Flip Flop Jim Webb

Flip Flop Jim Webb

America is Broke

Were broke. Americas broke. All year long, our friends on the other side of the aisle have been on a massive spending spree that our nation cant afford. We had a trillion-dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to created jobs immediately, and yet unemployment is now at ten percent in America and three million people have lost their jobs since it was signed into law. Weve got a budget thats going to double the national debt in five years, triple it in ten years. Weve got a $12 trillion national debt. We brought a national energy tax bill to the floor thats going to cost a trillion dollars passed it. We had a health care bill here several weeks ago another trillion dollars passed it. When are we going to say, enough is enough? Here we are today wrapping six appropriations bills together. Were going to spend half atrillion dollars. And its got over 5,000 earmarks in it. Things like: $292,200 for the elimination of slum and blight in Scranton, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for music and education programs at New York Citys Carnegie Hall, where they pay the employee who oversees the props more than $530,000 in salary and benefits; and theres plenty in here for Washington as well: $150,000 for the National Building Museum and $250,000 for the Wolf Trap Center for the Performing Arts, a concert venue. Listen, I dont know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: are they more important than our kids and grandkids, who are going to have the pay the debt because we dont have the money to spend on this? Its our kids and grandkids who are going to pay for it, and yet we cant find ways to cut spending. Before taking office, the President said he would go through the budget and these bills line-by-line, page-by-page. After Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it, and said, well that was last years business. Now the President says reducing the deficit is next years business that we need to spend our way out of this economic recession were in. Well I think the President ought to go through this bill line-by-line and page-by-page, all 2,500 pages of it. And then maybe hell figure out, we dont need to be spending this money that we dont have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion. Instead, lets stop the madness and vote no.

CBS News Reports: Stimulus Funds Go to Martini Bars, Puppet shows

CBS Evening News reported on yet another revelation of stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse. The latest news of stimulus waste came courtesy of a study released by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ), entitled Stimulus Checkup, which took a closer look at 100 projects funded by the Democrats $1 trillion stimulus and highlighted 100 wasteful stimulus projects worth at least $7 billion but saved or created few actual jobs.

The latest projects that taxpayer dollars are funding include: a martini bar, a Brazilian steak house, a water pipeline, a money-losing golf course in San Francisco, fossil research in Argentina, puppet shows - and much, much more.

As CBS News reported:

The public's overall assessment of the condition of the national economy remains grim; 77 percent of Americans say the economy is in bad shape. The economic stimulus package was supposed to help with that. As of the end of November, the government has spent $217 billion in stimulus, and two Republican Senators say that at least 15 percent of it has been pure waste.

You probably wouldn't guess that a martini bar and a Brazilian steak house would be on tap for stimulus funds. But in St. Joseph, Missouri the two privately-owned facilities are getting $100,000 of your tax dollars.

The contrast with the latest report of stimulus waste and a Memorandum to Head of Departments and Agencies penned by Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag on February 9 is remarkable. They wrote:

We cannot overstate the importance of this effort. We are asking the American people to trust their government with an unprecedented level of funding to address the economic emergency. In return, we must prove to them that their dollars are being invested in initiatives and strategies that make a difference in their communities and across the country.

Clearly, their own stimulus has failed to meet that test.

As early as next week, Democrats will move to raise the debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion nearly twice what had been assumed in last springs budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year, Politico noted today. Judging by the way out-of-touch Washington Democrats spent taxpayer money in just one year, why should the American people trust them with one more dime of their hard-earned money?

The American people deserve better than the out-of-control spending, borrowing, and taxing Washington Democrats have been offering up all year. Republicans have a better solution: a no-cost jobs proposal, which House Republican Leaders discussed just yesterday with the President.

Boehner: It's Time to Shut Down TARP

http://gopleader.gov House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after House Democrats rejected a GOP motion-to-recommit that would have amended Democrats financial regulatory legislation (H.R. 4173) to shut down the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and require that TARP funds be used to pay down the national debt:

Today, House Democrats voted to continue TARP and go right on spending taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon. After a year-long spending spree, out-of-touch Washington Democrats are looking for money in all the wrong places to fund more of the same stimulus programs that arent working. Not only do Washington Democrats have no exit strategy for TARP, they want to keep the program alive so it can serve as a slush fund to bail out politicians.

"The American people are sick and tired of these open-ended bailouts and all this wasteful Washington spending. Taxpayer money paid back to the government should be used for debt reduction. Only Republicans are offering common-sense proposals to get government out of the bailout business and stop piling debt on our kids and grandkids.

NOTE: Democrats rejected a common-sense GOP motion-to-recommit proposal on the House floor today that would have amended Democrats financial reform legislation (H.R. 4173) to shut down TARP and require that TARP funds be used to pay down the national debt. The Republican motion-to-recommit also included a provision to lower the nations debt limit by an amount equal to that from shutting down TARP.

12/12/09 Weekly Republican Address: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. Blackburn: "If President Obama has his way, the Copenhagen conference will produce mandatory emissions limits that would destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come."

Weekly Address: Learning from History to Reform Wall Street

The President explains that while he continues to focus on jobs, it is also profoundly important to address the problems that created this economic mess in the first place. He commends the House of Representatives for passing reforms to our financial system, including a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and blasts Republican Leaders and financial industry lobbyists for their joint pep rally to defeat it. December 12, 2009.

12/5/09 - Carly Fiorina Delivers Weekly GOP Address

In the weekly Republican address, Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP, describes how she was diagnosed with and beat breast cancer.

She explains why the recent recommendation on mammograms from a government-run panel was so troubling, especially because costs were a significant factor in the decision.

She points out, "The health care bill now being debated in the Senate explicitly empowers this very task force to influence future coverage and preventive care."

She wonders, under the Democrat health bill, "Will a bureaucrat determine that my life isn't worth saving?"

"Do we really want government bureaucrats, rather than doctors, dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?" she asks.

Weekly Address: Pushing Forward on Jobs

Following the best jobs numbers since 2007, the President recognizes that such trends are cold comfort to those who are struggling and pledges to continue pushing forward towards positive job growth. He looks back at the Jobs Forum he hosted days before and looks ahead to further action. He emphatically restates why he ran for President in the first place: to fight for a country where responsibility is still rewarded, and hard-working people can get ahead. December 5, 2009.

11/26/09 Weekly Republican Address: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

Rep. Pence: "The American people know we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. ... Republicans have proposals to get our economy moving again, to achieve energy independence and lower the cost of health care."

Weekly Address: President Obama Delivers Thanksgiving Greeting

President Obama calls to our attention the men and women in uniform who are away from home sacrificing time with family to protect our safety and freedom. He also talks about the progress of health care reform, the Recovery Act, and job creation to ensure that next Thanksgiving will be a brighter day. November 25, 2009

Obama Administration Report Confirms Speaker Pelosis Bill Increases Health Care Costs

Congressman John Boehner filmed the following web video last week in response an analysis by nonpartisan, independent experts at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requested by House Ways & Means Ranking Republican Dave Camp (R-MI) on Speaker Nancy Pelosis (D-CA) health care bill. The report unequivocally shows that Speaker Pelosis bill would raise national health care costs not lower them as the Speaker and House Democrats have asserted by $289 billion if it were enacted. Boehner says:

"In the lead up to a vote in Congress on her health care bill, Speaker Pelosi claimed her bill would provide affordability to the middle class, security to our seniors, and responsibility to our children by not adding a dime to the deficit.

"On Friday, the Obama Administration released a troubling analysis by independent, non-partisan experts at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing just how far from the truth Speaker Pelosis claims actually are.

"This report once again discredits Democrats assertions that their $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care will lower costs, and it confirms that this bill violates President Obamas promise to bend the cost curve. Its now beyond dispute that their bill will raise costs, which is exactly what the American people dont want.

"It is also clear that the $500 billion in Medicare cuts in Speaker Pelosis bill will have a drastic impact on senior citizens. In fact, after reading the CMS study the Washington Post reported that cuts will be so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

"It doesnt have to be this way. Democrats should scrap their current proposal and work in a bipartisan way on a plan to lower costs and increase access at a price tag our nation can afford.

"Find out more about Republican plans for significant, bipartisan reform at Healthcare.gop.gov. Thank you."

Weekly Address: Traveling Abroad for Our Economy at Home

In an address recorded in Seoul, South Korea, the President discusses his trip to Asia. He talks about his push to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea, Iran, and around the world. He talks about promoting Americas principles for an open society in China while making progress on joint efforts to combat climate change. And talks in-depth about the primary objective of his trip: engaging in new markets that hold tremendous potential to spur job creation here at home. November 21, 2009.

Flip Flop Kay Hagan

Flip Flop Kay Hagan

Flip Flop Mark Begich

Flip Flop Mark Begich

"I Deserve Health Care"

Television Ad: "I Deserve Health Care" [Health Reform Video Challenge winner]

Dead of Night

Dead of Night

Alabama Democrats, Whose vision for education do you trust?

Alabama Democrats, Whose vision for education do you trust?

11/21/09 Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) Delivers Weekly GOP Address on Health Care

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) delivers the weekly Republican address about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2,074 page health care bill.

Sen. Crapo says, "This 2000-page bill will drive up the cost of health care insurance and medical care, not down, increase taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, cut Medicare for senior citizens by hundreds of billions of dollars, grow the federal government by over $2.4 trillion in new spending, push the needy uninsured into a failing Medicaid system, impose a damaging unfunded mandate on our struggling states, leave millions of Americans uninsured, and establish a massive governmental intrusion into management of our health care economy."

Sen. Crapo notes that Americans are looking for health reform that lowers costs and "ensures access to meaningful, quality health care." Sadly, Reid's bill is not the kind of health reform American families need.

Johanns: I Ask Pro-Life Senators to Stand Up and Oppose Public Funding of Abortion

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) emphasizes that every pro-life senator should cast a no vote on allowing the Senate to consider the Democrats health care reform bill, which would require at least one government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortion and would allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize such plans. All it would take, Senator Johanns points out, to defeat public funding of abortion is for one pro-life Senate Democrat to stand up for his or her principles and vote no on considering the bill.

Flip Flop Kent Conrad

Flip Flop Kent Conrad

ABC News: 1 in 10 Jobs "Saved or Created" in the "Stimulus" Dont Exist

Last night, ABCs World News Tonight with Charles Gibson highlighted a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on misleading stimulus jobs claims. The GAO report found that More than 50,000 jobs, or one out of every 10 jobscame from projects that reported spending no money yet, according to ABC News.

Republicans: Americans Don't Want Higher Premiums and Higher Taxes

Republicans emphasize that the Democrats' health care plan which will raise premiums and taxes, cut Medicare, and drive up the deficit is not the kind of health care reform the American people are looking for.

Advocacy Alert

A friend of mine named Cyndy Viars sent me this advocacy alert so I am just passing it along to others to know and act to protect the agining community in our state:

Fellow Progressives,

The aging community has taken several budget cuts and there is another serious threat of yet another cut. The people who utilize these services are the aging poor and frail elderly. Please contact your legislators, Andy Dillon and Jim Bishop and let them know that you support Michigan's seniors and that further cuts are unfair and unacceptable! Talking points are included below.

Thank you,Cyndy

Here is the latest alert from the Area Agencies on Aging Association of Michigan
AREA AGENCIES ON AGING ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN
ADVOCACY ALERT
November 18, 2009

OSA PROGRAMS SLASHED 18% IN LAST FOUR MONTHS
~ Another 20% cut likely without new revenues ~


Programs funded by the Office of Services to the Aging (OSA), including meals, home care, caregiver services and volunteer programs, funded at $40 million one year ago, have been slashed by $7 million (18%) within the past four months. Governor Granholm is directing state offices to plan for another 20% cut for next year if new no new revenues are approved by the Legislature.

BACKGROUND:
To address the problem of falling revenues, Governor Granholm recommended a package of tax increases and loophole closings to protect state programs. But leaders of the Democratic House and Republican Senate forged an agreement to achieve a balanced budget with all cuts and no new revenues. The House is led by Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford) and the Senate Leader is Senator Mike Bishop (R-Rochester). Despite their leaders’ agreement, both chambers had second thoughts and did approve some new revenues – but the new revenue sources were different from each other as were plans on how to use any new revenues.

The result was a state budget with devastating cuts to state programs, including those providing a safety net to vulnerable older Michiganians. OSA cuts are only part of the story; there are numerous other cuts in prevention, dementia, mental health, and other services. And optional Medicaid benefits for eyeglasses, hearing aids, adult dental care, etc. were eliminated. In the meantime, Legislators are trumpeting their success in protecting the Michigan taxpayer by balancing the budget with no new taxes. ‘No new tax’ groups are praising Legislators for their tough decisions to cut programs and live within our means.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Deliver a two-part message:
1) your disappointment about cuts that will hurt frail seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups .
2) your willingness to support new taxes, closing loopholes, etc. to help the vulnerable.

Deliver this message to your own Representative and Senator. For contact information, go to www.mi-seniors.net and click on the Advocacy page.

Deliver this message to the two legislative leaders who decided to balance the budget with all cuts:

Rep. Andy Dillon andydillon@house.mi.gov (888) 737-3455
Senator Mike Bishop senmbishop@senate.michigan.gov (877) 924-7467

Use the two-part message outlined above.

Here are some additional talking points:

· OSA cuts are denying services to 8.000 frail older adults.

· Helping seniors with home-based services is cost-effective and saves the state from spending more money on nursing homes.

7850 East Jefferson Pension HQ Goes to Full Council Friday

I'm just passing along information in hopes that people who are interested in this decision will attend this meeting as well as email the current and new council members to voice their concerns regarding this matter.

The Villages Community Development Corp.

11/19/09
CORRECTION, The Full Council Meeting is this Friday, November 20th at 10am


STOP THE REZONING of 7850 East Jefferson

WE NEED YOUR ACTION NOW & FRIDAY at 10am


Today the Detroit City Council Planning and Economic Development Committee (Reeves & Collins) voted against the concerns of Detroit Residents and the City Planning Professionals. They overruled the Detroit City Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson for the 7.4 Million dollar luxury riverfront Pension Fund Building. The committee action today, pushes the rezoning to a final decision through a full City Council vote on Friday.

The full City Council vote will take place Friday 11/20/09 starting at 10am. This is the last and most important meeting to come to, We can win on this issue, please every make every effort to attend this meeting. We need a large group and we will be heard!

Meeting Details:
Full City Council Meeting
Friday the 20th of November 13th floor of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center (City- County Building)Time: 10 am. Please be there by 10 am for public comment, public comment will come first at this meeting, this is our time to be heard!


Also Please call again and resend your emails to remind Council Members that there is significant community opposition to the proposal and the City Planning Commission has recommended against the rezoning. Ask them to Vote NO on the Rezoning


Please forward this email to supporters


For your convenience

Mayors office & City Councils physical addresses and phone numbers:

Mayor Bing
City of Detroit
Executive Office
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 1126
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone (313) 224-3400 Fax (313) 224-4433.

Detroit City Council
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
2 Woodward Ave, Suite 1340
Detroit, MI 48226

Kenneth V. Cockrel Jr. (313) 224-4505
JoAnn Watson (313) 224-4535
Martha Reeves (313) 224-4510
Kwame Kenyatta (313) 224-1198
Barbara-Rose Collins (313) 224-1298
Brenda Jones (313) 224-1245
Alberta Tinsley-Talabi (313) 224-1645
Sheila M. Cockrel (313) 224-1337



Emails:
TO: Kenneth.Cockrel@detroitmi.gov; Collins_MB@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; K-Kenyatta_MB@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; m-reeves_MB@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; S-Cockrel_mb@ckrl.ci.detroit.mi.us; A_Talabi_mb@atwpo.ci.detroit.mi.us; WatsonJ@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; bjones_mb@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us;

CC: cc-cpc@ci.detroit.mi.us; saunteel@saunteeljenkins.com; gary@electgarybrown.com; aspivey@spiveyfordetroit.com; charles@charlespughproductions.com;



Statement: Opposition to changing the City of Detroit Master Plan and the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson The following document outlines in detail reasons for opposing the petition to change the City of Detroit Master Plan and allowing the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson from High Density Residential (R-6) to Planned Development (PD) for the proposed development of a low rise office building for the Detroit Pension Funds Administrative Offices. The Case has also been clearly made that the petition directly conflicts with the City of Detroit's Master Plan and does not meet minimum conditions of approval for rezoning per the Detroit Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 61 of the City Code).

The City Planning Commission will consider this topic on 10/15/09 at 4:30pm on the 13th floor of the CAYMC

Opposition includes:
· The Villages CDC
· The Indian Village Neighborhood Association
· West Village Neighborhood Association
· Detroit Towers Building Association
River Towers Building Assocation
. Shoreline East Building Association
· Hundreds of handed signed & online petitions from individual residents and stakeholders from a large cross section of the community who have a significant stake in the future and share a vibrant progressive vision of the Villages Community and the City of Detroit.

www.thevillagesofdetroit.org

Sign Our Petition

The Villages Communities Position:
The Villages Communities object to the Detroit Retirement Systems' request for a change in the City of Detroit Master Plan, and the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson from (R-6) high-rise residential to (PD) Planned Development, and the proposal to build a small office building and parking lot on that site.

The proposed use is not good for our Community
It is not the highest and best use of the parcel for our Neighborhoods or the City of Detroit. The proposed structure would be another sterile gated office building in a vibrant riverfront residential neighborhood using the property during business hours only. Further, this project would generate little or no revenue (relative to residential development) for the City, which is unacceptable considering the relatively high value of Detroit's limited, developable riverfront property.

The Villages neighborhood is one of the few areas in Detroit that has stable and genuine population density, income growth, and the current ability to attract residents and new retail business. Once the Riverwalk connects to Downtown through The Villages, our neighborhoods residential and retail desirability will only increase.

The Proposal is not good for Detroit
The proposed development takes jobs and commercial tenants out of the Central Business District where office space occupancy is needed the most. We need to keep our city center strong - weakening our city center by allowing employees from the Central Business District to be moved to a residential neighborhood fails to make sense. The current vacancy rate in the Downtown area is about 30%. We, as a City, cannot advocate, encourage, legislate or enable in any way re-zoning that encourages the depopulation of Downtown Detroit. Development of the proposed locale will not contribute to creation of new full time jobs with the pension board.

The plan directly conflicts with the City of Detroit's Master Plan and does not meet minimum criteria for approval for rezoning per the Detroit Zoning Ordinance. A full (long/legal) explanation of why the plan directly conflicts with the Master Plan and does not meet the Minimum Criteria of the Zoning Ordinance is listed as an addendum to this document.

If this change to the Master Plan and rezoning is approved, it is a Vote against a dense Downtown; it is vote against Downtown businesses and building owners; it is a vote against the City of Detroit; it is a vote against every small Downtown business that depends on a high density of Downtown Detroit to stay in business, pay its bills and its employees; it is a vote against all owners of emptying buildings struggling to maintain their occupancy to keep from exiting the City. Voting "yes" on this plan for this site is a vote against the work of the DEGC, DDA, the DDP, the Riverfront Conservancy and every other organization working for a greater Downtown Detroit (which ultimately leads to a stronger tax base, and the ability to render services city wide).

It is the Villages CDC's belief, supported by Detroit City Council Resolution and City of Detroit Master Plan, that any use for 7850 East Jefferson site must include easement from Jefferson to the River and easement along the River. These acts of our City's legislative body, that incorporate future planning design to guide development-based improvements to Detroit, must not be watered-down at the whim of the first developer with money to come along and find the requirement inconvenient.

The City of Detroit has less than 13 miles of developable riverfront. Every possible inch of that riverfront should be utilized for the maximum benefit of the Public and the city, and in this case maximum benefit is high density residential, access to the water, and public riverfront use along the entire length of the Detroit River within the city.

The Villages Community is Thriving
The Villages is a thriving, growing area that is proven in its ability to attract private investment dollars. The Villages are not a part of Detroit that people talk about when they speak of a shrinking city. Although the city, state, and nation are in a recession, the Villages have recently been able to attract an investment of over $2 million from Shelburne Development, who are moving their headquarters from the City of Wayne into a properly zoned historic building. Tim Horton's just opened up. The senior section of the Historic Whittier Hotel is now leasing successfully. A Pizza Bistro is opening in the Hibbard Building, and according to recent Social Compact data, City of Detroit Master Plan Cluster 3, Indian Village area (including 7850 East Jefferson) has the higest concentration of income in Southeast Michigan.

Perhaps most exciting is that Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan has asked the Villages CDC to lead the master planning for the extension of the Detroit River walk east of Gabriel Richard Park. Not only is this a testament to the commitment of the Villages CDC to the City of Detroit, but a commentary to the thorough, professional, and measured manner in which the organization approaches comprehensive community development.

The success of the Villages does not give us voting privilege, but it does require a significant level of attention when looking at the future of Detroit as one of the city's areas of greatest tax revenue generation. Given the current tax revenue generated in the Villages and the area's current ability to attract new investment, it is crucial that the planning of this area be reflected upon when assessing the financial future of the City of Detroit. Within the Villages, basic planning principals dictate that the most valuable land will be along the waterfront, with the highest and best land use being as indicated in the master plan, high density residential.

Our community vision includes an extended Riverwalk; a connected greenways plan;, neighborhood oriented retail development in commercial sections, Green-oriented, light industrial in the Island View warehouse; district and high density residential development on the Riverfront with lower density residential development across Jefferson in the neighborhoods, allowing direct public access to the riverfront. These are not just dreams; these are plans that are being actively developed within this community today, and are all in accordance with the City of Detroit's Master Plan.

The Master Plan and when it should be changed
The City of Detroit's Master Plan was developed in partnership with City of Detroit, Elected Officials, paid City of Detroit staff, and many years of extensive meetings and input from the community.

The Master Plan should only be changed in unique situations when a project is presented that provides an opportunity for significant area improvement that would benefit the City of Detroit and the community adjacent to the project. The project must be unique in a way that could not be duplicated in another part of the city that is zoned for that specific use, or a neighborhood where it would have an even greater impact on the city (City of Zoning Ord.Sec 61-3-96, 3).

It should not be necessary for the residents of the City of Detroit to defend the City of Detroit's Master Plan; it should be up to the petitioner to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the project is in the best interest of the City of Detroit and its surrounding community, in the case, the Villages Community.

The petition to change the City of Detroit Master Plan to allow the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson does not meet that minimum standard.

The Petitioners from the Pension Funds of Detroit are not able to present an acceptable argument as to why this project is good for the community or why it should be approved. The Petitioners' arguments in support of the project revolve around what is good for the need of the retirement systems, which have nothing to do with the community and are not exclusive to the land at 7850 East Jefferson.

The Petitioners case is not based on the criteria for approval stated in the Detroit Zoning Ordinance, nor the policies stated in the City of Detroit's Master Plan. The arguments presented by the Petitioner are based on benefits to the Petitioner, not on benefits to the City of Detroit, or the Community surrounding the proposed project. The following summarizes how these arguments are flawed:

The Detroit Retirement Systems' representatives who are from Milestone Real Estate, Royal Oak, have continued to try to make their case why the site is good for the Retirement Systems. However their arguments have failed to make any basic, plausible case for why is it good for the community (unless you include the idea that this development will replace the currently blighted, nuisance property that this group has owned since January 2008). The only thing that is clear is that per the Police and Fire Fighters pension fund's minutes, Milestone Real Estate stands to make $210,000 if this project is approved. Their motivation is not for the community, nor the pension funds; it is for its paycheck.

The 7.4 million dollar parking lot
The Retirement Systems first argument, centers on the necessity for a $7.4 million riverfront parking lot for retirees. The Detroit Retirement Systems representatives made much of the necessity to provide easy access for retirees who visit the offices. However, there seems to be no concern for city employees who may not find the location convenient to their workplace. There is no acceptable reason why a retiree must visit the pension offices, but a visit is essential in order for an employee to retire. A lot of discussion centered on retirees who come monthly to pick up their pension checks. No explanation was offered as to why this high-value riverfront land is necessary to provide convenience to a small fraction of all the retirees.

We have been told that the retirement systems receive up to 100 visitors a day, but we have also been told by other sources that most of the visitors are current employees setting up their retirements. Most of these current employees work downtown. The number of retirees picking up checks is never given at any meetings; but we can create a fair estimate. There are approximately 11,500 retirees and beneficiaries receiving pension benefits. We can estimate that about 100 physically pick up their checks every month, less than one tenth of one percent of those receiving pensions. However, to the pension fund trustees the $7.4 million cost of providing a convenient location for those who want to pick up checks is essential. That cost gets spread across all 11,500 whose pension money is in trust. Pension money is in the trust not only for the roughly 100 retirees and beneficiaries that possibly pick up their check on a monthly basis, but also for full-time city employees who have made contributions to the funds for their eventual benefit.

At the City Planning Commission public meeting hosted at The Iroquois Avenue Christ Lutheran Church on September 18, 2009, the Chairperson of the General Retirement Pension Funds Systems stated that the pension boards couldn't refuse to have retirees come to the office for checks. Why not? Social Security offers a mailed check or direct deposit and no other option. On the presumption that many or most city retirees are also receiving Social Security (or will in the future), it would appear that retirees are capable of dealing with mailed checks or direct deposit or will have to learn. Most pensioners who have retired from the City never find cause to go to the pension board offices again, if a pensioner has a problem, it can all be rectified by phone and mail.

Therefore, even if it was a good idea to spend $7.4 million on a few employees to pick up their checks, it does not establish a need to build on $1.8 million riverfront land- the City's most valuable land asset

If we don't build nobody will
The Chairperson went on to make the Detroit classic threat: "if this isn't approved the land will remain vacant and nothing will happen." That is, of course, an empty threat. Even in this recession the Villages area is a desirable area to buy and develop as demonstrated by how aggressively the Pension funds are trying to develop 7850 East Jefferson, in addition to the previously mentioned developments and improvements being made during this recession.

The Chairperson also made the telling admission that the Police and Fire Pension Board bought this land not for the present project, but as an investment. Only later did the two boards turn to this parcel as the site of the new offices. The Pension Boards cannot have it both ways. If the land was bought for investment and it was a good investment, then it won't lay vacant if this rezoning is denied. Otherwise, the Pension Boards are telling us that they both made a bad investment or, perhaps, that if they do not get their way, they will refuse to develop just to SHOW those people. Which, of course, would be a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the employees and retirees whose money they are spending.

Note: the Police and Fire Fighter Pension Funds board of directors meetings, seem to contradict the Chairperson's Statement. The Meeting Minutes seem to indicate the intent all along was to purchase the property to build the Detroit Retirement Systems offices. It is not clear what the Petitioners' intention was. (Source: Pension Boards Minutes January-April 2008)

It has been vacant for years and nobody has developed it.
Previous to the pension fund purchasing the property the land was owned by a private investment trust. This is the type of trust with more money than sense that can and will hold land for decades looking to hit the jackpot with a wealthy buyer. Now that the Pension funds purchased the property, it is in the hands of an owner with a clear responsibility to make a profit; the land will either be sold again or be developed into an appropriate use.

Also, a residential property owner who attended the September 18, 2009 meeting posed the question, "How did the pension funds come to acquire the property?" He stated that he had been trying to purchase the property for years, but the owner was unwilling to sell.

Bus access
For retirees who must take the bus, the East Jefferson location works well only for those who live on the East Jefferson line. As one resident commented, most retirees taking the bus to East Jefferson will end up transferring downtown. Would a downtown location perhaps be more convenient for them? Convenient parking is not an issue for them, even if it is for staff.

Precedent
The retirement systems have claimed that this building's use should be acceptable based upon the existence and position of the UAW Solidarity House (a non-conforming R-6) and St John Riverview Hospital (commercial). What they fail to disclose is that St John's, after recently purchasing many city blocks and homes in addition to convincing developers to build additional office buildings on the site, is now largely vacant. The action virtually land-locked the surrounding community. Now, the massive site houses only an urgent care facility, a few doctors' offices, and a small nursing school subsidized in order to use that location.

In very recent years the CPC and other agencies saw fit to retain the UAW solidarity house's non-conforming use by keeping the building zoned high-rise residential. The existence of this building has not spurned any economic growth within the community (especially given its gated, set back position on its site), now there seems to be even less activity at the site, with less cars parking in the UAW's riverfront parking lot. Neither property sets a good precedent for office use on the riverfront.

Shared Parking & Residential on the far end of the site
At the September 18, 2009 meeting several residents made the very pertinent point that we need residential mass in order to support better retail and services in the neighborhood. A small apartment building at the back end of that lot does not equal high-density residential development, which the community and the Master Plan show to be the best use for the land.

The pension funds heavily promoted possibility of a residential building at the river end of 7850 East Jefferson. A community member put it best. "It is a straw man proposal designed to quiet those who advocate residential use and gain support for the project. The proposed residential building area within the parcel is too small for any significant development even if the parking problem could be resolved. The pension board conveniently left out the riverfront easement in their conceptual drawing that showed an idea of what a residential building might look like". Adding the easement would highlight the limited amount of developable space.

What is more disturbing is that the pension Board Representatives admitted for the first time that they would like to sell the land that is being set aside for future development. If they want to sell the land, why are they pushing so hard for to change the zoning on the whole site, what will be built if they sell it?

The idea for residential development inclusion, made little if any attempt to realistically address the most basic of plan requirements: location, size, parking... A petitioner's representative had the wherewithal to suggest the idea of alternative use - the pension staff using the spaces during the day while the apartment residents are at work. This is patently ridiculous. Would that mean retirees would have to move their cars during the day? What about residents on evenings or afternoons, what about alternative work schedules and vacation, and sick-days? To the extent that this should even warrant discussion, to our knowledge this type of parking has never been approved in the City of Detroit, and there is no precedent for it working elsewhere.

Is there support for the project?
Thus far, the only community residential support for the project at the City Planning Commission Public meeting came from select residents from River Towers. This is not unreasonable at all. The River Tower residents are legitimately concerned with the overgrown condition of the lot next to their home. They are fearful for their safety, relaying stories of drug deals, predators lurking on the lot, lack of light, etc. Any community concerns with the condition of that lot since January 2008, are the direct responsibility of the property owner - the Petitioner.

For almost two years the Pension Boards have owned the property and have not removed the dangerous situation created by the overgrown condition of the property. It is shocking that the City of Detroit's General Pension Fund and Detroit fire Fighters and Police Pension boards are acting like slumlords, perpetuating a nuisance site that attracts criminals and crime. What is equally disturbing is that the petitioner seems to be using the over gown lot as a negotiating tool to push this project through. The petitioner has been telling the seniors surrounding the building that this project will bring them safety and security because the will lot will be cleared, completely omitting the fact that of who is responsible for the condition of the parcel. Just east of the parcel is another vacant parcel that was once the site of a large house, no one is complaining about the vacant land being a source of crime because it is property maintained by its owners, development or no development.

The Plan Does Not Make Financial Sense
The retirement systems have made a decision that the most cost effective thing to do is to build their own single use building, yet they have not presented facts to back that up, and there is plenty of evidence to refute that claim. Including the availability of long term low cost leases, 30% vacancy in the Central Business District, and additional holding costs that have not been discussed. Plus how can we believe their financial arguments when the Petitioner purports that the most cost effective solution begins with the acquisition of land that is among the city's most expensive.

A new building is better than an existing building
Retired Wayne County Judge Mary Waterstone told the attendees of the September 18, 2009 meeting that the county retirement system recently informed its members that their offices at 28 W. Adams had been renegotiated at a lower rate. The owner of 28 W. Adams is the City of Detroit Police and Fire Pension System. Boards' Chairperson told Judge Waterstone that 28 W. Adams was not a possibility for the Detroit retirement systems because it is full. This contradicts the Pension Fund representative's arguments at the community meeting where they tried to convince the neighborhood that investment in older downtown buildings is not financially feasible. So this raises another question, is 28 W. Adams a bad investment even though it's full? If it's full why did the Police and Fire pension system reduce the county pension system's rent?

One question that lingers is, will the property be worth $9.6 million dollars when completed? The answer we have gotten seems to be no, but if you look at longer term projection, the answer is maybe. If the Project is worth the money long term because of the value of the land, it undermines their case from two perspectives. First, they claim they are not planning to sell their building so appreciation does not matter which makes it a foolish move to build on the 1.8 million dollar property. Secondly, if they expect the property to appreciate it directly contradicts their argument that there will not be not any demand for the property and nothing will be built at 7850 East Jefferson.

The Pension Board Representatives elected to reference the County's project at the Guardian Building as an example of high costs for the purchase and renovation of an older building. The Guardian Building is perhaps 10 times the size of the Retirement systems building and is widely considered one of the most significant historic buildings in the city. It makes about as much sense to compare the proposed Detroit Retirement Systems headquarters to an Indian Village home than the Guardian Building, It might make even more sense because Indian Village Homes are closer in size scale.

Taxable or not Taxable: Desirable and valuable property in city on a project that will not generate acceptable tax revenue for the city?

Property in the city with the most taxable potential in terms of property, business and income taxes cannot be used for projects that are not expected to generate significant tax revenue for this city.

The Chair Person of the Pension Board on 9/18/09 stated without further explanation, that no property taxes are being paid presently on 7850 East Jefferson.

The petitioner for this zoning change is PFRS/GRS Jefferson Avenue Corporation. Documents on file at the Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services, Corporation Division, indicate that this is a Michigan for-profit corporation established in January, 2008. The most recent annual report gives the officers and directors as Jeffrey M. Pegg, Susan R. Glaser, Marty Bandemer, and Sheila W. Kneeshaw. Two of these are Fire and Police Retirement System trustees, and two are trustees for the General Retirement System. It is important to note that Susan R. Glaser is Vice Char/Secretary of the City Planning Commission. The articles of incorporation and later filings make it clear that the sole function of the corporation is to develop and operate 7850 East Jefferson, and to remit the net income to the pensions system. If it is true, as stated, that no property taxes are currently being paid, then something strange is going on that needs to be identified and addressed.

The city assessor's office claims that 7850 East Jefferson is a taxable property, however the property is only assessed at about $300,000 with about a $27,000 tax liability. If this property was assessed based on purchase price the state equalized value would be $900,000 and the tax liability would be $72,000 per year. Whether or not they are still paying taxes, it seems like something was overlooked when their property was reassessed.

The representatives of the pension board also said that the completed development would pay property taxes. Perhaps they're planning to use their PFRS/GRS Jefferson Avenue Corporation for-profit corporation to develop the project and rent it to the pension system; that entity would be subject to property tax. That would also make this project truly an investment by the pension system, since their financial role would be as investors and/or lenders.

But if that's the plan, it runs directly counter to the Chairpersons statement that this project would eliminate the pension system's need to pay rent. Indeed, given the high cost of the land and the substantial cost of a new semi-green building, the rent might be higher than at present if there's to be a proper return on the employees' and retirees' money.

Also we have been notified that the Brownfield authority at the DEGC has received notification that the Petitioner is going to apply for Brownfield tax credits or rebates that will significantly reduce the amount of taxes the will be responsible for on this project, significantly minimizing the financial impact to the city.

The cost of $390,000/year to the City of Detroit
Pension Funds representatives stated that they pay $390,000 in rent at the CAYMC, We later learned that the Retirement Systems subleases space directly from the City of Detroit. The City of Detroit leases space from the CAYMC Joint Building Authority. If the Detroit Retirement Systems moves out, the $390,000 in rent for empty space will still need to be paid by the City of Detroit. This is money the City will not be able to use for Fire, Police, garbage and other city services. The taxpayers of the City of Detroit are going to be left to cover the rent.Because this project could cause the City to lose income, in our present financial situation it would be devastating. By not following its Master Plan, the City would aid in an act that provides a luxury location for fifty pension staffers while sacrificing police protection or trash pickup. For those still employed by the city, it means risking a layoff so the pension employees can have their brown bag lunches at the rivers edge. It's this simple: if the planners were right when they developed the master plan, if the panel of zoning experts were right when they completely rewrote the zoning ordinance only a few years ago, and if City Council was right when they voted to adopt the updated master plan, then this project is wrong.

Renting or Owning: Fiduciary responsibility to make a profit for the Pension Funds
The Pension Board representatives claim that this project will be a low cost alterative to renting. This claim is full of inaccuracies as well.

If this development is going to be structured as a real investment, then the pension boards will pay rent just as they do now. The value or income of the investment will be part of the funding of the pensions. By the same token, the pension board's costs won't decline; they should increase. If the pension system directly invests in this project and owns its own office without paying rent, the value of land and building will not be counted as part of the funding for retirees pensions. That takes eight or nine million out of the pension fund and puts it into a capital asset that has value but no investment income to return to fund the pensions.

The Chairperson made a statement that this project would relieve the pension systems from paying rent. If this is a for-profit project intended to create net income for the pension systems, where does the net income come, if the pension systems are not paying rent? If this is an investment of money in trust to create income for the pension funds there must be income in the form of rent.

The question becomes; how high would the rent be? The pension funds have never shared any detail the answer to this question. We can only base the answer on the national average, and the information we know about the project. We know the pension board has a very high per-square-foot cost for the land based on the $1.8 million purchase price. We know they have very substantial costs for a 7.4 million dollar new semi-green building (though not as green as the LEED certified silver CAYMC they are moving out of). We know their new space will be almost twice the size of their current 17,000 SF of space in the CAYMC, though they are not adding any employees (PLEASE NOTE: There is space available in the CAYMC for the additional space). Coupled with the additional costs such as overhead, security guards, heat, light, and property taxes, the costs increase.

If this is to be a true investment that creates a decent return on the employees and retirees money, the pension system will not only pay rent, but a very substantial rent on some of the most valuable land in the city or they'll be violating their fiduciary responsibility as trustees of other people's money.

Will this new building save money or al least break even
As was previously stated, the pension board currently pays about $390,000/year in rent at the CAYMC. The representatives of the pension funds have stated that the project will save pensioners money over time. They have never been able to offer any proof that the pension fund will save money or at least break even over the long run with this new building. One fairly simple way to evaluate this project is to look at it with price-to-rent ratios. For example, if a house costs $120,000 and it can be rented for $12,000 a year ($1000/month), that's a price-to-rent ratio of 10.

The following link provides some information related to commercial real estate:
http://real.wharton.upenn.edu/~gyourko/Working%20Papers/Understanding%20Commercial%20Real%20Estate.pdf

Basically, it states that nationwide, commercial real estate price-to-rent ratios averaged around 11 in 2003, and averaged around 14 in 2008 (most likely higher due to the real estate bubble). According to the recent Crain's article, the estimated construction costs for 7850 E Jefferson are $7.2 million, and the land would cost $1.8 million, for a total price of $9 million. Compared against their current rent payments of $390,000 a year, that would be a price-to-rent ratio of 23 (9,000,000/390, 000), which is much higher than the national average of 14. This suggests that the building will ultimately cost the pension fund considerably more than if they continued renting. To cover the costs, the for-profit corporation would have to charge quite a bit more than $390,000/year to pay items such as taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs.

Conclusion
After reviewing the information available, the City's own Master Plan, and the appropriate City Zoning ordinances, there is nothing in the petitioner's proposal that warrants a change to the Master Plan or rezoning of this site. It is incumbent upon the City Council to uphold the city planning commission's recommendation to deny the rezoning of 7850 East Jefferson

Message Headline
By breaking up the body of the letter into logical topics, your readers can focus in on the topic that they deem most relevant.

Select your wording carefully. Most people scan their emails very quickly. Keep your paragraphs to seven lines or less. If you have more information, include a link to your website where your readers can get further details.


The Villages of Detroit
The Villages Community Development Corp.

Announcing the Winner of the Health Reform Video Challenge

After nearly 1,000 submissions, 20 amazing finalists, and more than 3 million views, Organizing for America supporters and a panel of experts have picked the winner of the OFA Health Reform Video Challenge.

Excessive and Unfair Overdraft Fees

Kendrick Meek fights to end this practice and chats with Floridians about the issue.

Fox News: "Stimulus" Money Goes to Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Ten months after the President signed a $1 trillion stimulus spending bill that his aides claimed would keep unemployment below 8 percent, Americans are still asking: where are the jobs? It turns out that some of jobs the Administration claimed were saved or created by the so-called stimulus were from Congressional districts that dont even exist.

ABC News has also uncovered even more stimulus spending in non-existent Congressional districts:
•In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
•In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
•In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
•The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
•$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
•$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
•$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
•$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, blasted the Administrations claims of jobs created or saved in a statement yesterday:

The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes. Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. Weve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.

But the exaggerated jobs numbers arent the end of the stimulus troubles. As USA Today reported this morning, Stimulus aid has sparked an economic boom for some unwanted entrepreneurs — con men. The story goes on:

State and federal officials say they are fielding thousands of reports of scam artists, many operating from overseas, using the promise of money from the Obama administration's $787 billion economic recovery plan to entice people to hand over bank account numbers. The scams are so numerous, and the criminals hard to identify, that authorities say it's all but impossible to catch them.

It seems that stimulus money has gone everywhere except to helping create jobs for the 10.2 percent of Americans who are unemployed.

The stimulus hasnt created the jobs the President promised because it relies on big-government spending instead of helping small businesses, which create between 60-80 percent of jobs in our economy. House Republicans offered a plan to let small businesses and families keep more of what they earn, but Democrats ignored it, took a go-it-alone approach, and passed their trillion-dollar big government plan anyway. And yet after a trillion dollars of deficit financed spending, Democrats still cant answer the question: where are the jobs?

Boehner Introduces the House GOP Congressional Transparency Initiative

The American people have had it with business as usual in Congress. They are fed up with practices such as tucking special-interest provisions into bills behind closed doors, secretly changing bills without a vote, and passing bills no one has read. This has happened for far too long, but never before has the need for reform been more apparent than in the past year under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Democratic majority.

Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works. Recognizing this, I and other reform-minded congressional Republicans this week will put forth a new transparency initiative a series of common-sense congressional reforms aimed at bringing some much-needed openness and accountability to the House.

In just 10 months, with help from the Obama White House, Speaker Pelosis Congress has taken business-as-usual to a devastating new extreme. The American people have watched Congress rush through a massive stimulus spending bill no one read; a massive $410 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with thousands of un-scrutinized earmarks; and a new cap and trade national energy tax loaded with special-interest giveaways unveiled at 3:00 am on the morning before a vote.

Now the White House is pushing for a final year-end bill which will be written in secret by the majority behind closed doors to replace the current health care system with government-run care, and transform about one-sixth of our nations economy. The bill will be hammered out in a private, partisan House-Senate conference committee with no public access or scrutiny, in direct contradiction of President Obamas pledge that such talks would be televised on C-SPAN.

These are the actions of a Democratic majority that has forgotten its the American people who are really in charge. These are actions designed to shut the American people out while politicians go about the business of limiting their freedom. And in an era of 10.2 percent unemployment, mounting debt, seemingly endless bailouts, and rapidly expanding government, these abuses are the last straw for the American people, whove clearly had enough.

Republicans have had enough, too. The House GOP congressional transparency initiative includes common-sense changes such as read the bill reform that would require all bills to be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before they are brought to a vote. We also believe:
•Members committee votes should be posted online within 48 hours so the American people can see how their representatives voted.
•Committees should be required to post the text of adopted bills online within 24 hours of adoption to end the practice of phantom amendments being added to bills secretly after they pass at the committee level.
•Major negotiations on sweeping bills that would dramatically expand the reach of the federal government such as the current government takeover of health care should be open to the public and subject to a full and honest debate when bills reach the floor.
•Cameras should be allowed in the secretive House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which bills and amendments come to a vote.
Our transparency initiative calls for immediate implementation of all of these reforms. Were calling on Speaker Pelosi to bring all of them to an immediate vote. If she wont do it, a Republican majority will. You can read more about the House GOP congressional transparency initiative online, at http://gopleader.gov/readthebill.

Did Republicans miss an opportunity to enact common-sense changes like these when we were in the majority? Yes — and we wont make the mistake again. With this initiative, were taking some common-sense steps to renew the drive for an open and accountable Congress. We recognize restoring the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders starts with changing Congress itself. We hope Speaker Pelosi will join us, and allow these common-sense reforms to go forward.

ABC News Reports on More Stimulus Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Last night, ABC News World News TONIGHT with Charles Gibson reported on false claims of jobs saved or created by the stimulus in real congressional districts (as opposed to the phantom congressional districts that we found out about yesterday).

Attorney General Holder speaks to 9/11 Families

Following a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in which Attorney General Holder defended his decision to try 5 suspected 9/11 terrorists in federal court in New York, he spoke briefly with a family member of a victim who had attended the hearing.

Flip Flop Evan Bayh

Flip Flop Evan Bayh

President Obama's Trip to Asia Highlights

President Obama Speaks on the Future of U.S. Leadership in Asia Pacific Region

The President delivers speech on the United State's role in the Asia Pacific region from Tokyo, Japan on November 14, 2009.

President Obama Holds Town Hall with Chinese Youth 提供中文字幕

President Obama takes questions from Chinese youth in Shanghai, China on November 16, 2009.

Flip Flop Mark Pryor

Flip Flop Mark Pryor

Flip Flop Byron Dorgan

Flip Flop Byron Dorgan

First Lady on Health Insurance Reform and Older Women

First Lady Michelle Obama speaks about the difficulties senior women face in today's health insurance market and the importance of reform. November 13, 2009.

Weekly Address: Veterans Day and Fort Hood

The President looks back at a week where we honored those who serve on Veterans Day, and mourned those we lost at Fort Hood. He discusses the review he has ordered into the Fort Hood incident, and pledges to stand by our servicemen and women, as well as our veterans, as his most profound responsibility. November 14, 2009.

11/14/09 Weekly Republican Address: Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) delivers the Weekly Republican Address.

Flip Flop Mary Landrieu

Flip Flop Mary Landrieu

The Truth About the U.S. Economy

It is time for the truth to come out about the U.S. economy and Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner seemed to recognize that the economy is rebounding but job growth lags. In fact, Geithner acknowledges the federal budget deficit is too high, but that the priorities now are economic growth and job creation. Asked repeatedly on NBC's "Meet the Press" on November 1st whether this means taxes will rise, Geithner avoided giving specifics. He did say President Barack Obama is committed to dealing with deficit in a way that will not add to the tax burden of people making less than $250,000 a year.

The White House has not decided how to reduce the red ink, Geithner said in an interview broadcast Sunday. "Right now we're focused on getting growth back on track," he said. "And we're not at the point yet where we have to decide exactly what it's going to take." He acknowledged that the economic recovery, while showing positive movement, has been shaky and uneven. "A lot of damage was caused by this crisis. It's going to take some time for us to grow out of this. It could be a little choppy," he said. "It could be uneven. And it's going to take awhile."

A bright spot in the recovery identified by Geithner is the banking system, which he said is "dramatically more stable" because of the government bailout. Geithner said that just one year ago economic activity came to a standstill as major financial institutions shut down due to lack of liquidity. Even though 115 banks have failed so far this year, Geithner said there has been a "dramatic improvement in confidence," with private capital back in the system. He said large businesses are now able to borrow again. "The banking system is dramatically more stable than it was three months ago, six months ago, nine months ago, a year ago," he said.

But Geithner said more needs to be done to assist small businesses, adding that the administration is working to help open up credit to them. These businesses, he said, "face a really tough environment on the financing side." After financial institutions were widely blamed for assuming too much risk and bringing the economy to the brink of collapse, Geithner said a concern now is that they might end up being too timid. "The big risk we face now is that banks are going to overcorrect and not take enough risk," he said. "We need them to take a chance again on the American economy. That's going to be important to recovery."

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, citing the growing unemployment rate, said the president's economic stimulus program has done nothing but increase the size of government. He said businesses are "sitting on their hands" because of government spending and proposals for health care and other initiatives he contended would increase taxes. "Business people are afraid to invest in their business, afraid to grow their business, because they don't know what's going to happen next," Boehner said on CNN's "State of the Union" on November 1st.

Geithner acknowledged the economy remains tough for many workers who have lost jobs and it's going to be some time before the employment outlook starts to brighten for many of them. "Unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected. But growth is back a little more quickly, a little stronger than people thought," he said.

Unemployment hit a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September, and the October report due in the coming week could show it topping 10 percent. "It's likely still rising. And it's probably going to rise further before it starts to come down again." Geithner said it's too early to decide if a second government stimulus package should be offered, though he acknowledged unemployment probably will rise even more before it starts to turn around. Economists expect to see job growth after the first of the year, probably in the first quarter, he said. "You're not going to see real recovery until it's led by the private sector, by businesses," he said.

The treasury chief added that with about half of the stimulus money left, along with tax cuts and investments ahead, "there's a lot of force still moving its way through the system now" and that will keep providing economic support. "It's working. It's delivering what it should result." Plus two weeks ago, Christina Romer, who heads the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said the government's economic stimulus spending already had its biggest impact and probably wouldn't contribute to significant growth next year.

Geithner also said the administration supports steps being considered by Congress like extending unemployment insurance and the homebuyer tax credit. In addition, he complimented Obama's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, for his work in reining in pay for senior executives at the top seven recipients of government bailout money. Geithner played down concerns about government interference in executive compensation and the potential for the most talented and productive executives to leave their companies. "We were very concerned about that from the beginning. And he had to balance some very difficult kind of choices. I think he's found a very good balance among them," Geithner said.

Asked if he saw an exodus at those companies, he said he didn't, but added, "I worry about this a lot." Boehner disputed Vice President Joe Biden's recent assertion that the economic downturn has bottomed out. "I don't think anybody knows whether we've hit bottom," Boehner said.

However what is clear from Geithner’s interview on Meet the Press is that while Geithner recognized the national budget deficit is too high and it really is not his or the administration main priority right now is what one can take from Geithner’s statements. In fact Geithner said, “The federal budget deficit is too high, but that the priorities now are economic growth and job creation.” So one could interpret that Geithner was speaking for himself or for the administration and I for one think he is speaking for the administration because he didn’t say in his opinion.

Therefore the truth about the U.S. economy right now is while the Obama administration acknowledge the federal budget deficit being high and the national debt overall being enormous, their main priority right now is to deal with economic growth and job creation in hopes that those solutions will help decrease the federal budget deficit and stabilize the overall national debt to a degree. Still even when there is job creation and economic growth, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the federal budget deficit will decrease unless Congress and the White House really curve our nation’s spending habits in ways that fit into the mold that President Obama promised during the campaign and even earlier this year that he will only look to spend on programs and projects that work not those that don’t.

Still some people argue that many of the programs that have been spent on thus far this year by the Obama administration have done some good for the economy but not the way it should have. For example, the cash for clunkers program was suppose to help the American auto industry car sales as well the environment by customers turning in their gas guzzlers for fuel efficient vehicles. But early data of the program show that many customers bought trucks and SUVs instead of fuel efficient vehicles, thus the American people didn’t care to think about the economy. Also another problem from the early data shows that most customers bought non-American cars rather than American vehicles. So this is yet one of many examples of how government spending although it helped the economy to a degree but millions of U.S. dollars went to foreign companies rather than American companies.

Thus, right now the U.S. economy has some positive signs but just as many negative signs within it with the major concerns being job creation and pending inflation that this nation has never seen before. So finally here’s some truth to the U.S. economy that some economists don’t want to discuss but it is time that the truth comes out so we the American people can know what exactly is going on with government spending in regards to the federal budget deficit and the national deficit.

Michigan Auto Insurance Reform Is Delayed Another Year

It seems as if the Republican controlled Michigan Senate has killed insurance reform for another year in Michigan. You may have heard already that in a surprise vote, the Senate on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 defeated State Senator Martha G. Scott bill to ban territorial rate setting for auto and home insurance. The Republican defeat of Senator Scott’s bill to prohibit the use of territories when setting auto and homeowner insurance rates is a slap in the face to all the hard-working citizens of Michigan who pay unfair, exorbitant insurance rates.

For years now State Senator Scott and other Detroit lawmakers have been asking for action and hearings on Senator Scott’s bills to reform auto and homeowner insurance rates in Michigan. Two weeks ago the Senate Republicans decided to discharge State Senator Scott’s bill to ban rate setting by territories to the Senate floor only to then vote against this bill that would have made insurance rates fair for citizens across Michigan. This kind of game-playing has no place in the debate on this very important ‘pocketbook’ issue for Michigan citizens.

Senate Republicans discharged SB 166 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-SB-0166) after State Senator Scott rose to give her daily statement on insurance issues in which State Senator Scott referenced an October 14 Grand Rapids Press editorial (http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/10/editorial_the_right_factors_dr.html) that spoke out against the insurance industry’s use of credit scores to determine a person’s auto insurance rates. SB 166 would ban the practice of using where a person lives to determine how much their insurance would cost. Senate Republicans defeated an amendment that would have given everyone an immediate 20 percent cut in their rates, a provision that addressed Republican concerns that lower rates for citizens living in metro/urban areas would drive up rates for citizens living in other areas of the state.

State Senator Martha Scott wrote that, “If we are going to require that every driver carry auto insurance then we need to make sure that the rates they are charged are fair, and right now these rates are anything but fair. Insurance rates should be based on the car a person drives, that person’s driving record, and the distance that person regularly drives. If we adopted these common sense changes to our auto insurance laws then we would no longer pay the 12th highest rates in the country, and our citizens living in our metro/urban areas would no longer pay the highest rates in the country.”

The insurance industry argues that one reason for setting rates by territory is because of the high rate of accidents or auto thefts in some areas of the state. However, the Michigan Auto Theft Prevention Authority reported in February that auto thefts in Detroit fell 14.2 percent from 2006 to 2007. Statewide, vehicle thefts have plummeted 42 percent since 1986. Yet insurance rates have not gone down. Traffic accidents in Detroit have gone down nearly 40 percent since 1997, and this year Detroit was named the 10th safest city to drive in relating to traffic accidents.

Senate Republicans did a great injustice two weeks ago to all the hard-working Michigan families who are trying to survive in a very tough economy. State Senator Martha Scott’s bill deserved thoughtful consideration: a committee hearing so that people could come in and testify followed by debate on the Senate floor. Instead the Republicans voted State Senator Scott’s bill to the Senate floor so that they could defeat it and deny Michigan citizens fair and affordable auto insurance rates. State Senator Martha G. Scott’s bill may have gone down to defeat but State Senator Scott will continue calling for auto insurance reform and fair rates for everyone.

This is why in 2010, we as Michiganders need to vote for people who are willing to help all Michigan residents get equal and fair treatment. That is why the since Senate Republicans don’t want to help lower car and housing insurance rates in Michigan than we as voters need to vote out all those who don’t and need to elect members to the State Senate who are willing to see insurance rates for car and housing go down across the state of Governor Jennifer Granholm asked for in her State of the Union address earlier this year. This is why in 2010 we must stop the delay of Michigan Auto Insurance Reform once and for all so one of the first pieces of legislation the new Governor of Michigan signs in 2011 is a new Michigan Insurance Reform law that lowers auto and housing insurance rates.

Additional Information:
You can read the full debate on the bill online at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1mzviqrh3ujb5jz0hf0taf32))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/Senate/htm/2009-SJ-10-28-091.htm. You can also view video highlights of the debate at State Senator Martha G. Scott’s website, www.senate.michigan.gov/scott, under Media Room.