Matt Schonert

Emerging from the Michigan Democratic Convention as the party’s nominee for state attorney general, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton promised to make consumer protection a top priority for the Michigan Attorney General’s office. He also told reporters that his first official act would be to dismiss the state’s pending lawsuit against certain portions of the federal health care reform act.

The federal lawsuit—brought by 20 state attorneys general, including Mike Cox of Michigan—challenges the legality of the “individual mandate,” a provision of Obamacare which requires individuals to purchase health insurance.

The attorney general’s sworn duty is to uphold the law and defend the constitutional rights of citizens. Part of this job entails advocating on behalf of the state’s interests in situations where other entities, including the federal government, undermine state law.

The central question in this lawsuit is whether it is legal for the federal government to force an individual—a consumer, you might say—to purchase a product or service against his will. At this level, the individual mandate is not only a legitimate constitutional question, but it is also precisely the type of cause that a self-styled consumer-advocate attorney general should consider taking up on behalf of Michigan residents.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy wants to improve the relationship between parents and schools in Detroit. Her answer: Jail sentences for parents who fail to attend parent-teacher conferences. Local officials correlate truancy with juvenile crime and say the proposed ordinance will hold parents accountable.

Instead, they should acknowledge that truancy and violence are crimes in their own right, and that the inability of police and schools to enforce existing laws is not an imperative to define apathy as a new crime and declare open season on non-compliant parents.

Lawmakers should also acknowledge that youth violence is not confined to the realm of truants. In their crusade to rid “the streets” of youth violence and truancy, they may only succeed in relocating that violence to school campuses.

Related posts:

• Daytime curfew rankles homeschoolers and civil libertarians

Popularity: 16% [?]

Michigan’s text messaging ban, which was signed into law on the The Oprah Winfrey Show, takes effect today.

First, some baseless speculation:

1. Why does it cost $100,000 to inform the public of a simple and widely-publicized change in traffic law?
2. Does the fact that the state is placing ads on outdoor billboards along Metro Detroit’s busiest motorways at all defeat the principle of reducing driver distraction?

The Outdoor Advertising Association of America “is dedicated to promoting, protecting and advancing outdoor advertising interests in the US,”  and they maintain a list of top spenders on outdoor advertising (available on their website only to logged-in members). I would wager that government entities and lobbyists who represent them are well-represented in that list.

And now, some practical considerations:

1. To an observer, punching buttons to dial a number looks like texting. Can officers deliver accurate and consistent judgment calls on the spot?
2. Can we expect officers who are at a distance and moving at speeds up to 70 miles per hour to determine whether the device “in the person’s lap” is a cell phone or merely a non-prohibited device such as an iPod, hand-held computer, or GPS unit?
3. How does an officer verify that the driver was texting without confiscating the phone and checking its message history (a likely violation of the driver’s privacy)?
4. Lacking digital evidence, which party will be given the benefit of the doubt if the citation is challenged?
5. Why ban text messaging, but not the use of iPods, GPS units (specifically exempted by the act), hand-held computers, and similar devices?
6. Did members of the Legislature ask these questions?

“And don’t be trying to hide your phone, because that’ll give some police officer a reason to think you’re hiding a weapon.” — Southfield Police Chief Joseph Thomas

Popularity: 80% [?]

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, in what appears to be his first public acknowledgment of Aiyana Stanley-Jones’ death, has tweeted his disgust for Al Sharpton, who will say the eulogy at the 7-year-old’s funeral.

Later, the Republican gubernatorial candidate responded to those who took cheap shots at his misspelling of the word “disgusted”:

“Under any spelling, Sharpton is exploiting tragedy.”

In some way, aren’t we all? Detroit Mayor Dave Bing used the tragedy to call for increased gun control. Sharpton used the tragedy to discuss police misconduct and black-on-black violence. Cox is using the tragedy to disparage a liberal icon. I have used the tragedy to question the way that police raids are conducted.

The tragedy has left everyone asking questions, many of them political in nature. But is it exploitation to ask ourselves what went wrong and what can be improved?

Popularity: 14% [?]

As community leaders assemble the pieces of the tragedy surrounding the death of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, they will identify problem areas, but the hard part is to act on them in a lasting way.

Public safety officials are reluctant to admit that these mistakes are not only individual shortcomings, but also institutional failures. In dealing with these crises, leaders may take dramatic action against the individual officer, but merely trivial action against the system itself. It’s time for the law enforcement establishment to shoulder some of the burden and to question, in particular, the necessity of SWAT-style raids in routine police work.

(Published under the Detroit News’ letters on June 10, 2010)

Popularity: 9% [?]

Blackwater founder Erik Prince made some political remarks during a rare public appearance in his hometown of Holland, Michigan.

“The greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity is not al-Qaida, the Taliban, Iran or even China,” he said. “It’s an idea, the idea that we can spend our way out of our problems without tightening our belt and paring down the very bloated government.”

The greatest threat to Erik Prince’s prosperity is a Congress that applies the “belt-tightening” approach not only to domestic affairs but also to profligate military spending. Since 2001, the federal government has dished out an average of $111 million per year in federal contracts to Prince’s private military company.

It should be no surprise, then, if Prince and the Republicans he’s purchased don’t object to one penny of the $663.8 billion the Department of Defense asked for in 2010.

Popularity: 7% [?]

By the end of this week, it will be illegal throughout the state of Michigan to smoke in a place of business. In the lengthy lead-up to the bill’s passage, some restaurants and bars went smoke-free by choice—the Arbor Brewing Company and my beloved Palace Cafe among them. Some business owners, like Steve Aemisigger of Hillside Lanes, note a surge in business following the change:

“We did lose a few league bowlers, but what we gained in open bowling and outings far exceeded what we lost,” Aemisegger said. “Our total lineage was up for the past year. We’re getting families back into the bowling center.”

I expect proponents of the ban to point to such establishments as shining models of what a better, smoke-free Michigan might look like, but a word of hesitation is necessary.

It would be wrong to assume that forcibly smoke-free establishments will prosper to the same extent that voluntarily smoke-free establishments have. Aemisigger’s story confirms that there is a tradeoff involved in going smoke-free: you lose some smoker business, but gain some nonsmoker business. The existence of a tradeoff allows us to discount sweeping generalizations that a statewide smoking ban will decimate business universally. This offers a glimmer of hope for establishments wary of the ban.

The problem is that the degree of the tradeoff varies from business to business: Family establishments may have a strong tradeoff, but blue collar bars will be lucky to break even—at least not without a substantial image revamp.

Even Aemisigger admits that Hillside Lanes’ smoke-free policy was accompanied by a great deal of reinvention to increase its appeal to families: an expanded menu, big screen televisions, and renovations to the snack bar and lounge.

It’s clear that one key to survival is to attract a new base, but establishments who serve a narrow clientele may find that easier said than done. Sadly, their fate is decided by politicians, not their loyal customers.

Popularity: 19% [?]

In Michigan’ gubernatorial primary race, competition is heating up between Republican front-runners Mike Cox, Pete Hoekstra, and Rick Snyder.

Last fall, Snyder, an Ann Arbor businessman and former Gateway CEO, called on his Republican primary opponents to refuse campaign funding from PACs and lobbyists. Snyder, who has made significant personal contributions to his own campaign, said in a 2009 editorial that he would reject PAC and lobbyist money.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued a terse response. “We’re not about to take a lecture from a millionaire who lives in a gated community,” a spokesman said.

This is a surprisingly populist remark coming from a Republican whose household earned $195,030 last year (2-3 times the median income in the state) and who shares at least $581,499 in assets with his wife Laura, a Wayne County Commissioner. This is according to voluntary financial disclosures Cox submitted for public review this week, when he challenged Hoekstra, Snyder, and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard to do the same.

What is most striking about Cox’s “millionaire” quip is that while Rick Snyder earned his fortune entirely in the private sector, taxpayers have paid the salaries of Cox and Hoekstra since they both took office—in 2003 and 1993, respectively.

What does Mike Cox find so dishonorable about earning a living in private enterprise? We can’t all be career politicians.

Popularity: 41% [?]

Mayor Michael Sessions has brought an ugly tone to Hillsdale’s mayoral race. A few weeks ago, Sessions publicly endorsed Tony Vear and rebuked Douglas Moon, but his motivation for doing so is not clear.

Perhaps the only valid concern he has raised is Moon’s vote against rezoning the hospital, which Moon said was done to protest the way that Sessions prematurely ended discussion of the issue and forced it to a vote.

Sessions has also argued that candidate Doug Moon’s employment in Coldwater will make him unavailable to respond to emergencies in Hillsdale.

If Sessions truly believes that Moon will be unable to give his personal and immediate attention to such crises, it is only fair to ask Sessions what specific crises have required this type of response in his four years as mayor. Specifically, what mayoral crises have required a response time of 30 minutes or less?

In comparing the candidates, Sessions has suggested that the value of Moon’s city council work pales in comparison to Tony Vear’s work on the planning commission.

In order to take this seriously, we must ignore the irony of quibbling over which candidate’s city government experience is more applicable to mayoral duties that were previously carried out by a high school student.

Sessions is free to endorse any candidate he pleases, but it seems vindictive to endorse one candidate so forcefully and attack the other without a severe reason for favoring one over the other.

If there is a serious reason why Doug Moon is unfit to be mayor, then let us hear it. The petty grievances Sessions has raised do not explain the excessive zeal that he has shown in his attempts to undermine Moon’s campaign.

(Published in the Hillsdale Daily News on October 30, 2010)

Popularity: 41% [?]

From the Journal of the Michigan House of Representatives:

Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

An amendment (1A) I offered to House Bill 4377 was not allowed a record roll call vote today. My amendment would have provided for Legal Smoking Rooms as part of HB 4377. In summary, the amendment would allow restaurants and bars to have a separate space for smoking, within their establishments. The LSR would be self contained and would have to be equipped with ventilation such that no smoke is allowed to leave the room. No individual or employee would be required to enter the room, nor would they be exposed to smoke. The room would be required to close one hour before the end of normal business hours to allow for the room to fully ventilate prior to any employee being required to enter and clean the room.

It is my basic belief that an individual has the right to choose, as long as their choice does not impact another person(s). It is my opinion that my amendment would have allowed for a win-win situation for all stakeholders: 1) Non-Smokers are not impacted by smoke, 2) Employees are not impacted by smoke, 3) Smokers can pursue their enjoyment without being subjected to cold winter outside or be forced to huddle in doorways.

In addition, Detroit Metro Airport, which is in my district, has raised concerns with House Bill 4377 as presented. Specifically, international travelers would be required to exit the building, smoke, then go back through security screening checkpoints and make it to their gate during layovers. It is the opinion of the Airport that many passengers would not go through this arduous task and would simply utilize the restrooms. My amendment would provide a solution without harming non-smokers.

While I have tried to equally weigh the rights of non-smokers and smokers within the state of Michigan, the bill as presented protects some of the people some of the time, a position I cannot support. Therefore, I respectfully vote ‘NO’ for this version of the smoking ban legislation.”

Popularity: 15% [?]