State of My State
Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed Governor Granholm’s speach this past Tuesday (29 Jan. 2008). After an applause-mongering, internally-conflicted, content-free, blather session with the GWB the day before, Granholm’s focused, practical vision was refreshing. She named names and legislation from both parties, she detailed real initiatives and plans for transitioning Michigan’s economy, and above all she made a valiant attempt to move beyond the “partisan rancor” that defined the previous year (it was about the time that our state’s government shut itself down and went sheep hunting in Russia that I completely gave up hope).
A quick, and obvious criticism of the speech and her plan is to ask where the money is going to come from (there was lots of talk about $200M here and $400M there), but I think that would be missing the point. The new budget proposal will detail a lot of that, but what she is doing is looking at the bigger picture. Sometimes a problem can only really be solved by taking a step back and searching for root-cause. Michigan’s economy needs to transition into something viable 10, 20 and 50 years from now, and someone needs to start that transition now. There will probably be squawking over details (as there probably should be), but if the legislature can’t swallow their pride and the squawking becomes cock-fighting, I might be tempted to send my representative a punch-in-the-throat-a-gram.
My hope is that our law-makers will take up the vision and fight for the people of Michigan, but the realist in me says that they should probably keep some neck braces handy.
Posted in Politics
February 1st, 2008 at 6:42 am
Well, it’s not hard to love a speech given by anybody with better rhetorical command after watching GWB. Granholm probably actually wrote a large portion of her speech herself, vis a vis Bush’s, which was almost certainly written almost entirely by his speechwriters. Although, I couldn’t help but watch Granholm’s speech without hearing, “In 5 years, you’re going to be blown away,” interspersed every few sentences.
Granholm’s plan for economic recovery was basically a laundry list of everything the Republicans have been demanding (cf. the utter lack of surprise on Mike Bishop’s face). It was also everything that Dick DeVos promised two years ago. DeVos must have been screaming at the TV and wondering why he wasn’t elected. I know I still am.
The news reported last night that despite the cross-aisle huggy-huggy-smoochy-smoochy language of Tuesday night, there’s still a pretty sharp divide between the parties on matters of the budget and tax cuts, so that a lot of the bipartisan language seems to be just talk at this point.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Her speech was not a radical departure from past speeches or political convictions. She has been trying to bring jobs into Michigan for a while now… I’m not sorry DeVos lost - the last person I wanted in government (esp. after DICK Cheney) was a big-business man with connections to use and blank checks to write.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’ve heard economists comment on how Michigan is a “canary in the coal mine” for the entire US economy. Problems or successes in Michigan foreshadow what is to come nationally. It doesn’t surprise me that the national economy is now following Michigan’s lead in tipping towards recession.
I’m not sure why the Bush administration doesn’t speak up more for the interests of manufacturers. Wealth and growth goes to where people make/produce tangible things. Look at Michigan in the 1940’s-60’s when auto manufacturing was hot. Michigan was one of the wealthiest and most envied states in the US. Look at China currently. They make stuff, their economy is rocketing.
When looking at major empires/economies in history, one notices that these empires grew powerful when they had a strong manufacturing base (building war materials, tools, parts for infrastructure, etc.). As those empires expanded, they often shifted the manufacturing to their conquered lands because of cheaper (often slave) labor. Sound familiar? The major empires like Rome eventually fell because of poor leadership, huge financial deficits, fighting expensive and unnecessary wars, and because their economic core (manufacturing) was no longer there to sustain the standard of living people had grown accustomed to. It’s a good thing nothing like this is happening in America today.
Historically, economies that produce tangible goods grow strong, healthy and wealthy. America was at its strongest when manufacturing was hot in the 1940’s-60’s. I don’t care what the pro-globalization folks say, our economy cannot stay prosperous with retail, banking, health care and tourism being the foundation of the economy. What is being produced in these industries? They are merely recirculating money made elsewhere. For our economy to pick up, we must be MAKING goods that people want locally and globally. But our current federal administration curiously continues to give competitive trade advantages to questionable foreign countries instead of fighting for our own manufacturing base. Why?
It will be interesting to see if/when the national economy starts feeling the pinch of massive trade imbalances, reckless personal and national debt, and the gutting of the manufacturing base. It can’t go on forever. We will have to pay for this eventually, and it will hurt.
For America to stay strong in the future, manufacturing should be protected and supported. Auto suppliers should diversify their products to include parts for other industries (computer parts, wind turbines, aircrafts, etc.). But we should never accept that manufacturing is on its way out. That would make America extremely weak in the long term.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
She may have “named names and legislation from both parties,” and she may have attempted to “move beyond the partisan rancor” but her actions that very evening didn’t reflect such all-inclusive language. When she made her way down the center aisle of the chamber to her podium, she shook hands with all the Democrats on the left side, while snubbing all of the Republicans on the right side except for two - Wayne Kuipers and Arlan Meekhof - and a journalist sitting on the right side with Meekhof. (My co-worker was said journalist.) To me, that doesn’t sound like a governor who is quite ready to work with both sides to get things done.