided boycott of the LSJ.

Last week the House Business Office that maintains salary information for all Legislative staff members, as well as partisan central staff, received a FOIA request from the LSJ requesting salary information. The Senate has not yet received a FOIA request, so it decided to take a proactive approach and publish the salary information but omit individual names.

The web site lists salary by job title – and it differs from Senate office to Senate office - and then by where the person works. The web page also states that Senate employees are paid a fair and competitive wage for the work they perform. Unionized state employees gave up $300 million in concessions in the last contract.

However, sources said although the Senate has not officially received a FOIA request, the web site does not prelude them from receiving one, supply salary information with the individual’s name and having the LSJ - or any newspaper or blog - publish the public information.

Communist China set to invade U.S. shores in renewal of Cold War

The good news is when Chrysler rolls out its $7,000 cars made in Communist China by workers working for less than a $1 an hour it will actually be marked up to $10,000 after all the safety features required for U.S. roads are added in.

It appears the communists were not able to win the Cold War because they could not keep up with our defense spending and match our amount of nuclear missiles, so they are trying to win by exporting American jobs to China. According to the Detroit Free Press, Chrysler will begin importing the cars that are priced less than half of the lowest current Chrysler product in partnership with Chery Automobile Co. The company is owned by the local government of Wuhu, located in the southeastern province of Anhui.

It’s news like this that makes it clear why under President Bush’s watch we have lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs. Bush has completely ignored the manufacturing sector to the point that the alleged new jobs being created are not making up for the lost manufacturing jobs in both quantity and quality. The current tax policies, unfair trade polices and lack of enforcement of trade polices by the current administration is making it impossible for U.S. automakers to compete globally, and – as the ownership of Chery illustrates - foreign governments are helping foreign auto companies compete by providing health care for employees for help with health care and even manipulating currency to make their cars cheaper and U.S. cars more expensive. U.S. car companies are not just competing against foreign car companies they are competing against foreign governments.

I fail to see how U.S. automakers can compete against a communist country - because that's exactly what they are doing - or how importing the cars here can be good for anyone. This administration continues to make it attractive for U.S. companies to offshore jobs, and there is no way we can compete against a country that pays workers less than a dollar an hour. We will never win a race to the bottom, and why would we want to?

Under free trade agreements, we should be exporting our products to sell in China, but the only thing we are exporting is our decent paying jobs. Not only is China not allowing open markets, but with some three-quarters of the population living in poverty how can they even afford to buy anything? China has unfettered and unrestricted access to U.S. markets. That’s despite the fact they compete with slave labor wages and production and wages and benefits manipulated and controlled by a Communist Chinese regime. The obvious question is why do we allow them unrestricted access to sell products made in China when they do not reciprocate?

It seems ironic that people like U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, is constantly speaking on his cable show and elsewhere about inferior products - especially auto parts - that are being manufactured in China that are exact look-alikes, complete with packaging and company name, that is costing U.S. manufactures as much as $250 billon a year in lost revenue, but we are now embracing them. In fact, Chery was also sued by GM Daewoo for copying that company's Chevrolet Spark. Why are we allowing this unfettered access without addressing the rip-off of American products, copyright infringement and patent infringement?

Then there is the obvious question of quality. We are getting products from China that lack the basic quality control procedures of products made in the U.S. to the point that it is endangering lives. Just last month more than 900,000 tubes of Chinese-made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol - a sweet, syrupy poison - were pulled off the shelves of U.S. stores.

Some Republicans have no problem with buying products from an enemy that just a few years ago we were calling our ideological enemy bent on destroying us. It was just some 20 years ago when former President and conservative hero Ronald Reagan called the second largest communist nation in the world an evil empire, but now we are buying cheap cars from the largest communist country because they can make them cheaper by paying workers dirt-cheap wages.

Some are saying there’s a double standard because the Democratic leadership is not speaking out against this like they did last fall when Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, as head of Amway, invested more than $200 million in Communist China for building plants to manufacture the company's products. I think they should, but I don’t see how much effect the governor of a state and a state party chairman can have on federal trade policy.

It should also be pointed out that they were pointing out the lies of a political candidate during an election. DeVos was falsely claiming that investment was creating jobs in Michigan. If Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda ran for political office making the same untrue claim then Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer would be 100 percent correct in debunking that claim. Frankly, LaSorda should stick to managing the Dodgers.

DeVos also claimed that Chinese law says if you sell to the Chinese it must be built or manufactured in China, and that only those products made in China are sold in China. The first part is true, but Brewer presented proof that DeVos lied when he said those products made in China were not sold here. That begs the question: why don’t we tell the Chinese and Chrysler if you sell to Americans it must be built or manufactured in America like the Chinese do?