Granholm's State of the State: No Surprises- A Plan for a Less Free, Less Prosperous Michigan

Yesterday Michigan Governor Democrat Jennifer Granholm gave her State of the State address- let's take a look at what she said.

First, she announced that she is going to continue her policy of attempting to personally direct the economy of Michigan by focusing the state on new industries like 'green energy' and film-making. Granholm has no major experience or success at any level in starting and running new businesses, yet in spite of this, she is going to use the power and force of government to take money from you and me and then invest it in businesses that she thinks will be successful. I have no problem with her doing this with her own money- but using the power of the state to gamble in supporting risky business ventures is not sound public policy, and our state should not be engaged in it.

Next, let's take a closer look at how she is going to lower energy prices in our state, make energy more affordable to citizens, and lower the overall cost of doing business here- she is going to ban the building and running of coal-powered electric plants in Michigan. Not only will that make energy more expensive and raise the cost of business in our state, she is essentially telling companies that want to invest in Michigan and hire workers here "no"- that Michigan is not open to new businesses if they aren't the state favored 'green' businesses. A government that can pick and choose winners in the marketplace and one that can disallow certain businesses to be built just because it doesn't like them is not a free government in charge of a prosperous society- it is a tyranny that makes society more poor, and you can see that in Michigan, as our government becomes more arbitrary, more corrupt, less responsive, and society becomes poorer as a result.

Continuing on, I would like to announce that I will not be paying my utility bills, house payments, or car insurance any more, since it appears that these are voluntary payments, and the state will use its power to keep the energy on and even provide insurance for me, or at least that is what Granholm is proposing. Once the moratorium expires, I might pay then. She is removing personal responsibility from individuals, and society will be less because of this- these programs will increase economic inefficiencies and drive up taxes, making society poorer, and ultimately as society becomes poorer people will be less able to pay their bills, which the government will have to pay, etc, etc. It doesn't make logical sense, although it is nice, and saying nice illogical things gets you elected now days (Exhibit A: Obama). As a side note, since I brought up Obama, I am also considering no longer paying my taxes, since those are optional as well, at least until you are nominated for public office, and then campaign donors pay the bill.

Lastly, I would just like to comment that this is exactly what you get when you elect a Democrat who promises to improve funding for the arts, provide jobs, keep the cost of education low, and protect the environment- a politician who says nice things, but reality is much different, as we can see now that Granholm- elected to do those things- is now cutting the state fair, turning over wetlands protection to the federal government, cutting the Department of Humanities, Arts, and Libraries, and overseeing skyrocketing tuition increases and unemployment rates. If you want low cost education, jobs, a protected environment, and everything else a Democrat promises to do- vote Republican in the future. Results matter, not words, Granholm.

The information from this post was taken from her speech yesterday, covered in this story in the Detroit News.

UPDATE: On the way in to work today on 760AM, there was a debate between Granholm's guy and an insurance guy, and they were debating the Governor's proposal to make car insurance more fair by increasing regulations and oversight of the insurance industry.

As I understood it, the government is upset that when deciding rates insurance companies rate people based on occupation/race/income, that insurance rates have gone up by 69% since 1989, and that our insurance rates are some of the highest in the nation.

The insurance industry's reply is that basing insurance rates on such factors is established as valid under actuary practice, and that such factors are good predictors between good risks/bad risks, that the increase in rates since 1989 works out to be 3% a year, which is the rate of inflation and is pretty good considering the sharper rise in health care costs, and that the reason why our insurance rates are high is that the government demands a no-fault system with unlimited medical compensation.

Honestly, this debate works out to a typical debate between a Republican and a Democrat- the Democrat wants the best coverage in the world, free from cost, and everyone paying in equal, while the Republican wants to give people choices on what kind of coverage they think is best for their needs, that the cost is based on the benefit gained to the consumer, and that the reason why it costs so much is because of government involvement. It's pretty clear that this insurance proposal of Granholm's is like most of the rest of her ideas- bad for Michigan.