This is the order issued by Emergency Financial Manager Joseph Harris. Note that all collective bargaining and union contracts are set aside, and that the elected government is also rendered powerless and set aside, without any vote or any hearing.
The story is now in the mainstream media but first broke in Daily Kos
Casinos sure did not save Michigan – nor will throwing away democracy do so.
Using an emergency, especially an emergency created by greedy banks and the results of reckless deregulation to further weaken democracy and the social compact is, I fear, leading towards fascism with “emergency” as the rallying cry, and the escuse.
Without the Four Freedoms many men and women will trade democracy for a false promise of economic security from Strong Men and central planning by nonelected goverments.
Heads up – without civic engagement, the freedom and democracy you lose may be your own. What is happening in Michigan is not what I want for my country, my children, or my native state and bears very close watching. Radical Republicans and the Tea Party are not about democracy – they are about a fear based change in how this country works – and without a passionate return to defending the Four Freedoms I do fear for democracy itself. I want a strong country based on an educated, involved citizenry – not government by autocratic, arrogant strongmen and a plutocratic elite.
I don’t care whether that arrogant elite is labeled “Republican” or “Democrat”; arrogant centralization of power is a problem, and ultimately will end the great experiment of government “of, by, and for the people.”
I want a social compact where the strong take care of the weak and vulnerable, and where we collectively invest in a better future for our children. I am willing to pay my fair share for that social compact.
How about you?
For the same reason, it is absolutely critical that the Open Meeting Laws, freedom of information requests, and fair procurement laws apply to all governmental units, including the legislature in this state.
I don’t mean to undermine what you have to say, Deb. The idea of governing by emergency is a fig leaf for tyranny, no matter who does it. But there’s no shame in saying who’s promoting the idea, and it certainly isn’t both sides.
<
p>Just when dictatorial rule under the guise of “emergency” is going out of fashion in Algeria and likely Syria, a law pushed by Republicans installs it here in America. Nice to see that Michigan Republicans and African war criminals select the same methods of governance by decree.
Chelsea and Springfield in the last two decades in Massachusetts, and what quite frankly should be happening in Lawrence.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
Though I don’t think receivership communities completely abandoned elective government. It may also be the case that our state government was less chomping at the bit to use it as an excuse to bust unions. I’m speculating here, so hearing from someone who actually knows more about this would be helpful.
This is similar to what happened in Springfield. Not quite the same though — Springfield was given an interest-free loan in exchange for the temporary and finite loss of local power. But similar.
<
p>There was a bit of union busting and privatization that took place under this arrangement. Several city functions were outsourced to private companies. Some were later taken back in house after it was determined that the private companies weren’t doing that good of a job. The Springfield teachers union was squeezed pretty hard, and the raises that everyone took were very small. To this day, Springfield pays its teachers among the lowest in the region despite having a need for the best talent to teach our disadvantaged students.
<
p>Springfield did benefit from the professional management that the Finance Control Board possessed. In the end, I think that it was necessary and helpful. I think Romney’s FCB was better than Patrick’s FCB, I was disappointed with how very little Chris Gabrielli actually accomplished.
<
p>It is a little interesting that no one from the eastern part of the state shed any tears for Springfield during this time. Yes, there were many reports of corruption during this era, but the corruption took place almost exclusively outside city government and finances — it mostly involved quasi-governmental agencies that were too loosely supervised by federal authorities — for example, the Springfield Housing Authority, or a non-profit homeless shelter, or a credit union.
<
p>The financial corruption did not affect city money. Corruption was not responsible for the city’s shortfall. Most of Springfield’s problems were due to the fact that the state mandates that cities and towns are funded by property taxes, and Springfield has low property values. The city’s main crime was not stockpiling enough in reserves to handle the Romney budget cuts of 2003 – basically, living on the edge.
<
p>Springfield is dependent on state aid (60-70% of the budget) to make up the gap between local funding and what it needs to operates, and state aid has been shrinking year after year for a long time — I think we’re at levels that are still below the 2000 levels. This is still a major problem, and again, I’m a little disappointed that no one on this liberal blog is willing to get into this issue. Concentrations of poverty are more expensive to manage, but this state’s municipal funding mechanism relies heavily on local resources. The imbalance is ridiculous and getting worse. Most of the city is just resigned to the fact that things stink and won’t ever get better. It really is a drag on the psyche of the region — so many things could be done if we had the money, but instead we’re just trying to manage a slow decline.
…this random claim that “there were many reports of corruption during this era, but the corruption took place almost exclusively outside city government and finances”. Please define “almost exclusively”. The Mayors Chief-of-Staff, Anthony Ardolino, was one of the most powerful people in the city government for years. That does not count? For that matter what about the former Executive Director of the Control Board who basically was in charge of the city for years, Stephen Lisauskas, who helped funnel $56,000,000 of Springfield money to his friend at Merry Lynch while giving his friend inside information on the bid process and lying about his friends qualifications to other city officials- money that was promptly & illegally put into high-risk mortgage derivatives and lost (and then eventually replaced by Merrill Lynch). That doesn’t count either?
First off, although Anthony Ardolino, the mayor’s chief of staff, went to jail, he was never accused of public corruption. He went to jail because he was involved in a land flip deal. It was all private business. Is it your contention that the city should be financially penalized because one of its employees committed a crime while not on the job? That seems a bit ludicrious.
<
p>Second, Steven Lisauskas was appointed by the state Finance Control Board as its Executive Director! Seriously! He was brought in from out of the city by the Romney administration to run the city. And he did this crooked deal! That is not Springfield’s fault by a long shot on that one.
but that one of the most powerful city officials was running around tampering with witnesses, fixing buddies tickets, and evading taxes (among other things) constitutes corruption in city government is a pretty basic & obvious fact is all I’m saying. Where did I say anything about penalizing a city?
<
p>Ya, Stephen Lisauskas was appointed by the Control Board to run the city of Springfield day-to-day and did a “crooked” deal. That is, De facto, corruption in the city government. Do you dispute this? Now, who’s to blame for this is a separate question, which probably would best be discussed on a separate post if you want. But, corruption was there (again) in Springfield city government- and yes lots of other places in Springfield public life too.
I thought this was a reality-based blog, isn’t it?
<
p>You’re implying that the city of Springfield somehow deserved a Financial Control Board because its government was corrupt, and your major proof of such corruption is the actions of the Executive Director of the state-appointed Financial Control Board?
<
p>That’s absolutely ridiculous. Besides, Lisauskas was a state employee, not a city employee, so that makes the state corrupt.
<
p>Ardolino was a crook, but his actions did not result in the city’s financial mess. They were entirely separate, and involved his private dealings. His actions do not make the city corrupt. I don’t care if he was powerful or not, he did not steal public money nor did he cause the city’s financial mess; you’re projecting his private crookedness onto the entire city in order to justify what was done, and that’s just wrong.
are you talking about? Where did I imply anybody deserved anything? All I did was correct your false, and randomly inserted, claim that “the corruption took place almost exclusively outside city government and finances.” Ardolino was hugely powerful under Albano and was corrupt (as even you admit) and Lisauskas was running the city under the Control Board and was corrupt with many millions of Springfield’s money. Period.
My precise statement was “there were many reports of corruption during this era, but the corruption took place almost exclusively outside city government and finances”. That is not a false statement. The corruption in Springfield at that time involved:
<
p>* The Springfield Housing Authority, an organization outside the reach of city government.
<
p>* Massachusetts Career Development Institute, a quasi-governmental training school that received city money but operated independently.
<
p>* Hampden Regional Training Consortium, performing similar duties as MCDI.
<
p>* Greater Springfield Entrepreneurial fund, a private non-profit organization.
<
p>* Edward Wells Credit Union, a private bank.
<
p>* Friends of the Homeless shelter, a private non-profit that received city, state, and federal money.
<
p>* Tax evasion involving Anthony Ardolino regarding ownership in a bar, including payment of employees under the table.
<
p>So yes, there was corruption of institutions in Springfield prior to the Finance Control Board. But no, this corruption did not extend into city government. The city government was not corrupt.
<
p>Corruption implies usage of the organization as part of the crime. Ardolino’s crimes did not involve public assets. He was a crook, but did not make the city corrupt.
<
p>This is an important point because in the past, the conversation has been “Springfield needed a FCB because of the corruption”. It’s a false conclusion based on a lax interpretation of facts.
<
p>The Lisauskas incident shows how absolute power corrupts. He was essentially operating as a city receiver for the FCB, with the power to hire or fire employees in his hands. Is it any wonder that no one raised any red flags when he directed them to use a particular broker?
OK, even counting only pre- Control Board times (fair enough), the only way that statement is not false is if you are using a truly Greenspanian definition of “almost exclusively,” so perhaps you could clarify how you’re defining that. Ardolino didn’t just evade taxes, he was involved with a conspiracy to tamper with witnesses, he used his official position to fix $14,000 worth of tickets (that’s $$$ taken out of the coffers of a city desperate for revenue), and tried to use his influence to get $62,000 for on a business run by his secret partners. His crimes most definitely involved public assets. Also, even some of the ones you list above involved city government- the head of the Massachusetts Career Development Institute was also a Police Commissioner. Isn’t that part of city government? Not doubt his public position helped him pull things off for as long as he did. Another person you listed above was former President of the City Council. Corruption was pervasive in Springfield’s political class.
<
p>Not sure why you’re laboring so hard clear Abano’s city hall (or city hall in general?) of the corruption that has been pervasive in Springfield political culture for a long time, but that facts do not support your claims. It was in city hall, and many other places. Attempting to whitewash these facts will only help this kind of crap happen again.
Because the “conventional wisdom” is that Springfield went into pseudo-receivership because city money was used for corruption. The implied corollary is “the city deserved whatever it got and continues to get”. That wisdom is false, but people don’t seem to want to understand the difference between the corruption — which was definitely present in federal or private agencies like the Springfield Housing Authority or MCDI — and City Hall, which was relatively clean.
<
p>Was there some city hall shenanigans? Sure. Ardolino allegedly fixed tickets, and that is definitely corrupt behavior. It’s penny-ante stuff though, and not why Springfield had financial problems. The city council blocked his attempt to get public funds to pave the street in front of his friend’s housing development. There was another situation where CDBG monies were used to give “facade improvement” loans to restaurants that were connected to the mob. Again, it was mostly penny-ante, as in “thousands” of dollars, not “millions”.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong — I was/am a firm opponent of Mayor Albano, I am very glad that the likes of the Ardolino brothers and their friends no longer roam city hall. From up close, it is easy to see the difference between the past (which took place from 1995 to 2003) and the present (2004 onward). From Eastern MA, I’m afraid that these nuances are harder to see, and that the city is still being painted with a broad brush of “they’re corrupt, so their concerns are of no importance to anyone”. Those guys have been gone for almost 8 years. They’ve all moved out of town (including former mayor Albano) We’re still having budgetary problems because state laws are stacked against poor urban areas.
I have posted SEVERAL times about the failure of the Hancock suit – That Judge Margaret Botsford did a 300 page masters report, that detailed the “equal protection” type problems with funding education via property tax – but the SJC held that the legislature was trying so hard they would not weight in.
<
p>See comment on Botsford, here: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/t…
<
p>Also: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
<
p>Mind, it has not gotten as much traction as I would like. The problem in this state as to revenue is complex, and includes at a minimum:
<
p>1. It requires a constitutional amendment to have progressive taxation.
<
p>2. The tax expenditure budget is a huge black box of giveaways – did you read my most recent post on that, or past posts?
<
p>3. The SJC has no stomach at all to take on the legislature; the judicial branch is being financially strangled.
local officials agreed to the arrangement.
<
p>
In January 2004, Charles Ryan took office as the mayor of Springfield. After going through the budget, he realized that not only was there a $30 million bond coming due, but the city was about $22 million away from a balanced budget. He first tried to get a $20 to $30 million grant for the city coupled with low-interest loans. The Romney administration countered by agreeing to that, but stipulating that a Finance Control Board be put into place.
<
p>Romney, however, pushed for legislation to eliminate union contracts and collective bargaining as part of the deal. As the legislature got involved, the collective bargaining was restored.
<
p>The City Council voted in a non-binding resolution by a vote of 5-4 to support this agreement, the deal voted on was a $20 million grant coupled with a $30 million interest-free loan in exchange for receivership.
<
p>My understanding is that a state legislator, maybe one that represented Chelsea, objected to the $20 million grant, and it was ultimately passed as a $52 million loan.
<
p>Ultimately, the state imposed the FCB and the conditions that went with it. No local officials voted to enter into any agreement with the state.
Mayor Charlie Ryan most definitely signed off on the Control Board deal, and often was on Team Romney for his tenure on it- a big reason he lost. The city certainly couldn’t have been forced to accept the $$$ and the Control Board if the Mayor didn’t go along. Maybe he felt like he didn’t have a choice, or his only other choice was Bankruptcy, or he was powerless in the process…I really don’t know. But just because he didn’t get what you say was his first choice of a 20 mil grant + low interest loans, doesn’t mean he didn’t go along with the eventual deal.
<
p>As for the City Council, a non-binding vote is more than they do on most issues. As you probably are aware, they don’t have a lot of systemic power and haven’t exactly been an Algonquin Round Table.
Your statement was that “local officials agreed to the arrangement”. That makes it sound like both city officials and state officials sat down and worked out a plan whereby the city officials willingly gave local control to the city. That isn’t what happened. For sure, Mayor Ryan ultimately agreed with the decision. I’m not sure he had much choice — it was either that, or defaulting on a bond coupled with massive layoffs to make up the projected deficit. Defaulting would have meant instant receivership. The city council did not agree with the ultimate decision. They barely agreed to a deal that was sweeter than what they got.
<
p>So your statement would have been more correct if it was “the mayor agreed to the arrangement as an alternative to receivership”.
<
p>Springfield’s government did get itself into this mess by not responding to financial issues sooner. The common misconception is that this money was somehow stolen by corrupt officials. That is false. No money was stolen. The city simply spent more money than it collected for a number of years. It did not spend it on gold-plated fountains or private jets. It spent it on police, firefighters, schools, snow removal, etc. It wasn’t particularly efficient in some areas, but even after 5 years of FCB efficiencies imposed on it, it still isn’t doing that great, and four years of local aid cuts is taking its toll. I’d estimate that in order to have realistic services, the city needs another $25-50 million in annual revenue, to pay for things like maintenance (street paving, etc), maybe 100 more police, increased teacher pay (among the lowest in the region), updated playgrounds in the parks, money for economic development, etc.
<
p>Springfield had, and continues to have, a revenue problem, because the needs of its neediest residents far outstrip the amount of money it is legally allowed to raise from its property owners, and property taxes are the only revenues the city can legally collect. That is due to state law. Other states allow local sales taxes to be collected. Other states allow local income taxes to be collected. Massachusetts allows two forms of revenue — limited property taxes and state aid.
<
p>Proposition 2.5 hampered Springfield tremendously. It caused layoffs that resulted in a reduction in services, which caused many middle-class residents to flee the city. Proposition 2.5 is a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation that does not work well in situations of extreme property value disparity because it encourages this disparity in a feedback loop. That is how Grover Nordquist and his crew envisions such legislation — as promoting “sorting” of residents. It worked — Springfield has very few middle class residents left. To get them back, the city has to provide services that are above surrounding communities to counter the drawbacks of dealing with concentrated poverty.
Ya, that’s what I was saying in the first place. Whether or not you personally are “sure he had a much of a choice” is beside the point in the context of comparing it to Michigan, and doesn’t make it “not true.” Jeeze….
And this Town never did make its valuation for tax purposes work in the right decade, and is really hurting, also, as it is a dense, 350 year old town with no space for commercial development, unlike many of its neighbors.
<
p>But the Procrustean plan of Proposition 2 and 1/2 had no way to adjust for this, or take individual real estate issues into account. There was also no built-in circuit breaker.
<
p>The heart breaking failure of the Hancock v Driscoll lawsuit guarenteed that equal protection issues would never be addressed, either, as to the draconian impact of Proposition 2 1/2 on towns like mine.
And with far fewer controls, or so it seems to me.
<
p>There is a reason that, having dealt with tyranny, John Adams gave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a Constitution to deliberate with strong provisions for separation of powers. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states as follows:
<
p>
<
p>When there are no boundaries between the executive and judicial branch, then rule is by who you know, what family or tribe you come from, not by equal protection under the law. It is precisely for this reason that in my opinion Governor Patrick’s plan to merge indigent defense into the executive branch, and remove it from the judicial branch is not constitutional. It is precisely for this reason that the House proposal as issued by Speaker DeLeo’s leadership administration that renders the governance of the board for indigent defense political appointees may not be constitutional either, and certainly would weaken the “rule of law” and risk rendering indigent defense a creative of politics and the “rule of men.”
<
p>As I understand what Gov. Snyder and the Republicans in the Michigan House and Senate have done is initiate “rule by fiat” under the guise of “emergency powers” without sunset clauses or the kind of oversight board that, it is my understanding, were part of the receiverships for Chelsea and Springfield. There is a huge legal difference between a limited receivership with oversight, and rule by fiat by one man, setting aside completely elected governments.
<
p>There is a very significant need for separation of powers, because the greater power one person holds, the more corrupting and dangerous that power historically has been.
Is this the beginning of the end? The end of the beginning? The dominoes to fall fast through the country now? Feudal power centers controlling their populations? How long before Congress is dissolved due to some real, contrived or imaginary emergency?
<
p>And how many banksters are making little rocks of big ones for foisting their great scams on the world? Our Democratic party impotent and reduced to petty squabbles in the halls of government. Do We The People care only about Charlie Sheen’s exploits?
<
p>We are the fools of history.
<
p>“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” –Plato
posting on the laptop while watching the game?
If one reads “The Federalist,” one learns that the Framers deliberately, and obviously, established a central Federal gov’t, and that they intended it be powerful. They expressly wrote so. This is a theory explaining why:
<
p>”. . . . The Constitution was a revolutionary document replacing the confederation mode with a complete three-part national government supreme over the states. The most pressing need was to allow the federal government to tax to pay off the Revolutionary War debts because, in the next war, the United States would need to borrow again. . . . the proponents’ (of the Constitution) anger at the states for their recurring breaches of duty to the united cause explains both the critical steps and the driving impetus for the revolution (i.e., the making and adoption of the Constitution). Other issues were less important.” Cover blurb, “Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders’ Constitution” (NY: Cambridge University Press, paper, 2009), Calvin H. Johnson.
<
p>The Founders were PRO-gov’t, and therefore PRO-taxation. They never actually attacked or overthrew any gov’ts, because all the relevant gov’ts (except that in London) were founded and or operated by the Founders.
<
p>It’s far-right anti-gov’t loons who oppose “big gov’t,” whatever that is supposed to mean. But one won’t find any objections to “big gov’t” — or even that pair or words — in “The Federalist”. (Nor will the unconfused — I’m an optomist — teabagger object to the “big gov’t” that is Social Security and Medicare.)
<
p>This is in part to point to the fact that the far-right loons love to wave their “bible,” “The Federalist,” but it is opposite their claims for it. They don’t know that because they don’t actually read it. Or, for that matter, read either the “Declaration of Independence” or the Constitution, which two documents they conflate — in fact the Articles of Confederation (the Founders were PRO-gov’t) came between those two documents.
<
p>All of which points to the explosion in invocations of “the Constitution” every three seconds as a regular occurrance, which began with the far-right. Unfortunately they don’t read it, so much nonsense is generated, and it spreads. So there tends to be an hysteria about “gov’t” and the Constitution, usually with no foundation.
<
p>I have no problem with centralized gov’t power. My problem is with an electorate that doesn’t know the meaning of “extreme,” and doesn’t inform itself beyond reality TeeVee and FOX’s fake “news” — and then votes for the extremist of the extreme.
<
p>As for Michigan: I would need more of facts, and any relevant law, before I could consider what is happening, and what that could mean. That it is done by Republicans and or teabaggers doesn’t surprise; and potentially does cause anxiety: those who hate gov’t, but will steal elections in order to get into gov’t, aren’t to be viewed as coherent or consistent, let alone capable of honesty.
<
p>We see that with the current so-called “Tea Party”. The real Tea Party was about throwing the teabags overboard.
I would refer you to the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion. David Liss has written a terrific book on the subject, and the consolidation of financial power in a few hands.
…was not engineered by those we generally refer to as the Founding Fathers. Plus it was ultimately unsuccessful.
I’ll do it more fully:
<
p>1. There was Shays’ rebellion in western Massachusetts-Bay, under the Articles of Confederation. It was suppressed by use of the state’s militia. (The later US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. was not a new idea.) As I recall, the General Court also enacted a draft, because there was a dangerous sympathy with the rebels among some Militia.
<
p>Some nine of the rebels, tried and convicted, were pardoned by legislative enactment, in exchange for two things:
<
p>A. That they turn in their guns.
<
p>B. That they swear an oath of loyalty to the gov’t.
<
p>I believe “revolutionary” Sam Adams was rather pissed at the rebels’ temerity, and was in the forefront of the suppression.
<
p>2. The Whiskey rebellion occurred under the Constitution, and was suppressed by Federalized militia, the suppression involving Hamilton and George Washington (Washington being the Commander-in-Chief). The lead rebels were tried — not by military commission, G. W. Bush*t notwithstanding — found guilty, and sentenced to death. Washington pardoned them on the grounds that they weren’t entirely present mentally.
<
p>Here’s some relevants, it being April 19:
<
p>On April 19, 1775, Gen. Gage, the last royal governor of Massachusetts-Bay, ordered the troops to Lexington-Concord, where the General Court was meeting, the purposes to seize military materiale, which was under the jurisdiction of the General Court’s Committee of Safety and Supply; to arrest such as John Hancock and Sam Adams; and to seize a Hancock trunk that contained “secret” documents.
<
p>Also under the control of the General Court, as had always been (partially) the fact, was the Militia. (“Partially,” because technically the head of the Militia had always been the governor, with the General Court having a role in appointments of officers.)
<
p>Despite the myth, the fiction, the fantasy, the Militia was not a bunch of individuals who voluntarily showed up with their guns. The “Minutemen” were somewhat the equivalent of “special forces,” a subset of the Militia, which latter was trained, and under a command structure, having been defending MA-Bay almost constantly during some 150 years of Injun wars. See “The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths & Realities of the American Revolution” (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, Inc., 1989), Gen. John R. Galvin, U.S. Army.
<
p>At another time, Gen. Gage dissolved the General Court — the members of which had been elected. The members simply reconvened — they had been elected — on July 19, 1775, and went back to making laws. Their first, enacted on August 23, was captioned “An Act to Confirm and Establish the Resolves of the Several Provincial Congresses of this Colony,” S. 1 of which read, in relevant part,
<
p>”That all and every the resolves, doings and transactions of the several provincial congresses of this colony . . . , be, and they hereby are, confirmed and established as lawful and valid, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as fully and effectually as if the same resolves, doings and transactions had been done by any general court or assembly, of this colony.”
<
p>I don’t want to go into too much detail here — this is already at least perceivedly OT — but the core issue of the so-called “revolution” was conflict of laws. References provided on request.
thank you…………especially the grounds for pardoning the men caught in the Whiskey Rebellion. My gene pool.
<
p>
but when I got them I neglected to make written note of the reporter in which they were published.
is that there was no absence of gov’t during the “revolution,” and that the Founders were not at all anti-gov’t. (When Sam Adams was elected to the General Court, he was under a cloud concerning missing tax revenues — um, yeah: he was a tax collector. Apparently he used the taxes collected to support his political activities against his employer. But Sam Adams is a whole other story.)
<
p>And that the Militia was not a bunch of self-appointed freelancing Ayn Rant teabagger “patriots”. From the very beginnings of the colony/ies, the Militia was under the rule of law (as in the later-fangled “Well Regulated”), with the governor as commander-in-chief. In a 1700th century enactment, the ultimate purpose of the militia was said to be to ensure stability of the gov’t and laws.
<
p>Thus the Militia was always an arm of gov’t, over against the current armed-and-dangerous fantasy that the purpose of the Militia is to “defend against” the gov’t.
Deb,well seen and said. Alas, this is how it begins. It is based on the technique of the ‘big lie’ and meant to incite fear in the primitive parts of our minds and hearts. It is what Naomi Klein warned against in “The Shock Doctrine.” This is how the ruling interests are consolidating their power. This has been happening since the end of World War II:
‘The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. ‘
— Albert Einstein, 1949
‘Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.’ — Albert Einstein
<
p>It is up to us.
If we the people do not raise our voices and act in the ways you suggest, as well as implement public financing of political campaigns, we will lose the precious gifts bestowed upon us by the founding fathers (and mothers)! Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.
Let us raise our voices in resistance to this insidious trend. ‘Truth, purity, self control, firmness, fearlessness, humility, unity, peace and renunciation – these are the qualities of the civil resister.’-Gandhi
The social compact needs our infusion of care and compassion.
‘You can easily judge the character of a man [or a people] by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.’ –Goethe
…according to Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
News from Benton Harbor makes it apparent to some of us out here on the West Coast, with our progressive long lenses, that the takeover of America by fascist corporate interests has begun, with narry a bang. I haven’t seen anything on the national news about it; the fact that the conservative corporatist interests in America have broken the financial structure of our Country, by refusing to pay taxes and by buying politicians who blindly support them; and now that it is worthless, they are, ironically, as of Friday April 13, buying it back, as in Springfield, or just taking it, as in the sad case of Benton Harbor.
<
p>This may go down in history as the first shot fired in the great American Civil War of the 2020s. Unfortunately, it may take some time for the rest of the country to wake up and get what is happening:
<
p>Ronald Regan started it, with his assertion that government was the problem. In other words, our elected democracy was the problem. And don’t forget he was little more than an early Sarah Palin. An actor, broadcaster, with charisma, who was chosen by the Right. The undermining began then, and then, so often, we ignored so many warnings. In the late 1980’s, when Hillary Clinton dared to warn us, on national television, that there was a “vast right wing conspiracy working to take over America” we were discussing whether or not she should be wearing a headband.
<
p>We got what we deserve, America. We snoozed, we lost. Hasta la Vista America! Bucky Fuller predicted all of this!
At least California will be safe. I wish you all the best, but I am so glad to be out here on the left coast right now, financial problems and all.
<
p>PS. I was once a radio news reporter at WSJM/WIRX in St.Joseph/Benton Harbor. How ironic the revolution would start there, in that sweet but so sad, racially segregated community.
I agree that this is troubling. I do want to note, however, that there’s a big difference between local government and state government. I don’t know about Michigan, but taking Massachusetts as an example, the cities and towns are creatures of the Commonwealth and have only the powers the Commonwealth gives them. I’m not a municipal lawyer, but I think the legislature could alter a town’s charter or even abolish a town altogether without the town’s consent. I don’t know whether the same is true in Michigan. In any event, the point I want to make is that I don’t see a serious problem in principle in this kind of emergency measure as applied to a local government by the state government. But I would see a serious problem in principle if such measures were ever applied at the state or national level.
<
p>TedF
…Here is Amendment 89, Section 8 to the Mass. Constitution, which speaks to this issue:
<
p>
<
p>The noteworthy points: (1) by a super-majority vote, the legislature, on the governor’s recommendation, may make special laws applicable to a city or town against its will; and (2) the legislature may dissolve a city or town as a corporate entity, or alter its boundaries, or merge it with another city or town. And, of course, if the Amendment were repealed, the legislature would, I suppose, regain its power to legislate for cities and towns by special laws more generally.
<
p>TedF
I would see it as a serious problem if based upon a false pretext, such as a ginned up deficit, as excuse to declare emergency. But then it should be the legislature — the representative body — not the governor, exercising control.
<
p>I agree re. the basics in Massachusetts re. the power of the state to authorize the technical establishment of cities and towns. It’s probably the same in Michigan.
<
p>Thanks Amber a wonderful post, with lots of informed debate. I learned a lot about the Springfield takeover.
Springfield has about 26,000 students, with a foundation budget somewhere in the $297 million range.
<
p>Springfield also has a Proposition 2.5 Levy Ceiling (the number which the city is prohibited to tax above) of $171 million.
<
p>In other words, the state is telling the city that it must spend $297 million on its schools but also tells the city that it cannot collect more than $171 million in property taxes.
<
p>See the problem?
They’re not easy to pass in the best of times, but is Springfield laying out a plan to reduce the gap between foundation and revenue?
An override is not possible — the Levy Ceiling says that no city or town can collect more than $25/1000 in property taxes. You can’t override the ceiling. The $171 million is the ceiling. Springfield is about $6 million away from that ceiling. If property values fall any more, the city will have to lower the amount of taxes it can collect. Coupled with more reductions in state aid, that would be a disaster.
<
p>See the problem? $297 million in mandated school spending alone and $171 million as the legal property tax levy ceiling.
<
p>The levy ceiling isn’t nearly as restrictive as the fact that so many poor people live in Springfield and couldn’t pay the cost anyway. If the ceiling didn’t exist, and if there was no state aid, the property tax rate would need to be at $70 per $1000; that would make the average single family tax bill about $9,400. That is too high for a community with a median family income of $36,000. [some communities have tax bills in that range, like Concord, but their median household income is $123,125]
<
p>We are in this situation because of the grand “sorting” of residents, because people who have household incomes of $123,000 don’t want to live in low-service communities. The allure of a $2,600 property tax bill (Springfield’s average) is not strong.
<
p>See what happened? A lot of people voted for Proposition 2.5, and then promptly moved to communities with high taxes because they valued the services more. They left other communities saddled with the limits. And the state continues to cut aid to cities and towns, causing more residents to leave, causing property values to drop. It’s a negative feedback loop.
<
p>This is classic tranching — shed the negative, attract the positive. Works great for 90% of the state residents. It just screws the hell out of the other 10%, and ultimately hampers the state’s growth because we’re left with communities that are too expensive for the average college graduate, and others that offer nothing for them; we’re left with abandoned properties in cities designed for development, and with fights to develop land in communities that were never designed for massive development.
<
p>I think that if we address this issue, we would not be talking about losing a congressman.
The 2.5 levy law is, and that was passed overwhelmingly by an initiative petition promoted by CLT (Citizens for Limited Taxation )in 1978.
<
p>It’s a big problem for cities like Springfield.
The state has FY11 numbers for Springfield (http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/chapter70/chapter_11_local_jun.pdf p.10) of a foundation budget of $302,574,194. Of that, Springfield is required to contribute $34,730,182; the remaining $262,704,774 comes from the state via Chapter 70 funding.
The issue therefore is that the city needs to spend $34 million of its $171 million on schools, at least. As they’re requiring Springfield to pick up about 11.5% of their minimum required school spending, that doesn’t raise the concern you raise here.
My reason for posting the raw information is in response to the talk about a social compact; this shows that the state has a responsibility here. Springfield can’t even support its mandated school requirement with its allowed property tax revenues, not by a long shot. The state must chip in or it the budget doesn’t work. Yet there are a lot of people in the state who don’t want such a compact, they think that the redistribution that currently takes place should be eliminated. I’m trying to show that a city like Springfield cannot even exist without this compact – a direct result of the sorting of residents into “poor” and “wealthy” communities.
<
p>The main issue with cities like Springfield is that although we get a lot of state aid — again, needed because of our low property tax values — we get hammered when the state flatlines or cuts this state aid. If a town gets 10% of its budget from the state, 90% from property taxes, then 90% of its revenue is guaranteed to increase by 2.5% (so total revenue increases by 2.25%). Springfield gets around 30% of its revenue from property taxes, so its total revenue is only guaranteed to increase by 0.75% when aid is frozen. When aid is cut, as it has been for the past few years, city revenues decrease steeply.
<
p>Look at Springfield’s budgeted receipts over the past 6 years after you take out the actual education spending (not a perfect methodology, but should be close):
<
p>Springfield
2007: 504,968,397 – 266,281,758 = 238,686,639
2008: 562,487,918 – 293,908,412 = 268,579,506
2009: 604,225,598 – 277,080,885 = 327,144,713
2010: 579,405,261 – 297,233,705 = 282,171,556
2011: 550,576,556 – ??? (not in yet)
<
p>How’s Wellesley doing?
<
p>Wellesley
2007: 116,624,704 – 46,763,939 = 69,860,765
2008: 118,866,109 – 48,102,609 = 70,763,500
2009: 133,372,978 – 49,459,266 = 83,913,712
2010: 133,034,780 – 52,497,930 = 80,536,850
2011: 138,350,803 – ??? (not in yet)
<
p>Not as bad. Why the difference:
<
p>General Govt State Aid:
<
p>Springfield
2007: 44,382,546 (18.6% of gen govt budget)
2008: 45,286,984
2009: 45,286,984
2010: 33,354,581 (25% reduction)
2011: 32,020,398 (4% reduction)
<
p>Wellesley
2007: 1,494,079 (2.1% of gen govt budget)
2008: 1,515,458
2009: 1,515,458
2010: 1,141,372 (25% reduction)
2011: 1,095,717 (4% reduction)
<
p>See the problem? A 25% reduction in general govt state aid to Wellesley means 25% x 2.1% = 0.525% reduction in general govt revenue. The same percent reduction to Springfield means a 4.65% reduction in general govt revenue. The cuts are amplified by a factor of nine in Springfield, and in bad fiscal times, Springfield gets hit a lot harder with more homeless, more crime, more fires (as people try to heat with space heaters or gas stove burners), etc.