Big Money Loses In Michigan. Conservatives And Public Say No!

Michigan conservatives defeat Big Business, Big Money, tax hikes and higher spending

BY TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | MAY 7, 2015 | 5:00 PM 

Michigan voters on Tuesday rejected -- by a historic 80-to-20 percent ratio -- a ballot measure...

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, the fabled quote goes, can count on the support of Paul. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder learned this week, though, that millions of dollars in "support" from Paul is no good if you still let Peter vote on the robbery.

Michigan voters on Tuesday rejected — by a historic 80-to-20 percent ratio — a ballot measure that would have increased their sales and gasoline taxes in order to provide more highway funding.

Drivers and shoppers were the would-be "Peters" being robbed from in this story. Michigan households would have paid an average of $475-545 more in taxes per year according to estimates by the Associated Press.

The biggest wannabe "Paul" in this story was the highway construction industry, which spent millions trying to pass the ballot measure.

Here's the money trail:

About $10 million was spent on the ballot measure according to analyses by Michigan media — almost all of it in favor of higher taxes and spending. The largest force in the election, which raised at least $8 million to spend on the campaign according to the Center for Public Integrity, was "Safe Roads Yes."

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

MORE STORIES

• Last call in merrie olde England

  BY DAN HANNAN | 05/23/15 12:43 PM
  The essential case for conservatism: Give people more responsibility and they will behave more responsibly.

• Will anyone step up to challenge Hillary?

  BY HUGH HEWITT | 05/24/15 11:22 AM
  It could be done. Will it?

• How the world has changed since World War I

  BY MICHAEL BARONE | 05/23/15 10:28 AM
  In a historic perspective, deaths in wars today are relatively low.

• Libya shows Hillary didn't learn anything from Iraq

  BY W. JAMES ANTLE III | 05/22/15 12:28 PM
  "Unlike Jeb and Rubio, Hillary gives simple Iraqanswer in 30 seconds," reads one headline.

• Bernie Sanders is Hillary's leftward advance man

  BY BYRON YORK | 05/21/15 7:47 PM
  Bernie Sanders' role is not so much to pull Clinton to the left as to show her how far she can go.

WEX TV

Remembering our fallen heroes



Soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan, Obama honors the fallen



Jeb Bush speaks to the crowd at SRLC in Oklahoma City



Gov. Chris Christie speaks to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference

Who could be against safe roads, right? "Safe Roads Yes" was mostly a front group for the road-building industry. As of SRY's May 4 campaign filing, $5.19 million of its money came from the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association. MITA is a lobby group representing Michigan Paving & Materials Company, Kaltz Excavating Co., Action Traffic Maintenance, Florence Cement Company and Cadillac Asphalt LLC.

Separately, the Michigan Concrete Association gave $148,000 to SRY, and the Asphalt Pavement Association of Michigan gave $200,000.

Of all the arguments for raising taxes for highway funding, the worst is that the concrete and asphalt suppliers, and the excavating and paving contractors, want the business. When the support for the tax and spending hikes comes mostly from the industries that would pocket the money, it ought to make observers wonder: Is this serving the public interest, or merely special interests?

The Michigan Proposal 1 story is important because it upends many myths persistent on the American Left and in the mainstream media.

First, Proposal 1 showed that Big Money is not only beatable — it's can be trounced. The pro-tax side outspent the anti-tax side by a ratio of about 30 or 40-to-1, but still suffered "the most one-sided loss ever for a proposed amendment to the state constitution of 1963" according to the Detroit Free Press.

Second, Proposal 1 undermined the common liberal trope that the push for lower taxes is the agenda of Big Money, and that higher taxes is the populist agenda.

Finally, Proposal 1's sound defeat undermined the media assumption that Big Business and Big Government working together represents a public consensus. Often, as in Michigan, a Big Business-Big Government alliance is an axis of the elites against the public. That axis of the elites often wins in the halls of Congress or state legislative chambers where the average taxpayer can't afford to send a high-priced lobbyist. But in a ballot measure, the people can beat the powerful.

This wasn't a unique situation. This was part of a pattern.

Virginia, in 2002, saw a few politically connected real estate developers pour millions into an attempt to hike taxes to pay for roads. In that fight, following the money was very instructive: The people lobbying for more lanes wanted them so they could find buyers for the houses they wanted to build in exurbs, a long drive from D.C. More highway money and more lanes wouldn't mean a faster commute — it would mean more cars and just as much congestion.

Colorado, in 1992, passed a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, making it hard for the legislature to hike taxes. Conservatives' biggest enemy in this fight was the Denver Metro Convention and Visitor's Bureau. Big Business succeed in 2005 in paring back TABOR. In 1978, California also passed a famous ballot measure curbing property-tax hikes, again over the objection of Big Business.

The lesson of Michigan's latest tax-hike fight isn't merely a corrective for mistaken reporters buying into conventional wisdom. More important, Proposal 1 should be a lesson for Republicans going forward.

As the Washington Examiner editorial put it this week: "Michigan voters…did not just reject another tax increase. They also rejected an attempt by one small but well-moneyed set of businesses to plunder everyone else."

This points towards the way to sell limited government: When government has more power, it empowers those with connections to government. Michigan reminds us that these powerful insiders are beatable, as long as the people have a say.

Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted attcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.

Romney Michigan Win Larger Than The Numbers

We knew there was a bit of mischievousness in primary yesterday in Michigan. We heard about it in the post-election coverages and interviews as well as Santorum's request for Democrats to cross over and vote for him instead of Romney.  We are proven correct in the following article by Dick Morris.  100,000 Democrats voted for Santorum!

We think the Santorum request for Democratic votes was a grasp at a straw that will hurt him badly as he goes down the pike. Republicans across the nation will view this as a losers attempt to gain some traction.  We do  think that come Super Tuesday, it might be all over for the former Senator. He will be punished.

Whether it will be enough  to prematurely terminate his campaign is yet to be seen. However, we expect that Newt will do OK in the South, probably second or third place in most elections with a "must win" in Georgia. We would not be surprised to see Santorum be third at best and will be beaten by Paul in most of the primaries.

The open primary which Michigan has, is dumb.  You are either a registered Republican, Democrat, Green, Socialist, Bull Moose, Whig or other party member. To allow anyone to vote in any party's primary just does not make sense. The primary's purpose is to nominate that party's candidate who will face the other candidates so nominated in the November election. To do otherwise invites the games that were played in the Michigan primary.

Picking a Presidential candidate should be serious business and opening the system to abuse, it the last thing we should be doing. If you live in Michigan, contact your representatives and ask them to close the primary!

Conservative Tom

MICHIGAN DEMS POWER SANTORUM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 29, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version

Did Romney eek out a victory in Michigan?  No.  He actually won by a hefty margin.  Did he lose blue collar voters, showing weakness in that key sector?  No.  He carried them quite nicely.

So why don't the results reflect this?  Because the primary was invaded by Democrats who largely voted for Santorum.  Had the Democrats not done so, Romney would not have won a narrow 3 point victory in Michigan but would be celebrating a 7 point comfortable victory.

According to the Fox News exit polls, 9 percent of the 1.1 million votes cast in the primary were by Democrats who voted for Santorum over Romney by 53-18.  17 percent of these would-be spoilers voted for Paul and 3 percent backed Gingrich.  The remainder voted for Obama or an uncommitted slate in the Democratic primary where they belonged.

Had these Democrats not cast ballots in the Republican primary for Santorum, Romney would have been hailed as the easy winner last night.

We have to give Romney credit for an overwhelming win in Arizona and a significant sized victory in Michigan in view of these results.  But, more importantly, we have to ask why these Democrats voted for Santorum.

Some of these Santorum voters were possibly pro-life Democrats who crossed party lines because they feared that Romney might go back to his pro-choice ways.  But this was a most unusually large Democratic turnout when their own party did not have a contest. (Witness that 90% of the Democrats who participated voted in the Republican primary).

The turnout was, undoubtedly, deliberately orchestrated by the unions and the formidable Michigan Democratic organization in the hopes of nominating Santorum and upending Romney in his home state.  It takes quite a bit of effort to turn out 100,000 Democrats to vote in the Republican primary.  Why were the Democrats so intent on beating Romney and helping Santorum?

Rightly or wrongly, they - and the Obama high command - must believe that Romney would be the tougher candidate to beat in November.

The opposition has clearly and unambiguously endorsed Santorum and indicated its fear of Romney.

Shouldn't we listen to them?  Isn't it important to take account of which candidate the opposition fears?  Do we want to give them a Republican nominee they feel they can defeat or one of whom they are afraid?

Obviously, the Democratic chieftains believe that Santorum's position on social issues will give Obama plenty to run against in a general election.  His opposition to contraception (although he does not want to make it illegal) and to amniocentesis (which he says leads to abortion) would make inviting targets for negative ads in the general election.

The Democrats want to run against Santorum.

Who are we to second guess their judgment and give them what they want?

Michigan In The Spotlight

One of our faithful readers and dependable commenters wrote:

"I would like to hear your opinions about Michigan. Romney is running more than $1 million in ads against Santorum in Michigan. Is it working? How much will Michigan affect Super Tuesday? What will Gingrich do with the new $10 million donation he just got from his billionaire? He should save it for the southern primaries. The last thing he should do is advertise just enough in Michigan to split the conservative vote again and allow Romney to win it."


Michigan definitely is in the spotlight for the next week leading up to the November 28 primary.  The candidates have been crisscrossing the state making appearances and trumpeting their talking points. Millions are being spent on television ads both pro and con each candidate.  Rommey and Santorum seem to be spending the most. Ron Paul and Gingrich are barely tipping the meter.


 Last Thursday evening we attended the Oakland County (SE Michigan) Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner.  Usually these events attract 400 or so, however, this one had 1400. The main speakers were Ann Romney (wife of Mitt), Governor Rick Snyder (who has endorsed Mitt), L Brooks Patterson (Republican County Exec), C. L . Bryant (a black conservative film maker) and Rick Santorum. We wondered, does the attendance indicate that Republicans are invigorated or was it the speakers? Obviously having Santorum come to your county meeting is a strong attraction, however, we do believe that the Republicans, Tea Party members and independents are very interested in making Obama a one term President.


As far as speakers go, in our mind, C.L. Bryant stole the show. He had the attendees standing in the aisles with his very strong Republican, personal and religious freedom and anti-Obama speech. His eloquent rhetoric struck the notes that we wish other candidates would have. We are going to see if we can find a copy of the speech and if so, we will post it. It was very memorable.


Ann Romney told us about her illnesses  and how Mitt had stood by her through thick and thin (an anti Gingrich comment?) and how he was a businessman who had been tested in turnaround situations and how he could solve the nation's problems.  It was a good candidate's wife's speech.


We were  unimpressed with Santorum's delivery. Although the speech hit all the right notes, it seemed that when he was making a point, he seemed unable to strongly drive it home.  He seemed tired although his speech hit the right subjects  (ObamaCare, the budget, foreign affairs, his social conservative views), it did not get the rousing appeal of Bryant's.  It was at the end of a long day of campaigning so we will give him a break. 


As far as the Michigan vote goes, it appears as if Santorum has opened up a double digit lead over Mitt in a couple polls.  This would hurt Romney badly as the state was his home and his father, George,  was a former governor. Before we vote, we believe the margin will decrease to the 1-5% range but with a Santorum edge. Newt will be a far third place with Paul in single digits.  


Romney is being hurt here with his stand on the GM and Chrysler bailouts to which he was not in favor. We agree with his stand but many in the state do not. They do not want to have their ox gored.  


Another reason that Romney is lagging is that Michigan is an open primary which means anyone can vote in it.  The unions have in the past and probably will this time,  encourage their members to vote for Santorum as they feel he would be the weakest candidate to go up against Obama. The exit polls will tell us the impact of this strategy.


We do not see much Gingrich advertising, however, the Super Pacs, do not have to disclose who they are supporting so detecting who is paying for the anti-Romney and anti-Santorum ads are hard to detect. The billionaire supporter of Gingrich might be paying for some of the ads, but we have not seen any evidence of it.


As far as visiting, Gingrich was in Michigan in November, but we do not know of another visit lately.  His campaign says he will be in the state before the November 28 primary. We will see.


Gingrich should be paying attention to the State of Georgia  after his comment on the Sunday shows. His statement said that if he loses Georgia, Romney doesn't carry Michigan or Santorum is defeated in Pennsylvania, those respective campaigns will be severely damaged. 


As far as Super Tuesday goes, Michigan is the setup act for this major election day.  Who ever wins Michigan will take that advantage into this multi-state contest. It will not guarantee a win, but it will definitely set the tone.


Will any of the four remaining candidates bow out before the election? If we were to guess, the answer would be, no. However, should anyone of them suffer devastating losses in the upcoming weeks, it would be a possibility. As long as they all stay competitive, continue racking up delegates, they will stay in the race all the way to the convention.  


Could we get a deadlocked convention? Probably, if they all stay competitive, we could see the first convention in recent history with more than one vote for President.  After the first vote, there will be movement among the candidates and if not on the second but by the third vote, we will have our candidate.  From a political junkie standpoint, that would be great, however, the party would probably be scared to death on how the news media would report it.


That is the report from Michigan. If you have any additional questions, please post them and we will respond.


Conservative Tom