…The education reform advisory team has dubbed itself a “skunk works” project working outside of the government bureaucracy and education establishment with a goal of creating a “value school” that costs $5,000 per child annually to operate, according to meeting minutes and reports obtained by The Detroit News.

The records show designers of the “value school” are in talks with Bay Mills Community College about opening a technology-centric charter school by August 2014. The school would seek to maximize the roughly $7,000 annual per-pupil funding regular schools get from taxpayers by applying “concepts familiar in the private sector — getting higher value for less money.”

Other records distributed to group members indicate they want to explore using fewer teachers and more instruction through long-distance video conferencing. Each “value school” student would receive a “Michigan Education Card” to pay for their “tuition” — similar to the electronic benefits transfer used to distribute food stamps and cash assistance for the poor.

Students could use leftover money on the “EduCard” for high school Advanced Placement courses, music lessons, sport team fees, remedial education or cyber courses, according to an outline of the advisory team’s agenda.

Snyder confirmed Thursday the existence of the work group, but told The News “there is not a specific outcome” for the project…

And, when they say “leftover money,” they don’t, as I understand it, mean the balance of the $7,000 which is to be allotted per-pupil at the beginning of the school year, but the balance of those funds which remain after the above-mentioned for-profit entities take their cut, which, I’ve heard, is likely to be about $2,000 per student. So, essentially, according to this vision, we’ll be educating our children for $5,000 per year, and handing $2,000 over to the companies running the system. And, if kids should happen to use less than that $5,000, they’ll be given the balance on their “EduCard”, so they can do extracurricular things like purchase online American history modules of questionable value from the likes of Mike Huckabee.

Michigan Education Association (MEA) President Steve Cook had the following to say when made aware of the secret initiative.

…The members of this self-defined ‘skunk works’ come from the same political and corporate interests who pushed through a tax break for themselves that was paid for by a $1 billion cut to our children’s schools. Now they’re developing a secret plan to cheapen our kids’ education and replace teachers with teleconferencing. Their skunk works moniker is very accurate – this plan truly stinks.

Their goal to create so-called ‘value schools’ would spend less than half what we currently spend to educate a student, putting those remaining meager funds on debit cards for parents and students to purchase their learning – not unlike food stamps. Such schools would use long-distance video conferencing instead of qualified, professional teachers working with students.

Snyder’s secret group deliberately shut out input from educators in favor of information technology companies who stand to make money off this scheme. This is a direct attempt to undermine elected school boards, principals and school employees, and it’s a slap in the face to teachers and education support professionals, who work tirelessly to educate our children every day.

Rather than holding secret meetings with corporate special interests to concoct new school voucher schemes and value-meal education, Snyder should be making the proper funding of our kids’ schools a top priority.

Michigan kids deserve a world-class education – not a dime store diploma.

It’s also worth noting that the use of so-called vouchers is presently illegal according to the Michigan constitution, which clearly says that public aid cannot be directed toward non-public schools. And the voters of Michigan overwhelmingly rejected constitutional amendments in 1978 and 2000 that would have changed that. Clearly, though, Snyder and company feel as though they have a way around the little problem of illegality.

So, just to recap… We’re presently not able to adequately educate our kids for $7,000 per pupil, so we’re going to try a radical solution. Instead of hiring better teachers, putting kids in smaller classrooms, and investing more, we’re going to fire experienced (and thus more costly) teachers, and invest significantly less. And we’re going to “empower” our students by giving them a choice as to which online edutainment service they choose to sign up for (the one sponsored by Taco Bell, or the one sponsored by Coke). The unfettered free market, you see, will solve everything. All we have to do is remove teachers from the equation.

On a side note, I find it kind of ironic that these same Republicans who are now fighting so hard to get quality educational content streaming into the cubicles of Michigan’s students are the same ones who demand every year that we slash the budget of Sesame Street, the one program which has actually been shown to improve the intellectual aptitude of children… I hate to by cynical, but I have to wonder if maybe it’s not the quality of the content they really care about, or event the education of the students themselves, but the potential revenue that they represent.

And, before you leave a comment about how this wasn’t being done in secret, you should know that it’s been reported that Snyder’s Chief Information Officer, David Behen, asked members of this group to communicate by way of their private email accounts, and not their state ones, which would be more easily accessible by way of FOIA. That, I think, says it all.

Oh, and here’s a great quote, if you want a laugh. It comes from Governor Snyder himself: “Michigan’s citizens are tired of the divisive political culture in Lansing. Midnight deals, closed doors meetings, lobbyists, and special interest influence have stood in the way of long-term solutions. As Governor, I will ensure that government is open, fair, and accountable to the citizens by making Michigan a national leader in transparency and ethics.”

Lastly, I don’t have the time to dig too deeply into this at the moment, but a cursory search shows me that InfoReady CEO Bhushan Kulkarni was among the top contributors to Snyder’s campaign for Governor. Make of that what you will…

Here, for those of you who are interested, is the high-level background… At the end of the month, employees working in union environments, within the state of Michigan, will be able to avail themselves of union services without having to pay for said services, either through union dues, or what are called agency fees. This, however, does not apply for those union entities that have preexisting agreements in place prior to March 28. For the terms of those agreements, as long as they’re executed prior to the so-called right-to-work legislation going into effect, the unions in question would be able to continue on as they had in the past, collecting dues and agency fees, and using the resulting funds to ensure workplace safety, fight for better wages, etc. The Republican attempt to cut off their funding, via this new legislation, in other words, would be delayed until such time that a new contract had to be negotiated. So, clearly, there’s a desire on the part of unions to lock in lengthy contracts now, before the law goes into effect. And, as you might imagine, the Republicans who conspired to make Michigan a right-to-work state are not too happy about it.

It’s also worth noting that Michigan Republicans have long had a tempestuous relationship with the state’s universities. On one hand they know that our universities are probably the only things keeping us from sliding into economic irrelevancy, but, on the other, they absolutely hate the fact that universities are, by their very nature, breeding grounds for bright, inquisitive individuals, who often aren’t inclined to accept simplistic rhetoric and vote for candidates pushing anti-science agendas. (Republicans in Lansing like to think that cheap labor is enough to turn the state around, but they know, deep down, in their twisted, shrunken hearts, that they need the high-tech start-up companies and that educated graduates that our research universities are turning out.) And, every so often, things come to a head. As you may recall, things heated up a few years ago, when House Republicans attempted to withhold funding from Michigan universities that continued offering domestic partner benefits, in spite of the fact that many in the legislature made it known that the Lord was opposed to the idea of insuring homosexuals in committed relationships. (God, as we know, prefers his gays to be promiscuous and sickly.) Fortunately, in that instance, the Governor slapped the more rabid members of his party back. It’s not so clear what will happen this time, though, as the Governor hasn’t recently shown a willingness to stand up to the fearful, anti-intellectual, Tea Partying base of his party.

It’s probably also worth noting that this whole thing is playing out in front of a backdrop of already steadily-declining state support for higher education. Last year, the state, which already spent more on prisons than on higher education, passed a budget that saw university funding decrease by an additional 22%, prompting speculation on the part of many that the University of Michigan would eventually make the choice to become a private institution. (The currently proposed Republican budget, it should be noted, would see university funding go back up by 2.2%, but that, of course doesn’t take into account these penalties which are being threatened against schools like Wayne State and U-M. “Without the penalty,” according to AnnArbor.com, U-M is set to receive $278.9 million in state appropriations, a 1.7% increase over this year.”)

Here’s what the Higher Education Subcommittee provision in question states:

“Provides that funds appropriated for fiduciary responsibility in employee contracting be paid to a university only if it does not extend, renew, or enter into a labor contract under certain circumstances between December 10, 2012 and March 28, 2013 without achieving 10% or greater savings and does not enter into a contract between the same dates that contains only terms that constitute a union security agreement that requires any of several specified employee actions as a condition of employment.”

It is, of course, worth mentioning that this language coming out of the subcommittee could well be stripped and/or edited in the House and Senate, as they continue to debate the bill, so this isn’t by any means a done deal. It does, however, illustrate to me just how vindictive and hypocritical our Republicans in Lansing are. The fact that they’re thinking of punishing universities for acting in accordance with the law, and negotiating openly with their unions, while they themselves conspired to ram though divisive right-to-work legislation during the lame duck session, behind police barricades, and without any public debate, I think, speaks volumes. And, one suspects, this isn’t the end of it. If they’re going after our universities for proactively coming to terms with their unions prior to March 28, then you can assume they’ll attempt to do the same thing with our local governments, that are attempting to do the same thing.

update: M-Live has a response from the Governor’s office, as well as quotes from two of the Republicans responsible for this proposal. Here’s a clip.

…How will Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration respond to the proposal?

Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said in an email “it’s just one part of the legislative process and we’ll watch closely as the issue and appropriations process progresses.”

Wurfel said that Snyder has indicated that “if there was significant economic benefit or savings in long-term contracts” that were negotiated, they could be of value and “make sense.” But if those contract changes offer “very little substance, then it’s fair (to) bring up questions and concerns.”

And here are the thoughts of Republican State Representative Al Pscholka and Republican Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville:

AL PSCHOLKA: “I think we’ve sent a pretty serious message here,” the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee said after today’s vote. “And hopefully it’s received. The message is: Protect taxpayers. If you’re going to do contracts, make sure that you come up with real taxpayer savings. We haven’t seen any yet.”

RANDY RICHARDVILLE: “What I favor is reasonable representation to the people that were appointed to these boards,” Richardville said today on the Senate floor. “If it’s a quote-unquote money grab to increase contracts in a way that isn’t normal because a law was passed, then I think that the people that either attend or help pay for that — the taxpayers in general — should have some serious questions about the way they’re spending that money… I wouldn’t see the fact that we are not going to throw more money into people’s hands that aren’t responsibly looking at it as necessarily a punishment. I think it’s being responsible with taxpayer dollars, and they need to make sure that they are responsible.”

Why is it that we allow the Republicans to refer to themselves as the anti-tax party, when they keep demonstrating that they clearly aren’t? Sure, they’re all for the cutting of business taxes, inheritance taxes, and other taxes that would threaten to decrease the wealth of their party’s high-net-worth donors, but, invariably, those shifts in tax policy lead to higher taxes for everyone else. Elsewhere around the United States, the shift may not be as plainly visible, but, here, in Michigan, it’s painfully obvious to all but the most delusional among us. As business taxes are being eliminated, and corporate taxes on capital assets are being phased out, the burden of maintaining public services is falling disproportionately on the shoulders of the non-wealthy, and we’re all feeling the increased financial pressure.

In Michigan, income taxes on the poor and middle class are rising, the pensions of our retirees are being taxed, tax credits for the working poor, like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), are being slashed, and, with state assistance for higher education drying up, families are going into unprecedented debt in the hopes of securing stable futures for their children. The Republicans may not see all of these as tax increases, but they are. The increased insurance payments that many of us are forced to pay, because our local fire departments are being downsized, is essentially a tax. The same goes for the private school tuition that several of us are paying, rather than suffer through the constrictions of a public school system which is being systematically dismantled. And these few examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for regular working people in Michigan to merely sustain life. Fortunately for those in power, houses aren’t selling. If they were, I suspect that most of us would be gone.

And, as those of us in Ypsilanti can attest, it’s the folks who are living in Michigan’s aging cities that are feeling the brunt of this radical redistribution of wealth. With state revenue sharing for cities dropping precipitously, one-by-one communities are being asked to make the choice — either institute a personal income tax, and pay for our own city services, or submit to the rule of an unelected Emergency Financial Manager, who will be empowered to sell off our community assets at fire sale prices, dismiss our democratically elected officials, privatize city services, and break contracts with city employee unions, essentially stripping our carcass of what little meat there is left, and sealing our fate. As long as we don’t ask the wealthy in Michigan’s upscale gated communities to contribute toward the greater good, it’s all the same to the folks in Lansing. They’re allowing us to make the choice…

And this is apparently the tax season when we’re really going to start to feel it. Here’s the news from the Free Press.

In the height of tax season, don’t be surprised if you owe more to the taxman in Lansing.

Some major income tax changes approved 21 months ago by Gov. Rick Snyder and lawmakers are just now starting to hit Michigan taxpayers filing their state tax returns.

One of the most significant adjustments: Homeowners and renters used to qualify for a credit if their household income was no more than $82,650 a year. Now they don’t get it unless their total household resources are $50,000 or less and their home’s taxable value (roughly half the market value) is no more than $135,000.

That will affect about 400,000 returns.

The child deduction is gone. So are special exemptions for seniors and those getting at least half their income from unemployment checks.

A refundable credit for low-income workers was reduced, impacting about 783,000 returns. Eliminated are state credits for city income taxes, college tuition, adoptions and donations to universities, public radio and TV stations, food banks and homeless shelters.

Add it up and about half of all Michigan filers are seeing a considerable tax increase ahead of the April 15 deadline, said Terry Conley, a tax partner at Grant Thornton in Southfield…

For those of you who still aren’t grasping what’s happening, you might want to take a few minutes and check out this animated short produced by the California Federation of Teachers, featuring narration by Ed Asner. It does a pretty good job of getting right to the heart of the matter in a way that even the most uninformed Tea Partier could comprehend.

[Tonight's post is brought to you by Amazon.com's Pitchfork and Torch division.]

Shot this morning at a Banking Committee hearing titled “Wall Street Reform: Oversight of Financial Stability and Consumer and Investor Protections,” this video demonstrates, better than any campaign ad ever could, just why it was so critically important that we get Professor Warren into office. Just listen to the way she goes after these folks… And these, remember, are the good guys… Not bad for her first day on the Committee.

If she’s this hard on regulators, just imagine how she’ll handle the bankers when they come before her.

In the above video, for those of you who didn’t watch it, Warren bluntly asks Mary Miller, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Daniel Tarullo, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Martin Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Tom Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Elisse Walter, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Gary Gensler, Chairman, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, why it is that they’ve allowed the big banks to repeatedly buy their way out of trouble with relatively small settlements, instead of taking them to court, and having them answer for their actions, on the record, in front of the American people.

Here’s a quote:

“I want to note that there are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are out there everyday squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds, and taking them to trial to ‘make an example,’ as they put it… I am really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial.”

It’s really no wonder the financial industry tried so desperately to keep her from office.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that the esteemed representative of the Koch Brothers in the United States Senate, is a Death Eater intent of bring “He Who Must Not Be Named” to power, but I’m finding it difficult to watch the above video and not see hints of Barty Crouch Jr. (in the guise of Alastor “Mad Eye” Moody), desperately tugging at his flask in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, in hopes of delaying the transformation into his true, horrid self.

Which begs the question – Who would Rubio transform into, if he were deprived of pollyjuice potion?

My money is on Dick Cheney.

Here’s a clip:

…Bobby Schostak, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, today called on his counterpart to step down and is encouraging Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper to re-open an investigation into the scheme that resulted in two felony convictions.

Mike McGuinness, former chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, pleaded no contest to multiple perjury charges for falsifying candidate filing documents and last year was sentenced to probation.

McGuinness — or someone with access to his account — last night posted an explosive comment on the Michigan Liberal blog, accusing Brewer of “cultivating” the scheme and using an “emissary” to request his assistance in the plot.

“I thought I was being a loyal party soldier, doing just what the Republicans would do,” read the post. “I deserve all the scorn I got. I’m not interested in relitigating the past, but I got six felonies and (Brewer) got another term as chair”…

Ostensibly, this is a story about Republicans wanting Brewer’s head for past crimes, but I suspect that the attack, in actuality, is coming from inside the Democratic Party.

I’m not privy to any inside-the-party scuttlebutt, but my sense is that it isn’t just a coincidence that this is happening right now, as we’re fast approaching the February 23 convention of the Michigan Democratic Party, during which members will be electing their next chairperson. Brewer, who is running for his tenth two-year term, has controlled the party since 1995. And, for the first time since 2003, when Jennifer Granholm supported a challenger against him, he’s facing some very real opposition… which shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone, given the significant ass-kicking Michigan Democrats have suffered these last few years. Not only did he, in the minds of many, completely screw up when he tried to push so many ballot initiatives this last election cycle, instead of just focusing on something like Proposition 2, and making it happen, but he proved to be completely ineffectual against the legislative onslaught of far-right Republicans during the lame duck session, in which 282 Republican bills were forced through the legislature. And it’s really no surprise that, with the passage of right-to-work legislation, his support within the unions is finally starting to crumble.

For years, whenever I’d ask folks why Brewer was still in power, I’d be told that he was untouchable because of his union support. Simply put, I was told that he was the UAW’s man, and, as such, he’d stay right where he was until they found someone else. But, it looks as though change may be on the horizon. The following comes from my friend Chris’s site, Eclectablog.

…Current party Chair Mark Brewer no longer has the support of the UAW, the Teamsters, or of several major Democrats including Congressman Sander Levin. Gongwer and MIRS both report that Bob King of the UAW and James Hoffa of the Teamsters have told Brewer he no longer has their support. Brewer is determined to run anyway.

The battle has already gotten nasty with MIRS reporting that a party insider is calling King’s move “the temper-tantrum school of politics,” saying that he seems “more than happy being in a minority, a shrinking minority, than growing the Democratic Party”…

Not one to give up easily, Brewer is mounting a full-on public relations assault, traveling back and forth across the state, pressing the flesh, and making the case… one would assume… that, despite how shitty things are, he’s the best person we’ve got. (Based on what he says about himself on his website, I think it’s safe to say that he’s confident of his abilities. “Mark Brewer,” the website says, “is the most experienced Michigan Democratic Chair since the 1950′s, and is the most experienced Democratic state party chair in the country.”)

The question, as I see it, isn’t whether or not Brewer should leave, but who should take his place. I’m sure he’s a brilliant guy (I hear he knows more about campaign law than anyone in the state), but I think it’s pretty clear, based on what’s happening all around us, that we need someone who can better articulate a vision, rally an army, develop young leaders across the state, leverage social media, and bring in big money. We need someone who isn’t just thinking about how to put out the next fire, but proactively putting the pieces in place so that we’re moving things in the right direction for the next 50 years. We need someone who has a plan to construct a Democratic answer to the Mackinac Center, and access to donors who can make it happen.

I don’t know the first thing about him, but, according to columnist Jack Lessenberry, the frontrunner in the race against Brewer is a man by the name of Lon Johnson, who Lessenberry calls “a skilled fundraiser with close ties to the Obama Administration.” Granted, I haven’t spent a lot of time looking into Johnson’s qualifications, but, so far, I haven’t found much to demonstrate that he is either a “skilled fundraiser,” or has substantial ties to the Obama administration. All I can find is that he’s a resident of Kalkaska, who ran for the Michigan House in November and narrowly lost to the incumbent Republican, Bruce Rendon. If you know anything more, please leave a comment.

update: Democratic Representative to the Michigan House Jeff Irwin left the following comment on the site today, and I though that I should move it up here, to the front page.

Lon Johnson is a dynamic campaigner and candidate who almost unseated an incumbent Republican in a heavily Republican area. (Lon Johnson gets extra points for running against Rendon, champion of the anti-choice HB 5711 of 2012). If you looked at his campaign finance report you’ll see that he was very successful raising cash for his state house bid from big and small donors.

Johnson also has ties to this area as he successfully ran John Dingell’s 2002 campaign against Lynn Rivers. While I certainly miss Lynn Rivers, there is no question that Lon Johnson ran a great campaign.

Personally, I don’t oppose Brewer. He’s done a lot for the party and his job is an impossible one. He brings quite a lot of expertise and institutional knowledge to the table. Really, nobody should be able to last 18 years in that position and it’s a testament to Brewer’s ability that he has lasted so long. Still, I’m excited to have a viable alternative. Johnson could bring new energy to the party, something we dearly need.

update: Not only has Jeff weighed in, but we’ve also now heard from Mike McGuinness. He left the following this afternoon.

From your post: “I’m not privy to any inside-the-party scuttlebutt, but my sense is that it isn’t just a coincidence that this is happening right now, as we’re fast approaching the February 23 convention of the Michigan Democratic Party, during which members will be electing their next chairperson.”

Yes, I ultimately decided to make my statement prior to the vote, so that Democratic Party members and activists can make an informed judgement. It would be somewhat moot for me to share my two cents on February 24 or after.

I did not make my opinion known earlier as I was the subject of a Grand Jury Investigation, Indictment, Sentencing and Probation. My probation period has just recently ended.

There has been no recruitment or solicitation of my comments. There has been no coordination with any movement for or against any Chair candidate. I am making my statements on my own behalf. In my opinion, further silence was consent to two more years (and counting) of the same.

State House Republican leaders say they have no plans to scrap discussions about splitting Michigan’s Electoral College votes between congressional districts.

Both Governor Rick Snyder and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville have said they’re not on board with the idea. Snyder says it would be better to consider changes closer to the next census, when congressional lines are re-drawn.

But House Speaker Jase Bolger said there’s no reason to wait that long.

“This should not be a conversation about party. This certainly should not be a conversation – and is not, at this point – a conversation about who might win, because we don’t know who the candidates are. So this is the time to have that conversation, when a presidential election is not ongoing,” he said…

For what it’s worth, Representative Peter Lund, the author of the bill which would, if passed, end Michigan’s winner-take-all system, and replace it with a scheme in which electoral votes are split up and awarded from each individual congressional district independently, said yesterday that, despite what Bolger has suggested, he’s in no hurry to introduce the legislation. The following clip comes from Gary Heinlein’s piece in yesterday’s Detroit News.

…A bill he sponsored last year failed to gain support and died at the end of the legislative session. Lund said that’s partly because GOP lawmakers thought Romney had a chance to win the state’s popular vote and get all 16 electoral votes.

Lund, whose bill was in the hopper for most of the last two-year session, said Tuesday he’s not personally motivated by such concerns.

He said now is the perfect time to debate the change because the next election is far off and so are no such calculations to be made.

“We’ve got 45 weeks until it matters,” he said. “I’m still going to do it but I’m not in a hurry; it’s not a priority right now.”..

Given how the right-to-work legislation came about after our Governor assured us that it “wasn’t on (his) agenda,” I’m not inclined to say that we’re out of danger on this issue, but I really don’t see how it’s likely at this point that the Republicans will make a move, despite the statements made by Bolger. Of course, I could be wrong, but I suspect, if they were going to do it, they probably would have done it by now. As far as I can tell, though, there’s really no impetus for them to push it through during this legislative session, when the next Presidential election is four years off, and they don’t yet know who their candidate will be, or whether their party might have a shot of winning Michigan – taking all 16 electoral votes for their side. Of course, the odds are against them. The people of Michigan haven’t voted for a Republican since 1988, when George Bush the Elder faced off against Mike Dukakis. But I’m sure they’re convinced that this time might be different, and they might be able, thought various voter suppression efforts, and misleading campaign ads, to win the majority of votes. And I suppose this is a good thing for us that they have this evil, little glimmer of hope, as it buys us time. So, what do we do now? How do we make good use of this time, and work to ensure that this change isn’t made a year or two from now, when they decide to go for it, in hopes of securing 9 of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes for their candidate?

[note: Those who are interested in the specifics might want to check out our discussion from a few days ago, which goes into quite a bit more detail on this issue.]

But there’s good news… Governor Snyder says that, if this this were to happen, it would be some time off, as it’s not something that he’s pushing. But, then again, he also said that right-to-work legislation wasn’t ‘on (his) agenda,’ and we all saw what happened there.

Here, for those of you who are still inclined to believe him, is what Snyder had to say to the Associate Press:

…Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he “could go either way” on the change and doesn’t plan to push it. But he said it’s a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

“It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion,” Snyder said…

Based on how right-to-work went down, I think we need to assume that something similar will happen here, and plan accordingly. We need to assume that the Republicans will do whatever they can, no matter how loathsome, to see their agenda furthered… And, if you don’t believe me, just ask the people of Virginia, where, just a few days ago, Republicans in their legislature, taking advantage of the fact that one of their Democratic colleagues was in D.C. for Obama’s inauguration, giving them the slight edge that they needed vote-wise, pushed a contentious redistricting bill through the legislature without debate, and advanced a plan that would see their electoral votes for President distributed by Congressional district, as outlined above. Here, with more on that, is a clip from Talking Points Memo:

…Virginia’s bill, which emerged from a subcommittee on a tie vote Wednesday, would award the state’s electoral votes by individual congressional districts, with its two at-large electors going to whichever candidate won the most districts. But the districts, which were redrawn under Republican control in 2010, are so gerrymandered that President Obama would have won just four votes to Mitt Romney’s nine despite handily winning the state’s popular vote. As Richie noted, the result would be to massively water down Democratic votes concentrated into a few urban districts — many of them cast by African Americans — while boosting the impact of whiter and more rural districts.

“It is basically an obvious attempt by the Republican senator who proposed it and the Republicans who are backing it to completely distort the outcome of Virginia’s presidential electors,” Devin McCarthy, a research fellow for FairVote told TPM. “It would effectively guarantee Republicans at least 8 votes in Virginia no matter what happened in a national election, whereas this year they won 0.”…

In addition to Virginia and Michigan, it should be noted that Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are also considering similar legislation. And, here’s an interesting factoid… If all six of those states, which are currently controlled by Republicans, had changed over to such a system prior to the 2012 election, “Romney would have won the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points.”

I’m not adverse to the idea of reconsidering how we elect our President. Personally I think that it might be worth considering a nationwide popular vote. But I don’t think the solution is allowing one party to game the system by constructing Congressional districts that are essentially unlosable, and then leveraging that fact to keep a Republican in the White House in perpetuity. (It should be noted that all of this talk of electoral college reform is taking place in states governed by Republicans that typically vote Democrat for President. This, in other words, isn’t an across-the-board push for reform. This is about gaming the system to extract electoral votes from blue states, while keeping the status quo in red states.)

The bottom line is that we need to kill this before it gets off the ground, folks. Any ideas as to how we do that? I know it would be an uphill battle, but how about launching a coordinated nationwide movement for a non-partisan federal organization, like the one they have in Canada, which is responsible for administering our federal elections, and ensuring a level playing field? I know it would be an uphill battle, as all of the red states would fight back, claiming “states rights,” but perhaps it’s a fight worth having.

The following image, which comes courtesy of our friends at the Center for American Progress, does a pretty good job of illustrating what we’re up against.

There was a lot to like about the event, and I appreciate Michigan Radio’s attempt to tackle such a weighty issue. Sure, it was enormously frustrating, but I think we all knew that was going to be the case when we walked in and bought our beers. We knew that we weren’t going to leave feeling any better about the situation, and we knew that we weren’t likely to arrive at any solutions. Still, though, I picked up bits and pieces that I found incredibly valuable. And, as it turns out, most of these insights came from Joe Schwartz, who, having risen up through the Republican ranks before serving a term in Congress, knows a thing or two about how things are… or at least were… done in Lansing, before everything went to hell at the hands of the Tea Party.

Before sharing Schwartz’s quotes, I should probably mention that, from what I can tell, he now considers himself an Independent, having been forced from elected office by the rising tide on the far-right. So, what he says, I suppose, could be tinged with a hint of bitterness. Still, though, I find it incredibly interesting to hear what old-guard Michigan Republicans think of their party now. With that said, here’s the first of two videos. This one has to do primarily with term limits, and Schwartz’s belief that they’re directly responsible for the radicalization of his former party.

Here’s the transcript.

SCHWARTZ: “The numbers now, in the Senate especially… which is 24 to 12 (Democrat to Republican)… And there was a 10 or 12 seat (Republican) majority int he House as well. That’s a remedy for mischief in an inexperienced, term-limited legislature, where you have a lot of outside pressure, which I think you could probably identify… and so could I… which will remain nameless. And you have a whole bunch of legislators looking at the next election coming, which ain’t that far away, folks. Two years. It’s going to pass like nobody’s business. So the influence to do this… not only right-to-work, but so many other things that were done… to take away women’s rights… in the legislature… and some other things… are typical of term-limited legislatures. And I’ll say again – we’re trying. I’m in a group that’s trying to figure out a way to repeal term limits. Not that I want for people to stay a thousand years in the legislature. You’d have to be really crazy to stay a thousand years in the legislature… but to get some more experience there. And to rebuild our legislature to what it can be, and has been. The legislature is peopled by good people. There aren’t bad people. But it’s a sitution where there’s no leadership. There can’t be, because no one has been there long enough to lead. So, as a result, mistakes are made. And my hope is that, at some point, and it won’t be in my lifetime, but in most of your lieftimes, we will go back to a legislature where there are mentors… where there are people who have seen this happen before, and know it’s either going to work or not work, and people who can stand up to the Governor, whoever the Governor might be at any given time, and people who can resist a whole bunch of outside money that comes in, that thretens these people, especially threatens people with a primary – especially Republicans being primaried from the right. So the dynamic is complex. But a term-limited legislature cramming all of this stuff into a lame duck session was very, very bad.”

I know we’ve been talking a lot about gerrymandering lately, and how imperative it is that we change the way that redistricting is done in Michigan, to ensure that there’s a level playing field going forward, but, as Schwartz reminds us, that’s just part of the problem. It’s not enough to take the power of drawing district lines away from politicians. We also have to make it easier for politicians to stand up to the corporate interests that are constantly threatening to run other, “more conservative,” candidates against them in the primaries, if they don’t do what they’re told. And, as Schwartz says, we need the institutional memory that comes with years of service. While I can certainly sympathize with folks who fought for term limits, as I too am prone to fits of “vote the bums out” anger, I think, in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. The unintended consequences of term limits give us weaker, less experienced politicians, who are more likely to do the bidding of those with the resources to force them from office.

Back to the video… If you watch past the point where Schwartz speaks, you’ll hear Gretchen Driskell correcting Jack Lessenberry, who has, on several occasions, suggested that the unions forced Snyder to pursue the passage of right-to-work legislation when they sought to enshrine collective bargaining in the State’s constitution via Proposal 2. “I don’t believe that Proposal 2 caused the right-to-work vote in (the) lame duck (session),” said Driskell. “That was planned.” (If you’ll recall, RNC Finance Chair Ron Weiser was caught on tape admitting as much.) Driskell then went on to say, “My understanding is that the reason Proposal 2 was put out there was becasue there were so many bills that were being pushed through, and that was the only way to respond.” And she, of course, is right. The assault on labor in Michigan predated the campaign for Proposal 2 by quite some time. And, as such, it’s completely disingenuous to suggest that unions set everything in motion by overreaching against the advice of the Governor. That narrative needs to be put to rest once and for all.

And, with that, I give you the second video, which features Joe Schwartz demanding accountability from those in the MEDC responsible for politicizing the State’s Pure Michigan campaign, by tying it to the recently-passed right-to-work legislation, in a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal.

SCHWARTZ: “There was a big time failure to communicate. And there should be clear policy in the Governor’s office… and I think there may well be… but it certainly wasn’t obeserved here. You don’t do something like that in an organization that is part of the office of the Governor. Quite frankly, I think the Director of the MEDC should tender his resignation. And the Governor can accept it or not accept it. But that was a horrible miscalculation… You can’t tollerate that. In the executive office, you cannot do it.”

How’s that for validation?

And, yes, I realize that I could have probably gotten 100x the traffic for this post if I’d focused on this second video, and run a headline saying, “Former State Senator Joe Schwartz Says Mike Finney Should be Terminated Over Wall Street Journal Ad,” but, the truth is, as much as I disagreed with the MEDC’s decision to politicize the Pure Michigan campaign, I don’t know that it would necessarily help to force Finney from office. First of all, I’m not convinced that the person to replace him would be any better. And, second, I actually like Mike. Sure, I wish that he’d focus a bit more on fostering small-scale entrepreneurship, instead of trying to lure the next Pfizer to Michigan, but, all in all, I think he’s trying to do the right thing for Michigan… And, speaking of fostering small-scale entrepreneurship, if you’re reading this, Mike, I’d like to invite you to come out on January 29 and hear Michael Shuman speak at the Community Capital Forum. The cost of attendance is only $25, and I suspect that the pay-off could be far greater than what we see from the $144,000 ad in the Wall Street Journal trumpeting the fact that we’re now an anti-union state. If you want, I can even pay for you.

[The text of his entire inauguration speech, which includes lots of awesome gay stuff, can be found here.]