New state law restricting environmental rules will hurt Michigan
An article in the Aug. 4 issue ("Many local officials say Michigan on wrong track”) cited a University of Michigan survey of local leaders, more than half of whom think the state government is headed in the wrong direction.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Governor Snyder has sole control of both houses of the Legislature, and he has used this power to show how little regard he holds for our civil servants at all levels of government.
This mindset is not restricted to the Emergency Manager framework, or even the top-down restructuring of Detroit's public schools.
The Senate passed a law (SB 0279) before their summer recess declaring that no state agency may pass a rule more restrictive than the federal government's existing regulatory framework. I would think that something like this should give a pragmatist like Mr. Snyder pause. For if the role of state government is not to specialize in matters too specific for Washington to be concerned with, then what is it?
The consequence of a law like this is simple - giving the Congressional delegations from Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico as much control over the Great Lakes as our own delegation. I would ask that the party of states' rights reconsider their position on an issue as vital to our economy and quality of life as this one. Otherwise those out of state dollars, lured by Pure Michigan ads promising pristine beaches and protected lakefronts, will head elsewhere.
Joshua T. Pugh
Brighton
Comments
Jeff Irwin
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 10:56 p.m.
The bill, as it was presented in the Michigan State House is HB 4326. The bill passed the House on June 16th and awaits action in the Senate Economic Development Committee. Here is the text: <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zcxp3l55om0jvr45u1ojexvs))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-HB-4326" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zcxp3l55om0jvr45u1ojexvs))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-HB-4326</a> The language is broad and could encompass a wide variety of issues, but the focus has been on the environmental protections that might be affected. Essentially, if Gov. Snyder signs this bill, he will be taking away his power and that of future Governors to act quickly and independently to protect the environment. The best example of a Governor acting independently to protect the environment was when Gov. Milliken instituted phosphorus regulations for Lake Erie. The legislature, as it often is, was deadlocked on the the issue. Gov. Milliken used his authority under previous law and administrative rule-making to step in and protect Lake Erie. Decades later, this decision has, in my opinion, proven to be a wise one. I attempted to amend the bill to give Gov. Snyder the power to step in if a rule was necessary to protect Great Lakes water. That amendment was extinguished with a voice vote (no pesky record). Hopefully, the Senate or the Governor will stop this bill from becoming law.
Basic Bob
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 10:48 p.m.
I think if we make the environmental regulations tougher, we will just end up with more abandoned factories that no one will clean up and no one can sell. The South is not perfect. But what has revived the economies of the South? Manufacturing jobs. When we no longer have operating factories in Michigan, we will be where the South used to be. Anything that will encourage redevelopment of our industrial wastelands is fine by me.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
Got some issues with this article. First it starts out criticizing the Governor for three paragraphs. Then we get to read about Senate bill 0279. State or federal? I ask because the plot of this story did not make sense to me. So I looked up Senate bills 0279 in the Michigan Senate: <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0279.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0279.pdf</a> And US Senate: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s279is/pdf/BILLS-112s279is.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s279is/pdf/BILLS-112s279is.pdf</a> The MI senate bill talks about picking a fair and equitable way to pick who is going to be inspected by the DEQ and how to inspect them. At least it is about natural resources. I don't see anything in it about how it affects other states rights in the Battle of the Great Lakes. The US Senate bill is: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System. It speaks of water rights but when I read it it read: "Nothing in this act shall affect...." including existing water rights. I don't see language here that will allow siphoning the Great Lakes water to the SW. And I should not need to point out that the Senate does not pass laws. So if I am missing something here does someone know more on this?
Ron Granger
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.
So Snyder does not believe in States' Rights. He wants to take away our power to govern ourselves. He wants the federal government alone to guide, regulate and control us. Someone remind me - what party does he claim? Michigan has a lot of natural resources. We alone should regulate our resources. Not the fed. Not other states reps at the federal level. Time for Snyder to go... To go back to doing.. What is it he does? Offshore jobs?
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
I think you misunderstand the issue Mr Pugh. The law says that no state agency can make a rule more strict than a federal rule. There's nothing to stop the michigan state legislature making a make a rule more strict by law. The state is not handing control over to "Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico" but instead the Michigan state legislature. Most of us found that obvious.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 3:01 a.m.
Nope. He understands it exactly. State agencies cannot issue rules unless permitted to do so by the Michigan legislature under existing law. SB0279, were it to become law, would make federal law the de facto state law, as well. Though state law might permit more stringent regulation, SB0279 would prevent the regulatory agencies from issuing rules for their enforcement. Good Night and Good Luck
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
This is a very substantive issue. Thanks to the writer for bringing up the subject. I was not aware that this item was on the agenda. A basic concept of our federal system is that states may protect their citizens at levels surpassing those protections offered by the Federal Government. Many states have human rights, environmental protections, consumer protection, legal protection, and other provisions that are in advance of the Federal Government. It has often been said that states are the laboratory of our democracy, where ideas are explored and validated or rejected. The point about the Great Lakes is especially pertinent. We have a special resource in the water contained in our inland seas (Great Lakes), that are being yearned after by southern states. We should not look to weaken protection of our resources. Of course, "states' rights" has a negative reference too, such as during the civil rights struggle. But the idea that states can offer higher level of protections to their citizens is also a powerful positive effect in our country's history. I hope that our local representatives will reject this effort to downgrade our state's ability to offer these protections.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
In the 1840s and 1850s southern Democrats and Southern Whigs loved a strong federal government so long as that federal government protected slavery, as it did with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and with several other provisions of the Compromise of 1850. They came to worship at the alter of "states rights" only when they felt that the federal government might be a threat to the institution of slavery. Similarly, Republicans support local regulation of business so long as that means little or no regulation of business. But, if local government were to more sharply regulate business, Republicans discover they love federal regulations. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 11 a.m.
State agencies cannot make rules if it is not permitted by existing law. SB0279 would essentially prevent state agencies from those rules. Neat way to rescind existing law in one fell swoop without actually rescinding them. As for the Tea Party, 1) there is little difference between the TP and the RP, and 2) attacking the TP is a bit like taking candy from a baby: very easy, and there's a lot of crying when it happens. Good Night and Good Luck
Joe Hood
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
The point of the law was to stop the executive branch from making more stringent laws instead of the legislative. Wait, you're saying the Republicans always supported smaller federal government (since there was no such thing as a southern Republican in the 1840s and 1850s--Well, there wasn't a Republican for that matter)? And Ed, I'm quite amazed you didn't take a shot at the Tea Party this time around.
Enso
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.
@Don Right to Work states are the poorest in the country. It doesn't work. All it succeeds in doing is lowering wages and leaving work place health and safety to the business owners. Not only does it not work, it makes the workplace more dangerous. But I also understand there are a lot of you that welcome the Walmart-ization of our country. Import from China! It's cheap!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 11:24 a.m.
Mick, South Carolina has been RTW since 1954. Source: <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/c/scrtwlaw.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nrtw.org/c/scrtwlaw.htm</a> When will the jobs start coming there? GA (1947) NC (1947) FL (1968) AL (1943) MS (1960) AZ (1948) NV (1967) ID (1986) TN (1978) Sources: Click on the states on the RTW website posted above. When will all of the jobs start moving to those states. One VW plant in TN? Wow!! Of course, that kinda gets cancelled out by GMs shutting down its Spring Hill plant, doesn't it? TN has had RTW for 40 years and it's 40th in unemployment. Gotta love how RTW works to bring jobs to a state! It's worth noting when most of these southern states went RTW--during or shortly after WW2. I know WHY they went RTW--had nothing to do with job growth since WW2 brought explosive economic growth to the South. Do you know why the South went RTW? Hint: It has just a teensey weensy little bit to do with the color of one's skin. Good Night and Good Luck
Enso
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 3:27 a.m.
Mick "They may be among the poorest now, but that can change with business moving there." Well, in the mean time, instead of working to lower my wages, why don't you sit back on your haunches and wait until the poorest states in the union become the richest for your point to be valid? Why do you think a business coming into a state makes people better off? It's not the business. It's the regulations on that business that makes the people better off; i.e., min wage, work place safety, health insurance... the list goes on.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
Mick, Yes, I did notice that. Let's review those states. They are: North Dakota (1) Nebraska (2) South Dakota (3) Oklahoma (5) Wyoming (7) Virginia (9) Kansas (11) I'd be willing to be that between the federal government, the state government, military installations, and military contractors, VA's low rate is due to gubbiment spending (but, then, those aren't real jobs!!) All of the other states are primarily agricultural states that have not had a tradition of industries that might be unionized, and they do not now, nor do they have a prospect of becoming so. Moreover, agriculture being what it is, those states frequently have low unemployment rates due to the never ending demand for what those states produce. So your point is what, exactly??? Good and Good Luck
Mick52
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Don is correct. In order to check on the progress Michigan is making to lure business I have been searching on best business states. The states drawing the most business are those with low business tax and are right to work states. They may be among the poorest now, but that can change with business moving there. Ghost, did you notice in your list there at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm</a> that many of the states with the lowest unemployment are right to work states? Tennessee is a right to work state but they won the 2006 competition for the VW plant over Michigan with thousands of experienced, laid off auto workers. Of the top ten states with lowest unemployment, seven are right to work states. You need to look at both ends of the list. Right now the competition is between states luring business. Michigan is way behind and I don't see any ideas on how to move up in the employment ranking if we keep doing what we have been doing.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
BTW, to add to my last, the following are RTW states and their unemployment rankings: Idaho (34T) Arizona (34T) Texas (27) [What, exactly, is Texas's job miracle under Perry?] Arkansas (26) So, adding this to the above, 13 of the 22 RTW states are in the bottom 50% of states in terms of their unemployment rates. And the evidence that RTW leads to job growth is . . . . . . . what, exactly? Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.
The following with their unemployment rate rank (50th being worst) are right to work states: Nevada--50 South Carolina--48 Florida--45 Mississippi--44 North Carolina--43 Georgia--42 Alabama--41 Tennessee--40 Kentucky--36 Sources: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm</a> --and-- <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm</a> There are 22 RTW states, and 9 of them are in the bottom 15 in terms of unemployment. If they were distributed evenly, only 6 RTW states ought be on the list. Given the claims of RTW proponents like DonBee, there ought be no RTW states in the bottom 15 on the unemployment states But 9 RTW states in the bottom 15. RTW states make up only 44% of the states of the union but they make up fully 60% of the states in the bottom 15 in terms of unemployment, Not only is RTW NOT a silver bullet, one might conclude it is a job killer. But people knew that. The point of RTW is not to create jobs. It is to kill unions. And unions are all but dead in many of those RTW states. Jobs thriving? Not so much. But that's not really the point. Good Night and Good Luck
DonBee
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
Enso - It may not work for workers, but it works for business (note where all the jobs seem to be going). My argument is - the jobs will go where it is easy to do business. Right now, adding more rules to the pile only makes doing business harder - hence jobs go elsewhere. I agree we are creating a Walmart nation, but jobs will grow where business can make money.
1bit
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 10:37 p.m.
That's odd, since when do Republicans favor Federal rights over State rights?
garrisondyer
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.
I was thinking the same thing...
braggslaw
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.
Govt workers have an interest in increasing govt Taxpayers have an interest in keeping the money they earn It is all about self interest I for one want the size of govt decreased and I want to keep more of the money I earn
DonBee
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Pugh - Let us put ourselves at an even more competitive disadvantage to the surrounding states and those in the "Right to Work" South. Right now we need jobs, and in case you had not looked there are over 1 million pages of Federal Regulations. Michigan has close to 100,000 pages. I can promise you, if I want to stop you from doing anything I can find a rule against it right now. In fact I can find conflicting rules on almost every topic. I would propose we clean up the Michigan regulations, removing any that have a Federal counterpart and any that are more than say 30 years old. Then we can look at new regulations, that are modern and address modern problems.
DonBee
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 3:01 a.m.
1bit - The item that started this was the ergonomics rules, the rules were going to go way beyond OSHA on many fronts. The auto companies may be involved, but the item that started it would have crippled any software development company in the state with an employee or any transcription company.
1bit
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 12:55 a.m.
DonBee: The point of the legislation has little to do with a competitive advantage/disadvantage for Michigan. It has more to do with the Big 3 wanting united Federal environmental laws so that they can make one car for every state (rather than having to deal with separate regulations in California, etc). Again, as I mentioned below, it is odd that Republicans would want states put under the auspices of the EPA regulators.