Trouble In Traverse City? Inman Recall Could Lead To Special Election For One Of Michigan's Most Competitive House Seats

Inman

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

Writing for the Gongwer blog, Editor Zach Gorchow recently did a great job highlighting what could be on the horizon in Traverse City with the controversy swirling around indicted State Rep. Larry Inman.

Inman won re-election in 2018 by less than 400 votes, less than 1%.

Will he be vindicated? Will he resign? Be expelled?  When would Governor Whitmer schedule a special election?

Check out the piece below:

"Embattled Rep. Larry Inman refuses to resign in the face of a federal indictment and repeated calls from House leaders that he quit. And now he faces a recall campaign, which if organizers display minimal competence, would seem to have a strong chance of qualifying for the ballot.

At this point, it does not appear the House will seek to expel Mr. Inman (R-Williamsburg), though with the trial now delayed indefinitely, any hopes House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) might have had for a quick and tidy trial that ended with conviction and clear grounds for Mr. Inman's ouster are dashed.

It is of course possible that Mr. Inman could win acquittal and serve out his term, rendering all this moot. But right now, he is facing trouble on three fronts – in court, the Legislature and now the ballot – that would seem to make his departure/ouster a real possibility.

What is intriguing about all this is that if Mr. Inman faces a recall election or departs office for whatever reason anytime in roughly the next six months, election laws could heavily favor the Democrats flipping this seat in an ensuing special election.

Recall that Mr. Inman barely won re-election in 2018, by just 349 votes, or 0.74 percentage point. Traverse City has become heavily Democratic with nearby suburbs shifting as well. That's made the district a 50/50 type seat because the rest of Grand Traverse County remains solidly Republican. Both parties have been looking at this seat, the 104th House District, which exactly mirrors the county borders, as prime competition in 2020.

Now, with Mr. Inman's troubles, the possibility of a special election is on the brain.

Let's start with the resignation/expulsion scenario.

Either would trigger a special election. Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer gets to decide when to schedule it. The governor has almost total discretion in the scheduling of special elections.

Should Mr. Inman leave office by the end of the year, there's an obvious date Democrats would want the special general election to be held: March 10, 2020.

That's the date of Michigan's presidential primary. Democrats, you may have heard, have a competitive primary with a zillion candidates. Their voters will flood the polls. There is no serious organized opposition to Republican President Donald Trump for the GOP nomination. The electorate on March 10, 2020, will skew heavily Democratic. It should be a layup for the Democratic nominee for the 104th if there's a special general election on that date.

Republicans would surely squawk, but Ms. Whitmer could counter an expeditious election would assure the 104th goes a bare minimum of time without representation (unlike former Governor Rick Snyder's tendency to let seats remain vacant for almost a year) and holding the election on March 10 would mean the state picks up the cost. Holding it on another date would mean the local governments would have to pay.

If Mr. Inman remains in office well into 2020, however, that would take March 10 off the table as an election date, meaning a special election might occur in May or August, a more politically neutral playing field.

Then there's the recall scenario.

The good news for the GOP is that by law, the recall election, if it occurs, can only occur in May or August. March 10 is out.

The bad news for the GOP is their candidate in a recall election could be Mr. Inman with no way to block him.

In 2012, as majority legislative Republicans passed the right-to-work laws and other extremely controversial legislation, they also made sweeping changes to the recall process in a move to protect their members against possible recall retribution. Republican former Rep. Paul Scott had been recalled in 2011 and that was fresh on the party's mind.

The major change was to turn the recall from a "yes" or "no" on recalling the elected official, as it had long been, into an election among candidates. And as part of the effort to shield incumbents, one of the new provisions was to make the incumbent targeted by the recall the automatic nominee of their party in the recall election unless they decided to opt out and not run.

In other words, Mr. Inman could decide he will contest the recall and thus he is automatic nominee for the Republican Party in the 104th and by law there is no Republican primary. Mr. Inman would be the GOP nominee.

It's hard to imagine how Mr. Inman could survive a recall election embroiled in scandal, assuming the Democrats put forward a credible candidate and back that candidate with the necessary resources.

This is no idle matter. A Democratic win would shrink the House GOP's majority to 57-53 and mean the party needs just three seats for majority in the 2020 elections. Just getting two would probably be good enough because a 55-55 tie would mean shared power and kill the ability for legislative Republicans to overturn Ms. Whitmer's executive orders and for conservative groups to use the initiative petition as a means to end-run Ms. Whitmer on their priorities.

The universe of competitive seats in 2020 is relatively small, so the opportunity to lock in the 104th for either party (the winner of a special election would be the prohibitive favorite to win a full term in November 2020) in a special election would be huge."

Gorchow

 _________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter

Make It Rain: Flint Mayor Karen Weaver Paid Nearly $8,000 To Flint Strip Club For "Consulting"

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver's re-election campaign paid a Flint strip joint, Club 69, $7,500 for "consulting," campaign finance records show:

The club's Instagram page shows some highlights of the club's activities:

Weaver recently held an event at the club last month, but nearly $8,000 is quite the tab. I wonder if Weaver paid in 1's?

Flint area Republican activist Page Brousseau IV blasted Weaver's spending, questioning if the money was really for the event.

"Karen Weaver spends campaign money as frivolously as she spent the pipe replacement funds," Brousseau IV said. "I hope the money was used as kickbacks to cronies, because I shudder to think what she gave $7500 to a strip club for."

Weaver is fighting for re-election against State Rep. Sheldon Neeley, and Don Pfeiffer. 

_________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter

New Poll Shows Michiganders Strongly Oppose Controversial "Medicare For All" Proposal

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

Michiganders strongly oppose eliminating private health insurance and adopting a "Medicare For All" program, according to a new poll.

52% oppose the idea, while 37% support it. The rest of respondents were undecided. 


According to Jonathan Oosting of the Detroit News:

"A majority of Michigan voters oppose a strict Medicare for All proposal that would eliminate private health insurance, according to a new statewide poll released Thursday ahead of next week's Democratic presidential debates in Detroit.

But the survey of 600 likely Michigan voters shows the government-run single-payer health care proposal is popular among "strong" Democrats and supported by a plurality of voters who "lean" Democratic, pointing to a challenge for presidential candidates attempting to win the primary without hurting their chances in a general election. The July 17-20 poll was conducted by Glengariff Group Inc...

Self-described independents, who could play a crucial role in a close general election, oppose the concept 53%-35%. Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes in Michigan in 2016 and opposes Medicare for All."

The poll lines up with what even some Democrat strategists are saying: Medicare For All is a "political loser."

Here is a recent piece from Joe Lockhart, Bill Clinton's former Press Secretary, that seems very fitting on the eve of the second round of Dem debates tonight in Detroit:

"The debate among the Democratic presidential candidates about universal health coverage calls to mind a couple of political truths. First, most things that sound too good to be true are, in fact, not true. Second, if you want to take away a public benefit, you'd better have a good replacement for it first.

Joe Lockhart

Three candidates are for full-blown Medicare for All, which means eliminating all employer-provided private insurance. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Bill de Blasio argue that only this fundamental restructuring of our health care system will cover all Americans. The idea seems popular on the surface. According to a poll from the Kaiser Foundation, 56% of Americans say they support full Medicare for All. But when respondents are told important details about the plan -- like how much it costs, and how it abolishes private insurance — that number slips.

In similar polls, when voters are presented with the full details of the Sanders and Warren plans, support falls dramatically. A poll done by David Binder for Third Way found a dramatic drop when factoring in the cost, the increase in payroll tax to pay for it, and the potential for the GOP-controlled Congress to have ultimate control of health care decisions including reproductive rights. That last piece of info drops support for the program to only 23% of Americans.

You can expect the Trump campaign to spend a lot of time and money exposing Medicare for All as too good to be true. But the main reason most of the Democratic field is not with Sanders and Warren has to do with that second rule of politics.

Both Sanders and Warren would advocate taking away the benefit of employer based private insurance -- before anyone begins to receive the tangible benefit of going to full blown Medicare for All. And Americans' first encounter with such a program would be those higher payroll taxes.

Perhaps some think that employers, relieved of providing insurance coverage, will pass along those savings to employees to help ease the burden of increased payroll taxes. But where is the evidence of such corporate behavior, particularly in the aftermath of the Trump corporate tax cut? Stock buybacks aren't going to help people faced with higher tax rates.

Most in the Democratic field are mindful of these realities, and favor what Mayor Pete Buttigieg calls Medicare for those who want it. They differ on the details, but the concept is that voters should have a choice: they can keep their employer-based private insurance or pay into Medicare at a much cheaper rate. Joe Biden told Chris Cuomo that the right way is to build on Obamacare, not to abandon it.

Now if you were around in 2009-2010, it's hard sometimes to think of Obamacare as popular. But despite relentless Republican attacks, the benefits provided -- guaranteed insurance and coverage of pre-existing conditions -- are now seen by many as a benefit to which they're entitled. Moving to Medicare for those who want it is a logical next step toward a single-payer option, one that maintains choice for millions of Americans.

As much attention as Medicare for All gets, as proposed by Senators Sanders and Warren it is a political loser. Note that Senator Kamala Harris has yet to make up her mind on this subject.

I believe it's critical for Democrats to maintain their advantage on health care going into 2020, and the best way to do that is to reject Medicare for All and embrace Medicare for those who want it. 

To put it more starkly, Democrats should listen to one of the most respected Democratic political scientists, William Galston. He told the Wall Street Journal, "If Democrats back single-payer health care, it could assure Trump's re-election."

Medicare for All may eventually be good policy, but for now it's bad politics and risks what should be the number one goal of all Democrats: to remove Donald Trump at the ballot box and get to work undoing the damage he's done to the country."

 _________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter

WOW: Math Proves Democrat Presidential Candidates Policies Will Hurt The Middle Class!

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

The Washington Post recently featured a great article about how Democrat proposals will hurt the middle class, check it out below:

Democrats’ 2020 policy proposals almost certainly require middle-class tax hikes

Some left-leaning economists argue the plans would help middle-class families overall by reducing their spending on health care, education.

By Jeff Stein 

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) is campaigning for president on a plan to cut working-class taxes by nearly $3 trillion, promoting legislation that would boost wages but slash federal revenue by giving thousands of dollars to millions of Americans.

Harris has also backed Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) Medicare-for-all legislation, which would require increasing federal revenue by as much as $30 trillion — almost certainly requiring tax increases on many of the same families who would see cuts under her tax legislation.

The tension between the positions, some economists and political strategists say, underscores one of the most fraught issues Democrats will face as they push a dramatic expansion of government investments in infrastructure, education, housing, health care and new renewable energy sources, among other items.

For several presidential election cycles, Democratic candidates have pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, a position that was deemed politically necessary even if it would ultimately cap the ambition of their proposals.

Now, Democrats in Congress and on the 2020 presidential campaign trail have proposed a number of new or expanded federal programs but have been largely silent on how to pay for them, saying that the details can be filled in later or during the process of passing legislation. The lack of clarity over how to finance these plans has fueled a debate among economists and policymakers, with conservatives and even some Democrats saying they require middle-class tax hikes that will prove hurtful for economic growth and the party’s political fortunes.

“Democrats have to be careful here: If they’re going to pay for these programs, the math suggests middle-class taxpayers are going to be hit,” said Jim Manley, who served as an aide to former Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “And that’s not what Democrats have traditionally stood for.”

Backers of these plans acknowledge they will require middle-class tax hikes but say Democrats should defend them anyway. They argue they will improve Americans’ lives in part by greatly reducing families’ private spending on expenses like education and health care, while also providing new public services and accomplishing key policy goals like combating climate change or improving schools.

“We shouldn’t be scared to talk about broad-based taxes that will affect the middle class,” said J.W. Mason, an economics professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, who noted that the federal government could also afford to add spending to the deficit. “The U.S. has a lot of space to raise income taxes while still being below the average for most European and rich Asian countries. When the taxes are clearly linked to public services people value, I don’t think it’s such a challenge.”

Left-leaning Democrats have rolled out several new ideas to dramatically increase taxes on the rich, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) tax on wealth above $50 million, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) proposed 70 percent tax on income above $10 million, Sanders’s proposed 77 percent tax rate on billionaire estates, and a Wall Street transactions tax.

Estimates vary, but Democrats could likely aim to raise as much as $10 trillion over 10 years if they implemented all these taxes, including if they significantly increased the corporate tax rate, economists say. They could also free up another $3 trillion cutting defense spending and spend another $5 trillion through higher deficits, using generous assumptions

By contrast, the party’s left flank has proposed upward of $43 trillion in new spending, according to Brian Riedl, a conservative budget expert at the libertarian-leaning Manhattan Institute.

“There’s no possible way to finance even single-payer without big middle-class tax increases,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank that pushes for lower deficits.

Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University who backed Sanders in the 2016 presidential election, said these policies could be financed in part through higher taxes on the middle class. He pointed to the example set by America’s peer nations in Europe and argued the United States is the outlier rather than the norm, noting Scandinavian countries that publicly provide health care, college tuition, paid vacation and family benefits are consistently ranked the happiest in the world.

Medicare-for-all in particular would require tax hikes on middle-class families, but supporters say it would save them money overall by eliminating their private premium and deductible payments.

“We live with this huge financial insecurity. And it’s weighing heavily on our well-being, our social trust and people’s ability to get by day-to-day,” Sachs said, citing high levels of depression and declining life expectancy in the United States. “Countries with higher levels of public benefits, matched with higher levels of tax revenue, are much happier for it. The evidence is overwhelming.”

The United States takes in far less tax revenue as a share of its economy than all but five other economically advanced countries, including Mexico, Turkey and Ireland, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s rankings. In the United States, tax revenue represents 27 percent of the entire economy, compared with 34 percent in the OECD average. In Finland, Sweden and Denmark — where residents have a longer life expectancy and lower poverty rates than those in the United States — tax revenue represents around 45 percent of the economy.

If the United States took in roughly as much in tax revenue as the Scandinavian countries do, the federal government would have an additional $50 trillion to spend over 10 years, said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, a socialist think tank.

Democrats have traditionally bet against this kind of pitch to American voters. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton promised to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them only for the wealthy. He raised taxes on the richest 1.2 percent of U.S. taxpayers, while also lowering a number of taxes for lower-income Americans. 

President Barack Obama backed, and then helped pass, an extension of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for all but the richest Americans. The Obama administration decided against supporting a plan, modest by the standards of the 2020 presidential nominees, to fund a paid family leave policy by increasing the payroll tax contribution for workers and companies by 0.2 percentage points. 

Conservatives express confidence they can beat Democrats forced to admit their plans require middle-class tax increases, while arguing they would hinder economic growth. Riedl, of the Manhattan Institute, said tax hikes of the magnitude required by Democrats’ plans would require doubling the payroll tax and imposing consumption taxes higher than those in Europe.

“With incomes growing slowly over the last few decades, a lot of families can’t handle a large tax increase. They’re having a hard enough time making ends meet,” Riedl said. “And, of course, the politics are deadly. If you look at surveys, it’s usually about only 30 percent that will pay higher taxes for additional government benefits.”

The political incentive to cut taxes for the working class may inform Harris’s legislation, called the LIFT Act. Several economists argued that the plan also acted as an effective anti-poverty measure, by delivering upward of $3,000 (or $6,000 for married couples) for those earning under $87,000.

“You can either provide specific program benefits or take the path of providing more cash. There’s some merit to the idea of just providing cash, because people in various situations have very diverse needs,” said Elaine Maag, a tax expert with the Tax Policy Center, who provided input into the plan. “When we give people money, they can apply their knowledge of their own situations to solve their problems.”

But Sachs, of Columbia University, argued prioritizing a cut to middle-class taxes represented the wrong direction for the party, given the need to maintain or raise them to finance the party’s many priorities. (A spokesman for Harris did not return a request for comment.)

“Starting with tax cuts does not consider the comprehensive fiscal picture, including all the areas where fiscal investments are needed,” Sachs said. “This is the time for significant change for how we’re operating in this country — to address inequality, climate change, skills, infrastructure — and I’m skeptical how large tax cuts will fit within that overall picture.”

 _________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter

Justin Amash Leaves GOP After Advocating Trump Impeachment: Here Are The Candidates To Replace Him

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

With Rep. Justin Amash out of the Republican Party, the GOP primary for his 3rd District seat is now open.

An endorsement from President Trump could easily decide this race, which is sure to be one of the hottest in the country in 2020.

Here are the declared candidates so far:

State Rep. Jim Lower

Lower, a second term State Rep., was the first legislator to challenge Amash, earning him significant attention online, as well as earned media, including Fox & Friends.

Both major polls commissioned so far show Lower leading the field by nearly 20%, however, that was before Amash bowed out.

Lower hails from far outside the district's population hub, Grand Rapids, which could be a challenge down the stretch.

Joel Langlois

Joel Langlois, who declared his candidacy earlier this week, is the only candidate with any real longstanding ties to President Trump.

The outsider businessman, who owns Grand Rapids area staples the DeltaPlex, as well as the Intersection, hosted the President in 2015 for a rally. 

That rally infamously saw Mr. Trump say Hillary had been "schlonged" by President Obama in the 2008 primary.

Langlois has never held elected office before. Combined with his status as a political outsider and businessman, he would be well suited for the general after the primary. 

His early support of President Trump should give him a major advantage, as the other candidates can't boast the same cred.

Lynn Afendoulis

Afendoulis, a first term State Rep. who took office less than 7 months ago, previously worked at Peter Secchia's Universal Forest Products before entering politics last year.

She has a Conservative record in the House so far, but statements blasting President Trump in 2016 saying we "shouldn't elect a President this year" have caused big league concerns.

Tom Norton

Norton, a grassroots favorite, was the first to challenge Amash, even before Lower.

Norton was a member of the Army National Guard from 2008 to 2014. He also served as a trustee and president of the Sand Lake Village Council from 2014 to 2018.

Norton  will trail in fundraising, but he will hit the doors and have a decent amount of volunteers, count on that.

Peter Meijer

A few months ago, Peter Meijer was a top donor to Rep. Justin Amash, writing him a check for nearly $3,000.

Meijer, who has spent recent years living in New York, is known in political circles for his extremely moderate views, as well as his hostility towards President Trump. He is also a proponent of electing Vets to public office.

Meijer has nothing to do with running the popular store chain that features his famous last name. A recent poll of the race shows Meijer in last place...

If he can make it out of the primary, Meijer could prove to be a strong general election candidate, though for different reasons than Langlois.

 _________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter

Breaking: Sources Say Rick Johnson Under FBI Investigation For Racketeering As Medical Marijuana Board Chairman

By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)

Sources familiar with the investigation tell West Michigan Politics that Rick Johnson is under FBI investigation for racketeering and pay-to-play corruption related to his role as Medical Marijuana Board Chairman.

Johnson, a former Speaker of the House turned lobbyist, saw his reign as Chair end earlier this year when Governor Whitmer wisely eliminated the controversial board.

The investigation was ongoing before a Bridge Magazine article from Craig Mauger of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network spotlighting Johnson and former Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof seemingly flagrantly violating state law to grease the wheel for marijuana clients.

Sources refused to comment on whether Meekhof was also under investigation in this case, or others.

West Michigan Politics has a proven track record of solid federal sources. 

Last year, WMP broke the story that Mike Mitchell was busted with all sorts of government owned toys and tools in his garage:

Breaking: Mike Mitchell Faces Imminent Arrest By FBI, Busted With Stolen Government Property In Garage

Mike Mitchell Arrested By FBI, WMP Vindicated: More Arrests Coming In Plymouth Township?

Stay tuned for more on this developing situation...

>>>Here is part of Mauger's Bridge story:

"Former Senate Leader Arlan Meekhof helped create the law that guides Michigan’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry. Within weeks of leaving office, he was consulting for businesses that wanted a piece of it.

In one pointed email, obtained under the state’s Freedom of Information Act, Meekhof described actions he took on behalf of three businesses he worked for that may have violated the law he helped write.

In a Feb. 21 email shared with state officials, Meekhof said he had spoken to Rick Johnson, chairman of the medical marijuana licensing board, and that Johnson was going to tell another state official to place the three businesses on the board’s March agenda. The board was in charge of deciding whether medical marijuana businesses qualified to operate in the state under the 2016 law.

Such a conversation, if it took place, could represent a violation of the 2016 law, which forbids representatives of applicants from having outside communication with licensing board members. As it happens, it was Meekhof, in his role as Republican Senate Leader, who recommended Johnson be appointed to the marijuana board in May 2017.

The behind-the-scenes communications raise questions about Meekhof’s handling of marijuana legislation while he was in office (he left the Senate because of term limits at the end of 2018) and Michigan’s lax ethics laws."

 _________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.

>>>Email him at WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com
Facebook
Twitter