Running the Wrong Kind of Business

By: Ameek Sodhi

There is nothing more annoying than going into a store to find a rude, unhelpful salesman. You are reminded of this when you walk into Store A. He talks over you when he has no idea why you’re in his store. It would be so much easier if he just listened. After telling you to wait, the guy tells you he doesn’t want to fix your TV for some reason you know cannot possibly be true. It’s one of those stores that would rather sell you something defective and profit when you need it replaced. Wonderful.

This isn’t going anywhere, so you leave. But you still need to get your TV fixed as you’re having guests over tomorrow, and it’s too late to cancel. Your friend is bringing that cute girl you’ve been meaning to talk to. Failure is not an option. With no other choice, you go to the other guys across the street, hoping your luck changes.

Thankfully these guys actually know what they’re talking about. Store B works much better than Store A. You explain what you need, and they get it for you. They treat you with respect and actually listen to what you want. You’re even told its ok to call if you have any further problems. You give a sigh of relief because this is how business is supposed to be done.

We come to college to, among other things, get a degree. The university runs the business, and we are the customers. We need this degree to get a well-paying job. The university needs our tuition to keep going. As students, we would hope the university would be like Store B and not Store A. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Recent decisions by the administration have been troubling and deserve attention. In particular, their current plans to expand the Residential College in the Arts and Humanities Program and cut Deaf Education Program are especially ridiculous. It makes no sense and is concurrent with a troubling trend of short-term thinking the university has chosen to take in their fiscal affairs.

I understand there need to be cuts when there are limited funds. A weak economy in Michigan means less revenue for the university. I don’t blame them for having to pick between bad and worse when it comes to cutting back. It’s times like these when they must see which programs are truly needed. But the university is willing to hedge its bets on a program that they are selling well to prospective parents and students. It’s true that they’re going to make a quick buck in the next few years, but they are also willing to ditch a sound program that graduates qualified and skilled students every year for one hasn’t had a graduating class yet.

I have nothing personal against the RCAH. However, when compared to Deaf Education, the marketplace does. There is a market demand for those in Deaf Education for a reason. American Sign Language is the third most used language in the United States. Our Deaf Education Programs offers a unique bilingual experience that cannot be found anywhere else in Michigan. Thus, there is a reason why students enroll in the program. Prospective employers know this specialized program prepares them well for the workforce.

On the other hand, RCAH has a much less marketable potential for their graduates. It’s a young program that already has a dismal retention rate compared to any other residential college on campus. People are leaving the program not just because of the lack of academic rigor, but the uncertainty for job prospects when they would finally graduate. I would be hard pressed to compare RCAH’s retention, job placement, and graduate school acceptance rates to that of Deaf Education. You would think such a weak program would be cut if we were running low on funds, not the program that has already proven itself.

And when these numbers come in in the next few years, the consequences of such a decision will become evident. They will have to cut RCAH as parents will stop sending their kids to a program that does not prepare them for a global economy. What then will the board say to those students who couldn’t get into Deaf Education?

They’ll be speechless, like the big businesses that took bailouts last year. The banks’ short-sighted, high profiting loans, and the crisis that followed, should rebut any notion that focusing only on the short-term is a viable business model. GM and Chrysler put as little quality in their cars as possible to squeeze out as much profit as they could, only to have the world watch them topple into bankruptcy.

Michigan State’s administration is acting like these bad characters. They have Store A Syndrome. What they value is quick profit, not the quality of the education they are providing.

What comes from this kind of irresponsibility is an annoyance with institutions we feel should be able to do much better.

I can’t think of a Democrat or Republican that doesn’t have some kind of disdain towards the banks after what they just put the county through. I can’t think of one Michigander who was proud to see GM and Chrysler pleading to Washington for emergency funds. And these days, it’s hard to find people who really believe the university’s board is looking out for the students’ best interests. We hear hopeful language but are slapped in the face with boneheaded, shortsighted proposals – like cutting the Deaf Education Program. We have all seen the narrative before, and the plot gets old quick.

The real tragedy here is that there does not have to be a contradiction between the university profiting and looking out for what’s best for students. There are plenty of common sense decisions that would benefit everyone. As a sports fan, it would be nice if they wouldn’t try to change the Spartan Logo when it is broadly disliked by the student body. As someone who lives in the dorms, it would be nice if they wouldn’t charge obnoxious sums of money for meal plans. As a Resident Mentor, I would rather the absurd amount they spent on “Live On” events be used to fund scholarships for students. And as a friend of some in the Deaf Education Program, I would appreciate it if the university used some rationality and prudence when making budgetary decisions.

These are decisions that prompt people to live off campus and sometimes leave Michigan State all together in the long run. This is what ultimately makes them lose profit. The university must realize there are no short term profits that can trump a deficit of trust students have with administration board members.

Conversely, small changes to show their concern with students’ long-term interests would incentivize people to stay. That would bring sustainable profit over the next few years. The university would be running the right kind of business. We’ll be glad to bring our TV in if we’re being treated right.

If the University can afford to keep the RCAH, by all means they should do so. But in such a deep recession when an education means more than it ever has for employment opportunity, they need to have their priorities in check. Expanding RCAH and abandoning Deaf Education is a terrible idea; board members should know better.

In the end, they need to do some serious soul searching. Everyone knows how the global economy operates. The quality of education students receive is critical for finding a job. Businesses thrive because they care about their customers, not because they can cheat them out for a quick profit. I sincerely hope they reverse this decision and show they want to run the right kind of business we can all be proud of.

Hoping for Change in 2010

By: I. S. Wichman

Michigan State University students will again be voting in 2010, this time probably less enthusiastically than in 2008 when many supported Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama and others were ill-motivated by the weak Republican ticket.

However, students concerned about the role and direction of government would be wrong to “sit out” this election cycle, and especially to fail to realize the importance of the 2010 gubernatorial race. Whoever the eventual candidates may be, and whatever policies they advocate, students need to soberly rue the disaster that has overtaken this beautiful and formerly prosperous state (now with an average family income $5000 below the national average), mostly the result of misguided policies pursued by the current governor during her abysmal eight-year tenure.

Jennifer Granholm, elected governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, promised we would all be “blown away” by government-sponsored programs and businesses. The governor was right in one respect. Between 2005-2008, Michigan lost over 550,000 jobs, its economic output declined annually, and out-migration has continued unabated. Blown away, indeed. MSU graduates who hope to find work in Michigan now must turn to states with more economic opportunities and fewer punitive policies making it hard to do business. There are some bright spots, however. Two Men and a Truck continues to move MSU grads to their new, well paying out-of-state jobs.

So, what happened? We were supposed to have “cool cities” to attract our best and brightest. Instead we got bulldozers flattening swaths of uninhabited urban no-go zones in places like Flint and Detroit, and maybe soon in Lansing, too.

We were supposed to “diversify”, “modernize” and “upgrade” the state’s economy as the auto industry declined, but instead we subsidize already grossly profitable Hollywood movie companies and other favored businesses cherry picked for special tax breaks by connected bureaucrats and government functionaries looking out for their own.

The governor was going to improve our public education system in which high school graduates complete a “rigorous” slate of courses to “prepare them for college and the workplace.” But we still have over 60% illiteracy in Detroit and other similarly dysfunctional school districts, thanks partly to teachers’ union protection of incompetent teachers and their opposition to any market-based competition, all with the support of a governor whose two campaigns were largely union financed. MSU students would do well to assess their own high school teachers and programs and then ask if the state’s education (and the teachers union) prepared them adequately for higher education and work.

MSU students are doubtless familiar with those infamous on/off/on again “Promise Grants.” Certainly the $500 a semester helped with books and other marginal expenses for those who qualified. But in the end, the program essentially required taxpayers of Michigan to subsidize the education of future MI emigrants abandoning the state for jobs, work and well-lived lives elsewhere.

The governor was going to work in a “bi-partisan manner” to accomplish all manner of objectives. But instead of focusing on “Job One” – the economy that will or will not create jobs for MSU graduates — she has focused (?) on thousands of meddlesome issues, including banning smoking in public spaces and cutting loose thousands of (hopefully non-violent) criminals from state prisons. She never failed to back the unions, state or private, who have priced the average Michigan worker out of the market. She never took on the teachers union which has helped disable generations of Michigan’s young people.

Certainly there is blame enough to go around. The state Legislature easily comes to mind! Ultimately they too need to make serious proposals and bare their teeth when necessary: our state cannot continue to provide outlandish lifetime pensions to workers who “retire” in their 40s. But if MSU students are to find jobs, it will not be in a state-employed workforce paid for by tax dollars. MSU students will only find jobs in Michigan when state expenses are slashed so small-business tax breaks can grow large enough to make a difference.

The famous phrase, “the buck stops here,” has acquired a cruel and unusual twist in Michigan: the bucks are fleeing to other states. After eight years of Gov. Granholm, the state is worse off, and Michigan is a far less attractive state for MSU graduates to find work and raise families.

If they truly care about their home state MSU students should stay involved in politics, including the 2010 election. “Hope” and “change” are just evocative one-word phrases, which we all now know are empty phrases. The state needs radical tax policies that make Michigan at least as competitive as Indiana when it comes to attracting and keeping businesses. The state needs an overhaul – and reduction of – its punitive business regulations. In addition, Michigan must develop its energy resources – tried and true resources like coal, gas and nuclear – and shelve the delusional notion that “green energy” alone will solve our business and jobs problems.

In 2006 and more recently in 2008 MSU students heard the Pied Piper’s music, and many followed. In 2010, it is time for MSU students to come out of their trances, shake out the cobwebs, sober up, and make voting decisions for “hope and change” that are based not on fantasy but reality.

—-
I. S. Wichman is a professor at the Michigan State Department of Mechanical Engineering

“Racism” and American Cultural Decline

If words could explode one of them would be “racism.” Like a real explosion, this word serves no purpose but destruction.

Used over a century ago by communists to disparage regnant European (Western) bourgeois values, the accusation of “racism” has recently been deployed to demonize minor offences, intentions, preferences, even thoughts. You’re a “racist” if someone alleged to have once heard you utter an imprecation on the basketball court; you’re a “racist” if you want to live in a low-crime suburb; you’re a “racist” if you prefer metal to hip-hop; you’re especially a “racist” if you are skeptical about that ill-defined concept called “diversity” on college campuses, or the value in society of race-based preferential treatment, a.k.a. “affirmative action.”

Nowadays, you don’t actually have to do anything to be called a “racist.” Unlike the convicted rapist the alleged “racist” is often a person who someone, or some organization, doesn’t like. Someone once said a “racist” is someone with whom a liberal is losing an argument.

What do “racists” actually say or do? Probably nothing to merit such a malicious label unless, of course, what they say or do is just made up. Consider the incident with radio celebrity Rush Limbaugh, who tried to become part-owner of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams. Labeled a virulent racist and hater, he was prevented by a smear campaign led by Al Sharpton and, disturbingly, the NFL player’s union boss, DeMaurice Smith. The inconvenient truth: Limbaugh’s alleged “racist” statements were fabricated. In Limbaugh’s own words, his “controversial” racial views amounted to his “belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to race.” Sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, a compassionate and logical counter-argument won’t work. And no amount of bowing and scraping, wallowing, groveling, begging or pleading will help.

This is why crying “racism” to invoke Collective White Guilt is such fiendishly brilliant strategy.

White Guilt has given the “racist” label weapon its power. Who in his right mind wants to be called such names? Who are The Guilty, you ask? They include hundreds of millions of European-Americans, whose English, German, Italian, Greek, Polish, French, Scottish, Irish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Swiss, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian,… ancestors never profited one iota by Negro slave ownership or, indeed, had never seen blacks before they immigrated to the USA. In a stunning feat of historical disingenuousness, racial demagogues and shakedown artists have lumped them with a small caste of long-dead Southern slave-owners and labeled them “racists.” Their descendents, many of whom gave their lives to protect our freedoms, including some 15,000 Sons of Michigan in the Civil War, are now characterized on college campuses and in society as “oppressors,” “bigots,” and “haters.”

Frederick Douglass, born a slave, said “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” Part of “doing right” is to discuss all of the facts, no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect they may be. As a member of the Conservative Faculty and Staff at Michigan State University (cfsatmsu@gmail.com) I concur with this sentiment. We should honor the contributions of all Americans who strive to propagate and advance the ideals and virtues of our culture and civilization.

Conversely, we should take a hard, clear-eyed and truthful look when persons use explosive accusations like “racism” either for their own financial gain or to smear their opponents in order to terminate discussion. No surer way exists for guaranteeing the destruction of civility, human amity and the dispassionate rationality required for good public policy and, indeed, for the propagation of civilization itself.

—-
I. S. Wichman is a professor at the Michigan State Department of Mechanical Engineering

The Need for a New Approach To Climate-Change Science (and climate-change reporting)

By: Fred Fico

The goal of science is to gain enough understanding of causal interconnections so that we can make deliberate changes in those connections to produce desirable outcomes for our lives. Climate Science, however, has evidenced a toxic quality in the “climate-gate” and “glacier-gate” scandals that has undermined its credibility and distorted the journalism reporting climate change.

The disaster for science and public confidence occurs when the scientists themselves cannot agree on the “facts,” when data are manipulated to support theories, and, more fundamentally, when the data themselves are withheld from scrutiny. So some explicit and transparent rules for conduct by climate scientists are necessary to produce both quality science and to restore the public confidence in such science if it is to underlay public policy decisions.

First, data, especially “raw” data, must always be shared and open to public inspection. In fact, both those who believe in human-caused global warming and those who most deny it should come together to inspect these data in order to best expose shortcomings and agree on the appropriate measures of climate change.

Second, all attempts to alter the peer-reviewed journal process that validates scientific research as competent must be stopped. The peer-review process depends on the anonymity of the researcher to the reviewers and the anonymity of the reviewers to the researchers. It is obvious from the East Anglia ”climate-gate” scandal that both researchers and reviewers compromised this process, resulting in the appearance if not the reality of a major breach in the process meant to validate the competence of climate-change research.

Third, scientists who may have hidden data (“climate-gate”) to buttress some research hypothesis or misrepresented it for political purposes (“glacier-gate”) should be appropriately disciplined. The special problem with such behavior in Climate Science is that the public policy stakes are very, very high. Climate change legislation and regulation should never be made on the basis of poor or biased science.

Moreover, the journalists who have been reporting Climate Science also need to consider the implications of these scandals for their own conduct.

Most fundamentally, if the peer-review process has been compromised in the Climate Science journals, then the only scientific basis on which journalists have chosen Climate Science sources to interpret research has also been compromised. Journalists need to make sure that journals employ proper peer-review procedures for validating the research of scientists they choose to interview.

But even with properly validated climate-science research, journalists need to look to the science rather than to the scientists for the basis for their reporting. First, “consensus” among scientists is no more a valid route to what’s true than consensus in any other area. Second, reporters should look more than they do to the science itself. Scientific work identifies hypotheses whose predictions enable assessment of the goodness of Climate Change models, and the conclusions sections of studies identify shortcomings as well as successes in this effort. Journalists must be familiar enough with actual studies to probe scientists more carefully not just on the implications of their work but also on the limitations of their work.

Related to this, journalists need to realize that science sources, like other sources, can and will “spin” what they tell journalists, especially when their money and prestige are at stake. Certainly, the East Anglia emails indicate the creators of the climate-change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the “glacier-gate” scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion. And the admission of blatantly political motives to influence opinion on the part of the scientist involved in “glacier-gate” should give any journalist pause.

Finally, journalists need to remember to “follow the money” as part of their effort to find out what Climate Science targets. The grants in Climate Science are as much on the side of affirming man-made climate change as is the money on the opposing side of the debate. Reporters have been correctly been concerned about “industry” money biasing science; that concern must be balanced when it comes to the “government” money on the other side.

Both science and journalism seek to better understand reality. Science must take a skeptical view of theories in order to make them better at knowing and explaining that reality. Journalism would better inform citizens by restoring its skepticism in reporting the climate-change debate.

—
Fred Fico is the Chair of Conservative Faculty and Staff at Michigan State University, he is also a Journalism professor.

Word on the Street: Holiday Break

Michigan State University is out for vacation the second week of December. Whether you are out earlier or later, you are bound to have some extra time on your hands this winter break.

Coming from backgrounds across the state, country and world, MSU students each have a different story to tell about what they are doing this winter season. With winter upon us, some students are eager to hit the slopes or absorb the natural beauty of crisp snow flakes falling on a brisk early morning. Others can’t wait to leave to warm weather and beaches, something that is far from Michigan at this time of the year. Either way, students are getting a reprieve from class work, extracurriculars and sleepless nights in the library.

Lovelesh Chawla, a senior majoring in Computer Science and Engineering, will be spending winter break studying for and taking the GRE to prepare for grad school. When he finishes taking the GRE, he will be escaping to Florida with friends during the last week of December.

“Instead of studying, what about just going to the Florida and catching some rays?” Chawla said.

Many Spartans are going home for the holidays. Home for Spartans is as diverse as the activities they will be doing. For Matthew Swartz, an Arts and Humanities junior, he will be resting from the stress of classes by going home to Downers Grove, Illinois. Like Swartz, Carena Townsend, junior, will be going home to Ann Arbor to catch up on sleep and hang out with family and friends. She looks forward to enjoying her break by reading and being close to her family.

Others, such as Jai Rawat, will travel across the globe to see their families during winter break. Jai will be traveling to Jaipur and Udaipur, India to visit with family and friends and go to Thailand for ten days to take advantage of two of his favorite hobbies: traveling and photography.

For others, winter break is about getting an advantage in the job market.

Emily Pawlak, an Advertising and Design senior, will be spending her time during winter break filling out intern applications, sending out résumés and preparing for her last semester at MSU.

“Living in the dorms I’ll be going home for the semester break, visiting friends and networking for jobs come April and May,” Pawlak said.

For Joe Larsen, a senior in Media and Communication Technology, winter break will be spent doing humanitarian work in impoverished communities of Tanzania.

“I will be going to a village outside of Arusha in Tanzania where I will help provide internet connectivity to a secondary school and installing software that allows the students freer access to the internet,” Larsen said.

He is also hoping to visit a wildlife preserve during his time in Tanzania.

“[Winter break] is many things. It is a time to take a break from school, see friends and family, to earn some money, and, being a technology major, apply some of the skills I have learned in real world applications,” Larsen said.

Whether they are traveling, staying at home, or getting ahead in the job market, Spartans will be taking advantage of their time away from campus and the stress associated with college life.

Putting the Promise in Perspective

By: Alanna Powell

I hear people all over campus complaining about their hard-earned scholarship being taken away. They cry out, “This is a violation of our rights!” But let’s be rational. How did you earn your “Promise Scholarship”? Oh, yeah—by making patterns on MEAP test scantrons.

I’m a college student too, and I would love to get $2,000 for free. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as free money. There is, however, something called redistribution. This happens when the government taxes its citizens and then uses that money, among other things, to hand out to certain groups of people under the guise of lofty, feel-good names.

Euphemisms and promises aside, when there’s a $2.8 billion budget deficit in Michigan, we need to see the Promise Scholarship for what it is: not a promise, but an unsustainable social program that shouldn’t have implemented without first considering how to fund it.

This may be a bold claim, but the Promise Scholarship is a pretty bold program. People everywhere are mad that their “promise” has been taken away—but this is the heart of the problem. Nothing has been taken away; the money to fund the Promise Scholarship was never there to begin with. How can you take something that doesn’t exist in the first place? Furthermore, in order to have the money to fund something, our elected officials have to take money from us.

People just don’t seem to get it: social programs are not an inherent right. They aren’t this constant, primordial force of society—they are evidence of tax dollars at work. So, when government officials don’t fund a program, they’re not cheating you out of your rights. And, if you want to make the argument that you’re being cheated out of your hard-earned money, then you should complain on April 15.

Governor Granholm re-vamped the Michigan Promise scholarship program in 2007 when the state was facing a budget deficit of $600 million. That’s right, when the state had negative $600 million, she offered up to $4,000 per student for the Promise Scholarship.

Republicans did the responsible thing by cutting this year’s Promise Scholarship funding—it turns out that you cannot fund things when you do not have funds. For this fiscal year, maintaining this program would require an increase from $80.5 million to $140 million. Democrats can call Republicans heartless for cutting funding, and Republicans can call Democrats heartless for getting people’s hopes up by making false promises. But more importantly, when you look past party politics, it doesn’t matter how many promises politicians make. Because government doesn’t operate on promises, it operates on money.

Michigan simply does not have the money to afford the Promise Scholarship this year. What if, for once, we stopped looking to the government for a solution? What if tuition was lowered? Then, instead of subsidizing education to make it more affordable, it could be directly more affordable. (Plus, one could make the argument that the Promise Scholarship is actually inflating tuition costs). Or, what if taxes were lowered? Then, people could use the money they saved to put toward education directly, thereby eliminating the government middleman.

While Americans may not be ready to accept these Republican principles, the Michigan budget crisis has shown us some of the gaps in the Democratic ideal. Government-intensive social policy is inefficient, and as the lack of Promise Scholarship funding has shown us, it is also unreliable. The unfunded Michigan Promise Scholarship is not a broken promise. If anything, it’s broken idealism.

Regulation not a Democrat or Republican Issue

By: Ameek Sodhi

It is a politician’s job to get elected every two to four years. Once elected for a first time, we as constituents re-elect incumbents overwhelmingly. By that definition, politicians have very little incentive to take a careful and detailed analysis of policy measures. As long as they get 51 percent of the vote, they’re happy. So what is an election-fearing politician to do when a serious, substantive debate comes up? Make a catchy slogan and run with it.

Political slogans have the wittiness of a fourth grade comeback – watch out. They have become commonly used in political elections big and small, and their strategies are pretty simple. If it scares people, brilliant. If the headlines make the other view sound like they have no backbone, wonderful. And if you can mischaracterize your opponent’s intentions, it’s all the better. With Regulation, more than any other issue, this childish rhetoric does not match up to the seriousness the debate requires.

Regulation is probably the most overused word by politicians. Politicians spin the concept which ever way the winds blow, to the tune of their own ideological note. Democrats complain that without regulations, the marketplace will run wild. Republicans insist that overregulation can restrict the healthy, needed risk-taking for a vibrant free market. On face value, both claims make sense. However, a firm understanding of economic history points to a solution more in depth and complex than just misleading catch-phrases.

Frankly, regulation is a case by case issue. There have been industries subject to Soviet-style overregulation where deregulation has worked. An example would be the deregulation of telecommunication industries in India, which has dramatically increased accessibility to cell phones. When I visited India, I noticed that even people with the most modest income could afford cell phones. Also, China has taken many steps in embracing a much less regulated and transparent marketplace. As a result, they have become an economic powerhouse. So in those specific cases, deregulation worked out very well.

On the other hand, there have been cases where eases on regulation have caused for the market to abuse its new found opportunity – particularly in the financial markets. The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 is a good example. Capital was allowed to flow in and out with virtually no regulations, and caused Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea to almost collapse. Clearly, more regulation was needed in that case.

Our current recession is another example we should learn from. For years, banks sold risky sub-prime mortgage backed securities under almost no regulation. It caused our markets to come to the precipice of collapse last September. So we know that we must be prudent when it comes to deregulating financial markets. With this case, however, there is more to the story.

For years, Republican and Democrat presidents pressured banks to make these sub-prime loans in the first place. Then, for eight years, a Democrat lead Finance Committee under a Republican president sat on their hands as the problem became much worse. In this instance – which our economy barely escaped economic Armageddon – there were institutional screw-ups, not just the question of regulation. So when politicians complain about the deregulation or regulation of American financial markets, they really are trying to cover their own mess with ideological blabber.

Clearly, regulation is a multifaceted subject that requires a case by case analysis. I look for the few, intelligent politicians from both parties that genuinely take the time to study issues like this with prudence. Some issues are cut and dry, and that is ok. However, there are certain issues where things are not so simple. On those more complex issues, like regulation, it makes sense for us to study the economics, not the rhetoric.

Corrections Spending out of Control

By: Andrea Bommarito

Here are some numbers to think about. $2.08 billion: This is how much money the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) spends annually. $1.9 billion: This is the portion of those expenditures that come from the general fund. And finally, 538 percent: This is how much corrections spending has increased in the last 34 years. If the MDOC continues spending as they are, it is projected that they will reach over $2.6 billion in spending by 2012. As of right now, Michigan is one of only four states where the state spends more on corrections than higher education.

Many groups and businesses across the state support structural reforms to our state budget to increase savings. One of these groups, the Detroit Regional Chamber, has presented a goal to the state to cut correctional spending by $500 million.

Oakland County Sherriff and Republican gubernatorial candidate, Mike Bouchard, has already introduced a few ways that MDOC can cut spending. He has even facilitated some of these practices in his county jails. At a press conference last month he outlined his actions.

“As Sheriff in Oakland County, I competitively bid for inmate food services in the jail,” Bouchard said. “This stand-alone item saves Oakland County taxpayers $1.6 million every year.”

If this process was facilitated in the 49 prisons statewide, we could save nearly $40 million annually.

Another way that Bouchard and the state of Michigan can cut MDOC spending is by re-introducing the ‘good time’ credit, where inmates can be released earlier by receiving these credits. It was previously used in the state until the late 1970s. To receive these ‘good time’ credits, inmates would have to receive their GED, Associates Degree or any other achievement that would increase the probability that the inmate would be a productive member of society. If 3,000 inmates gained these credits and were released early, the corrections department would save nearly $100 million.

By introducing and facilitating just these two practices in our prison systems, we can save the MDOC and the state almost $140 million annually. Bouchard is largely in favor of instating these programs across the state.

“I suggested to the Granholm/Cherry administration that they do the same with the corrections department as I did with my Oakland County jails,” Bouchard said. “I never even received a no thank you letter.”

With the right leadership and programs we can cut spending and help to return Michigan to its prosperous days.

Hoekstra: Michigan Needs a Return to the Basics

A Spartan Review Exclusive

By: Pete Hoekstra

As I campaign across the State of Michigan, I’m often asked, “What can you do to turn around Michigan?” I’ve met with and talked to thousands of Michiganders who love their state, but are so frustrated with the current situation in Lansing. There is a complete void in leadership that has resulted in business out-migration, job loss and ultimately significant population loss.

When you look at the statistics, 53 percent of University of Michigan graduates left Michigan to find work elsewhere. At Michigan State, the number is 49 percent. The inability of our state to keep our graduates is an ominous sign for our economy. We must do better at providing quality opportunities for our graduates. Since we help pay for their education, we must put a premium on keeping them here so we can benefit from their expertise and leadership.

While government doesn’t create jobs, as evidenced by the recent figures from federal stimulus spending, government can create an environment for job providers. By breaking down bureaucratic barriers, creating a more tax-friendly environment and growing a quality work force, Michigan can once again be a national leader.

It wasn’t that long ago that Michigan had a Republican governor who led us to the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.2 percent. We were below the national average in unemployment for several years. More importantly, we were number one in job creation. Our work force was growing and other states looked at our economic development efforts with envy.

That’s why I advocate a return to the basics. Programs with fancy names attract headlines, but that isn’t much of a consolation if they don’t attract jobs. Michigan has fantastic natural resources and a knowledgeable work force. We must build on our strengths. Unfortunately, the longer we wait to take action, the more the brain drain from Michigan accelerates.

When you look at successful states around the country, there are common elements among them. These states have rational tax codes, strong leadership from their governor, and a state bureaucracy that encourages growth, rather than stifling it. Michigan is currently at the wrong end of the spectrum on all of these aspects.

Under a Hoekstra administration, we will immediately scrap the onerous Michigan Business Tax. I will appoint strong department directors and give them the tools they need to help Michigan prosper. My department directors will make improving the Michigan economy their top priority. I will scrap the current Michigan Economic Development Corporation because it has gone from being the top economic development agency in the country to the most ineffective. In its place, we will create an economic development program that works with all businesses, instead of a few select favorites.

We will increase state revenues by growing the tax base, rather than continuously increasing rates on overburdened taxpayers. I will model any replacement taxes after successful models in other states.

I will encourage creativity in our education system, starting with strong support for charter schools and schools of choice. I will provide incentives for consolidation and reducing costs. There’s no reason for taxpayers to fund massages as part of teacher health benefits.

Given my experience on the House Intelligence Committee, I know how important public safety is to our citizens. After all, protecting our citizens is one of the fundamental responsibilities of state government. Our State Police and local sheriff, police and fire departments have been decimated under the current administration. It’s time for Michigan’s governor to respect and support our law enforcement community.

And there are so many other issues I will address during this campaign. This isn’t about grand plans, big spending programs and a bunch of hype to grab headlines. Michigan needs a strong leader with the ability to get the job done. It’s emphasizing the fundamentals and running an administration that responds to the needs of its citizens.

When I came to Michigan from the Netherlands, I was a young child. My parents saw Michigan as the land of opportunity where they could provide a good life for their family. Michigan certainly lived up to that promise. I was able to get a quality education and an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan. That foundation led to a successful career as an executive at Herman Miller.

I thought the capstone of my career would be serving in the United States Congress. I’m very proud of what I’ve been able to achieve for Michigan through that service.

But I won’t rest until we can once again say that Michigan has the lowest unemployment rate in Michigan and is number one in job creation. I will be laser-focused on that goal as your governor, and I look forward to detailing my vision during the upcoming campaign.

—
Pete Hoekstra is a U.S. Representative from Michigan’s second district. More information on his gubernatorial campaign can be found at HoekstraforGovernor.com

The Spartan Review is a non-profit organziation and therefore cannot endorse any candidate for political office. We extended the opportunity to write an op-ed for this print edition to all five republican candidates for governor. Only the George and Hoekstra campaigns responded with articles for this edition. The invitation for the Cox, Bouchard, and Synder campaigns to write an op-ed piece for print never expires. We hope that those campaigns will accept our offer so we can provide our readers their points of view.

An Assault on Faith

America has always been the one place where the right for a man to worship as he chooses without fear of persecution has been realized. No other nation on Earth can claim to have within its populous the religious diversity that exists in America. None can attest to the tolerance, respect and openness our people have for this ideal. It’s how our nation was founded, it’s how we still live today.

The American story of tolerance – one unique and unmatched anywhere else on the globe – has its blemishes. Irish Catholics carried the burden of discrimination when they first arrived to a mostly Protestant nation. Jews faced prejudices in our city streets in the 1950s. In more recent years, some non-believers have waged an assault on all those of faith, accusing of radicalism at any hint of religious dedication. We are a free society where we allow freedom of speech, but sometimes differences bring out the worst in us. And unfortunately, that discrimination holds true most for one community in 2009.

There are roughly half a million Sikhs in America. It is a requirement of our faith – not of vanity or fashion – to have our distinct identity: long hair, a turban, and an uncut beard. The turban serves two purposes, each equally as important. The first is to announce to the world that we, as Sikhs, stand for certain values. The second is embedded in its discipline. Getting up to pray and tie my turban tests whether I really believe in the tenets of my faith. This identity, that has defined me for the entirety of my life, is under attack.

State governments all over the country have attempted to pass laws to ban religious head-coverings. In Oklahoma and Minnesota, state legislatures have tried banning anyone with religious headgear to take state issued IDs. In Oregon, they were successful in banning all teachers from wearing headgear. And even in Michigan, recently the Michigan Supreme Court allowed a judge to order head-covering removal. It has escalated on the national level, as Congress is trying to pass the “Pass ID Act of 2009,” putting the same restrictions on religious headgear.

It’s hard to stomach e-mails from civil rights groups that tell me I may not be able to go into court or get my driver’s license in the near future. But even with the anger and sadness I feel when reading about such issues in our courts, it is comforting to know that Americans – religious and secular – are willing to fight for religious freedom.

–Ameek Sodhi, Sikh

As a secular humanist who does not believe in God, I am equally concerned with the attack on the rights of religious people to express themselves peacefully. Discrimination against innocent people is wrong. Some say secular people have no right to say the words “right” or “wrong,” but I tell you that it is perfectly clear to me that a successful society must not allow discrimination against people peacefully adhering to their religious identities – and that means that to do otherwise is wrong.

The protection of religious liberty, the right to believe or to not believe whatever a person thinks to be true about the cosmos, ought to be as important to we secular people as it is to religious people. Thus, the bans on religious headgear and identifying articles are a threat not only to religious people, but to secular people. If people of faith are not allowed to identify as they wish and worship as they will, then the right of secular people not to believe is equally in peril. To allow the government to enforce secular life without religious identification is to allow the government, when our leaders might see fit, to do just the opposite, and enforce religiosity.

–Kevin Dean, Secular Humanist

America is a haven for the religious. People fled their home countries to escape prosecution and practice freely in the U.S. If we walk away from religious liberty, we walk away from our history. Our very identity as a nation is tied to religious freedom.

People pushing strict regulation on religious headgear will argue that the freedom of religion equals the freedom from religion. I don’t disagree with this statement. However, Sikhs wearing turbans do not impose their religion upon me. They can wear their turbans, expressing their freedom of religion, while others do not, utilizing their freedom from religion.

Headgear is an expression of faith. If it is within the jurisdiction of the government, will not cross necklaces or Christian fish clothing also be monitored? I don’t agree with the Sikh religion. I’m a Christian. Still, Sikhs deserve the freedom to be the best Sikhs they can be, wearing turbans.

–MaryKate Carter, Devout Christian

Next Page »