How to Influence Public Policy

The purpose of political activism is to influence public policy. Sometimes this gets confused with being in politics to win elections, but winning elections is simply a means to an end – that being to influence public policy. This article explores the multiple ways that may be done.

1. Write a letter to your elected official. For hints on how to write an effective letter, click here.
2. Write a letter to the editor or other publication. Letter to Editor Guide.
3. Comment on articles on the internet.
4. Join an online social networking page (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, etc.), invite friends and share articles consistent with your beliefs.
5. Create a blog about political issues. Its free at https://www.blogger.com/start
6. Contribute to a campaign, political action committee or political party. Yes, money is still the mother’s milk of politics.
7. Volunteer on a campaign to help elect an official with whom you agree by putting up a yard sign, telephoning, endorsing the candidate, doorbelling, hosting a coffee hour, stuffing envelopes, etc.
8. Volunteer on a campaign to help elect an official with whom you wish to gain access to better express your viewpoint, with the hopes of actually influencing his/her votes on issues.
9. Attend a rally to show support and/or opposition to policies.
10. Join a political activist group, such as Americans for Prosperity, Campaign for Liberty, Tea Party Express, Tax Day Tea Party, Michigan FairTax Association, Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, RightMichigan.com, Heritage Foundation of Southeast Michigan, etc.
11. Get active in a political party. (of course, we are hoping that is the Republican Party)
12. Attend political events, such as political party picnics, Lincoln Day Dinners, parades, fair booths, etc. to get acquainted with politicians and elected officials.
13. Attend forums, town hall meetings, coffees, etc. hosted by politicians and elected officials to stay informed and contact officials directly.
14. Go to Washington/Lansing/Township Board/County Commission/School Board meetings and testify on an issue.
15. Run for office in a hard to win race to enable you to have your voice being heard in debates, etc.
16. Run for an office to get elected.

Of course, you will be able to best influence public policy if you remain informed and be and sound credible. In addition to the organizations above that disseminate information, here are additional sources of Michigan issues you may wish to tap into: Sources of Balanced Discussion of Issues At the federal level, two of my non-partisan favorites are The Hill and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Humans have a natural tendency to collect additional data (and be receptive to sources which provide such data) that confirms their already formed opinions and beliefs. In effect, we put on blinders, so we don't see disconfirming information.

No one knows everything. Everyone's perception of "reality" is filtered by our prior experiences. In short, no one has the monopoly on "the truth". Thus we must stay open to hearing facts and opinions that do not agree with our own. To counteract our natural tendencies, we must seek out contrary sources. If it turns out that our beliefs and opinions are not supported by facts, then we must be willing to rethink our positions and form a new belief. Such constant re-evaluation of one's beliefs is not "waffling", but rather simply an application of the scientific method applied to theories in action.

Comments? Addition suggestions?

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

The government levying taxes to redistribute wealth to others has been referred to as “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, i.e., “robbing” some people of their money to give to others.

The hazard is that with a reported 47% of Americans not paying income tax, we have reached the point that the receivers (including the public service employees who also benefit from government transfers, and their liberal sympathizers, such as private union members) are a majority that are being supported by a minority of wealth producers. "The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," said George Bernard Shaw.

Without Constitutional limits being effective to stop these wealth transfers, and the mistaken idea that America is a “democracy”, this is a very real danger. Our entire Constitutional concept of being a “republic” with a limited government is in danger.

But what of the “safety net” which most Americans support? I myself was raised on welfare for the first 17 years of my life after my father died when I was 2 months old and my mom raised us 6 kids. Without that “aid to dependent children”, I am not sure how we would have made it. My mom preached, “Get an education and work hard”. We have, with all six of us getting at least a Bachelor’s degree and four getting a Master’s or more of education. We saw the safety net as temporary.

A problem with many families on welfare is that it has become a cultural fixture, a generation after generation pattern. Many receivers come to think that they are “entitled” to these benefits, and thereby avoid taking any personal responsiblity for improving their situation without continuing public assistance. Currently there is little incentive to get a job at minimum wage when you compare the benefits of the welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing assistance that you would lose if you became employed. Our incentive system is backwards.

Are there solutions to this problem? Should Michigan go back to “workfare”? Or are some “safety net” programs on such a slippery slope that once you agree to the concept, there is no bright line test to know when you have gone too far that you should not start at all? I don’t believe that our society is ready to roll back the safety net that far. Where is the middle ground?

Comments? Your ideas?

Michigan Laws that Impede Greater Efficiency through Collaboration

Running our governments more efficiently is a laudable goal of many public servants and politicians.

The Citizens Research Council examined Michigan laws and the city charters to investigate potential legal impediments that would limit the ability of communities to expand collaboration. Here are some excerpts from their report Streamlining Functions and Services of Kent County and Metropolitan Grand Rapids Cities, October, 2009.

“Difficult economic conditions are forcing local government officials to reconsider the standard methods of performing functions and providing services. Officials have three options to deal with the fiscal and operational pressures on local governments: 1) increase taxes to yield more revenues; 2) cut spending to meet available revenues; or 3) find alternative methods of providing services at current levels for less money. The first two options can negatively affect the attractiveness of any single municipality relative to its neighbors. They would either increase the cost of residing and operating a business in the municipality or diminish the menu and/or level of services provided. Intergovernmental collaboration provides local governments with alternative methods of performing functions and providing services.” Page i.

“The 2007 CRC Report, Authorization for Interlocal Agreements and Intergovernmental cooperation in Michigan, found 77 specific laws, or provisions of laws, that authorize intergovernmental collaboration. Some laws broadly authorize collaboration for any services that local governments are authorized to provide independently, other laws authorize collaboration for the provision of specific functions or services.

Laws that Impede Collaboration

Those laws were implemented to authorize collaboration among local governments, but provisions in some of these laws severely limit the ability of local governments to come together for joint service provision.

Employee Protection Provisions

Employee protection provisions contained in six separate laws prohibit local governments from using intergovernmental collaboration to displace employees currently engaged in providing the functions or services that are proposed for joint provision. The provisions state that employees affected by transfer because of collaboration should not be put in any worse position relative to worker’s compensation, pension, seniority, wages, sick leave, vacation, health and welfare insurance, or any other benefits that were provided as an employee of one of the merging government service providers. The result of these provisions is that intergovernmental collaboration cannot be used effectively to reduce the size of municipal staffs. In fact, because of these provisions, consolidated service provision may cause the cost of that service to increase rather than decline.

The Urban Cooperation Act, for instance, provides:

“No employee who is transferred to a position with the political subdivision shall by reason of such transfer be placed in any worse position with respect to workmen’s compensation, pension, seniority, wages, sick leave, vacation, health and welfare insurance or any other benefits that he enjoyed as an employee of such acquired system.”

Government tends to be a labor intensive enterprise for many services. It is especially labor intensive for the public safety services – police and fire protection – that consume the majority of the budgets for full service local governments. Laws that hinder the ability to achieve savings through collaboration put public officials in the difficult position of needing to reduce the service levels or eliminate those services completely to achieve savings.

Laws that Make Collaboration More Difficult

Certain other laws do not directly create impediments to collaboration, but either through their construction or their omission makes collaboration more difficult for the local policymakers that must make difficult decisions when initiating collaborative services.

• Public Act 336 of 1947, the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) requires employers and representatives of employees to “…confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment…” [emphasis added]
  
  This wording has been interpreted to mean that the duty to bargain extends to the public employers diversion of work to non-unionized employees or to outside contractors. Thus local governments currently engaged in the provision of a service must submit to collective bargaining potential actions to provide that service collaboratively with another governmental unit or through non-governmental contractors.
  
  Further, Public Act 312 of 1969 submits interest or contract formation disputes between public employers and public safety employees to binding arbitration, as well as issues arising during collective bargaining negotiation over the terms to be included in a new contract. Thus, local governments considering collaboration for the provision of police or fire protection must consider the possibility of those changes to the conditions of employment being subjected Act 312 binding arbitration.
  
  
• Public Act 116 of 1954, the Election Law, permits intergovernmental collaboration agreements to be used as a cause for recall efforts against elected officials.
  
  
• Under Public Act 279 of 1909, the Home Rule Cities Act, several cities have amended their charters to create minimum staffing requirements for their police and/or fire departments. Such provisions preclude collaboration as a viable tool for seeking efficiencies in government operations.
  
  
• Finally, Public Act 206 of 1893, the General Property Tax Act could be amended to facilitate greater tax base sharing. As long as local government officials are driven by the need to expand the tax base, the goal of new development will outweigh the benefit of collaboration.

Reform of these laws would better enable local government officials to make structural changes to the methods of providing government services and create an atmosphere in which leaders think beyond the boundaries that define their local governments.” Pages 7 and 8.

These laws must be examined for either repeal or modification to allow our tax dollars to be more effectively and efficiently spent.

Comments?

National Value Added Tax Considered - Tax Increases Ahead

We're broke ... time for a new tax: Given the country's fiscal hole, former Fed chair Paul Volcker and many tax experts say there may be a need for a value-added tax. CNN Money.com article.

Look out, here come higher taxes. And, if the value added tax is the means to raise additional revenue, it is a hidden tax.

Almost everyone agrees that we must get our fiscal house in order at the national level, and that means eliminating the huge deficits which are causing the national debt to skyrocket. Where there is little agreement is how to do it. Many think expenditures must be reined in. “Progressives” cited in the article think tax increases are in order.

What is likely is at least some tax increases (whether we like it or not), and to avoid increasing taxes on the poor (defined as anyone making less than $250,000 apparently by Obama’s rhetoric) and to avoid excessively high marginal rates on the “rich”, some experts are looking for an alternative. And that alternative is available from European experience – the value added tax.

“A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it's not just paid at the cash register. It's levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user -- such as the retail customer -- ponies up as well.”

A major problem with the value added tax is that it further burdens business, and discourages job creation. It also compounds in multi-stage production systems. Further, it is a hidden tax, as few average citizens will pay the tax directly, and not notice when future increases occur. Need another giveaway program? No problem, just raise the value added tax, as average voters won’t care.

If additional revenues are needed, it would be far better to enact a national Fair Tax, which also is a consumption tax, but does not discourage businesses creating jobs, investing, saving and earning – and is much simpler.

Comments?

Detroit News Editorial Hits a Home Run on What Needs to be Done

Howes: What's it gonna take for Michigan to change? This Detroit News.com editorial is great.

However, many people talk about the need to reform our tax structure, to have a tax system that better reflects our evolution to a service society, to reform the Michigan Business Tax and its hated 22% surtax, to make the state more business friendly, and to improve the business climate to create jobs.

An out of the box solution that few have yet given great thought about that does all of those things is the proposed Michigan Fair Tax. For details go to http://mifairtax.org/, but, in short, it eliminates the current sales tax, personal income tax, Michigan Business Tax, Personal Property Tax, 6 mill State Education Tax on business and sales tax on all business purchases and replace them all with a simple retail sales tax, which at 9.75% is estimated to be revenue neutral.

I don’t know that the current proposal is perfect, but it sure warrants discussion and evaluation. My bet is, if that were done, people would see that this is far better than what we have, and much more likely to spur job growth in the state.

Now this is not the only thing that needs to be done, as the suggestions in the article regarding the public service unions are also needed. We need to get beyond the entitlement mentality that is crippling Michigan and encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, deferred gratification and hard work.

Comments?

Kids short changed in considering number of days of instruction

In School Daze Update: Budget fight shrinks school year reforms, John Bebow with the Center for Michigan decries the feeble response by the Legislature to the outcry about the shrinking number of days of school our K-12 students attend school. I commented as follows:

While a school business manager, I argued for more school days rather than fewer, longer days to meet the clock hour requirements. I felt little more was learned with a few more minutes each day, as compared with more days. The bias for fewer days came through negotiations with the teachers’ unions, as they preferred a shorter work year, which means more days off during the year or a longer summer. Sometimes we considered the savings created by fewer school days because of fewer days you needed to run the busses, but the teacher negotiations were the primary driving factor.

Few school boards are willing to stick to their guns in negotiations with the teachers. I described the tools (laws) available to use in negotiations in my presentation to the Michigan School Business Officials annual meeting in 2006 entitled “Taking Back the Ship”, but I am aware of only one district that has been able to extract a favorable result. Heck, in Detroit, even when the teachers struck in violation of the law, NO ONE sought to enforce the law.

Tom Watkins puts it even more bluntly when he commented, “While education should be about teaching, learning and children– far too often, in Michigan and across the US– it is more about: POWER, CONTROL, POLITICS and ADULTS.”

It is time we focus on what is best for the students' learning, and less about providing employment with rich salaries and benefits for adults.

Comments?

Constitutional Limits Tested by Health Care Reform?

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales? September 15, 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal by Andrew P. Napolitano

Judge Napolitano discusses an issue being overlooked in the Health Care Reform effort. Does the federal government even have the constitutional power to regulate health services, particularly by requiring people to buy insurance, i.e., the "individual mandate”? The federal government has only specific enumerated powers in the Constitution, while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve the remaining powers to the states and the people. The fact that states can require people to buy car insurance does not extend that power to the federal government. So, the federal government being able to require people to buy health insurance would be precedent setting. If the federal government can do this, are there any limits in the Constitution that remain?

Until I read this article, I did not understand the purpose of Michigan HCR004 and SCR004/SR17 (Michigan Sovereignty Under the 10th Amendment). Although not binding, they would send the message that we still take the Constitutional limits seriously – that we are a Republic, a limited government and not a democracy which allows tyranny by the majority. With recent statistics of 47% of Americans not paying any income tax, millions taking government handouts, and the strength of the public service unions, the power and the incentive to redistribute wealth from the producers in society will become overwhelming if there are no Constitutional limits.

Of course, this could be looked at as an exercise of the "taxing power", i.e., that this is nothing more than a tax imposed on individuals, which tax can then be avoided by purchasing the insurance. However, if this rationale holds, then anything can be required by the federal government, and this is certainly NOT what the founding fathers envisioned.

Comments?