Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category
Local Housing Market Still in the Tank
I found an interesting chart, courtesy of city-data.com, showing the median home price in Grand Rapids, as well as the number of homes sold on a quarterly basis. Clearly things are bad and getting worse. Median home prices have dropped almost in half since 2004. Incredible!
Oh, and remember our post about how the stimulus won’t do a damn thing? Below is the Federal Government’s chart, formulated back in January, which attempted to scare people into passing the gigantic wasteful bloated stimulus plan. They wanted to show how bad things would get without the stimulus and how much better things would be if the stimulus did pass. Guess what. Things are much worse than either prediction. The red dots are actual unemployment since January. Just another reason not to believe any of the bilge coming out of Washington when it comes to economics.
Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 10th Jun, 2009
Socialism in America
Pelosi blubbers with glee over the bailout bill
Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.
-Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
If ye love wealth better than liberty and the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, then crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly on you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen…go from us in peace, we ask not your counsel or your arms.
- Samuel Adams
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
-Frederic Bastiat
Posted by: GRPundit on Friday, 3rd Oct, 2008
Michigan Economy Update
The latest House Fiscal Agency revenue consensus report paints a grim picture for Michigan. Here are a few important bits of information:
Although the US has gained more than 480,000 jobs over [the last year], employment in Michigan fell by more than 78,000 jobs.
That’s right – Michigan has had a net loss of over 78,000 jobs in the last year alone. What’s the total damage? According to page 6, Michigan has lost a total of 474,000 jobs since 2001.
It’s time to get serious about fixing our state. Taxes need to be cut dramatically. Right to work legislation must be passed to attract new employers. The nickle and dime “job creation” that the Michigan Economic Development Corporation claims is a corporate welfare joke. The only way to turn this state around is to make it attractive to employers. With the choking union-dominated atmosphere and choking tax rates, Michigan will continue to bleed jobs.
Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 1st Jul, 2008
Attracting People Downtown
Mi Biz has an interesting article on the development of Grand Rapids’ downtown and what needs to be done to attract more people.
A study was paid for by the state and the GR Downtown Development Authority to figure out how to get more people to come downtown. I believe it cost over $100k to hire a consultant to issue the report.
The conclusions are a little disappointing. It says, “Grand Rapids must continue investment in public infrastructure but move to the next phase. Invest in marketing, promotions, recruiting, and organizational staffing to accomplish the goals.”
For sure, investing in public sector buildings in the immediate downtown area needs to stop. What do you see when you walk out of the new convention center? The city/county buildings, the post office, an empty old age home, and that’s about it. The area simply isn’t conducive to pedestrian traffic. The real entertainment district is several blocks down, from the BOB, south.
But the conclusion of the report is that the city simply needs to spend more money on marketing. Marketing what? There really isn’t much to do downtown. Sure, there are museums, the arena, and a lot of restaurants and bars. But that really is it.
What are we saying? It will take more people living downtown in order for more shopping venues to be viable. But the study recommends one more layer of bureaucracy – a new Downtown Partnership – to spend even more on marketing and such.
Downtown will start doing well and it doesn’t need more government – it needs less. Government can foster growth of housing by making it easier to do business in Grand Rapids. Lower taxes would help too. Housing growth downtown continues. It will eventually reach a critical mass, and that’s when shopping will take hold. Until then, we don’t need more government and bureaucrats, we need less.
Posted by: GRPundit on Thursday, 16th Dec, 2004
Michigan Budget Woes
A new report released by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that Michigan is one of only three states where government revenues are still below those projected. The other two states and New Jersey and Tennessee.
Interestingly, some states are showing an astonishing level of income tax revenue growth over projection. Examples are Arizona (46%), Georgia (97.4%), Kansas (58%), and Hawaii (106%).
However, Michigan’s revenue gap (the gap between projections and actual revenues) stands at $465 million for Fiscal year 2005, which started on October 1st of this year.
This means a couple of things in terms of tax and spending policy. First, we’ll see whether the legislature has the guts to do some more cutting, or if they’ll try more accounting tricks, such as the property tax shift, to raise more revenue.
Second, the underlying problem of a lack of economic growth in Michigan needs to be addressed. Heavy reliance on manufacturing, high taxes, and heavy unionization make Michigan an unattractive place for business to move. We’ve seen businesses flee the state in the last several year for other states and other countries. Unless Michigan is made competitive again, the state’s economy will continue to groan under the weight of government.
It’s an unfortunate reality, but manufacturing isn’t the backbone of America any more. It’s time to recognize that manufacturing, although still an important part of the economy, is going the way of farming. It simply takes far fewer people to manufacture the same number of items.
We are a service economy now – let’s face it and deal with it.
Posted by: GRPundit on Monday, 13th Dec, 2004
Twisted Casino Logic
Yesterday the state Senate revoked its approval of a compact with the Gun Lake tribe, effectively ending any chance that an Indian casino will be build (with the state’s consent), in the Dorr area.
Senate Majority leader Ken Sikkema was interviewed on WOOD radio this morning and he explained that he voted to rescind the compact because a study showed that 3,000 jobs would be lost in other entertainment industries due to the opening of a casino.
In addition, he mentioned that there are 20 casinos in Michigan and “that is enough.”
There are two points here that need to be countered. First, the idea that a new business will destroy 3,000 jobs is a fact of life. While we question that number (the study was commissioned by the Grand Rapids business community, which wants to stop the casino), it is a fact of life that new businesses create (and destroy) jobs continually. The senator’s argument only looks at half the equation.
http://www.fxstreet.com/nou/noticies/afx/noticia.asp?pv_noticia=1100017066-9e32d306-38844
Posted by: GRPundit on Thursday, 9th Dec, 2004
City Budget Gnashing
As our readers will know, we’ve pointed out some pretty ridiculous ways that the city of Grand Rapids spends its money. Now, last week the city manager, Kurt Kimball, went to the City Commission to say that the city needs to restructure the way it spends money.
He says that by 2010 the city will be in a $80 million hole. In addition, if the state reduces its revenue sharing, the hole will be $130 million.
Surprisingly, the focus is on cutting spending, not raising taxes (so far). Kimball’s quote in the Grand Rapids Press is: “The question is when, not if, service levels will need to be reduced.”
Perhaps there’s some light at the end of the tunnel?
As we’ve pointed out in the past, residents of Grand Rapids already pay the second highest taxes in Kent county. And what do we get for it?
Maybe the city fathers will finally get the drift and look at the spending side of the income statement instead of the revenue side. Higher taxes only continue to push residents and business out of Grand Rapids.
Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 7th Dec, 2004
City Budget Wackos
Last week the Grand Rapids City Commission rejected a request by the city staff to send $15,252 to a Colorado Energy firm to buy nothing.
City staff wanted to the City Commission to spend our money to buy what are called Renewable Energy Certificates. These certificates do not buy you anything. The certificates represent the extra cost of producing electricity by using windmills – basically what an energy company loses by producing electricity that costs more than they can sell it for.
That energy company, called Renewable Choice Energy, is a favorite of environmentalists who want to feel better about using electricity. The city wanted us to pay for “our share” of electricity produced by these wind farms, which is just added to the power grid and may or may not have ever been used here in Grand Rapids (most likely not).
This is a purely ideological spend of money that would not benefit the city of Grand Rapids, its citizens, or anyone who pays for city government.
The amazing thing, however, is that it failed on a four to three vote! Unfortunately, the minutes of the meeting do not record the vote, so we aren’t exactly sure who voted in favor of this one, but Commissioner Jendrasiak called it “nuts,” so we can assume he voted against it.
Not only is it nuts, it’s a waste of money. Yet they continue to complain about budget problems.
Posted by: GRPundit on Monday, 15th Nov, 2004
Election Wrap Up
Presidential Election
Well, no surprises here in Michigan. Kerry won the state, garnering 51% of the vote to Bush’s 48%. In 2000, Gore got 51% of Michigan to Bush’s 46%. Nader got 2% that year, which interestingly points to the idea that Nader voters don’t necessarily take votes away from the Democrat.
In Kent county, things were quite different. The vote was strongly in favor of Bush, 58% to 40%. The City of Grand Rapids went a different way, however, and voted 55% Kerry and 43% Bush. In fact, in our analysis, Kerry won all three wards of the city.
Ballot Proposals
The two ballot proposals passed handily. Statewide, Proposal 1 (gambling-related), passed 58% to 42%. Proposal 2 (defining marriage) passed 59% to 41%. We here at GR Pundit were disappointed that both passed. Both were bad legislation, in our opinion.
Look out for higher property taxes now that less lottery money will likely be raised, which transfers to the school aid fund.
Those were the main issues at hand in Michigan and locally. There wasn’t much else of interest in local races. We don’t think there were any heated competitions or seats seriously up for grabs.
Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 10th Nov, 2004
Michigan’s Proposal 2 – NO
Ballot proposal number two, which will appear on the Michigan ballot on November 2nd, amends the state constitution to insert a firm definition of what will be legally allowed to be recognized as a marriage. The proposed amendment reads as follows:
Article 1, Section 25: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
As contentious as this issue is, we at GR Pundit didn’t have a hard time deciding on this one. There are two issues at stake here. First, what is the role of government in marriage and why? Second, what affect would this have on domestic partners (of the opposite sex) who receive employment benefits?
First, what role should the government play in marriage. Marriage is essentially a religious ceremony which then receives recognition from the state. Therefore, there are two components to marriage. First, the religious aspect. Second, the legal recognition of that marriage to confer certain rights on the married couple; namely, the right to child custody, legal co-ownership, and inheritance. However, as the law stands, one must get a license to get married, which essentially licenses a religious ceremony.
How many religious ceremonies are licensed by the state? We can only think of one – marriage. Should baptism be licensed? How about communion?
So we come to the conclusion that the government is in the business of deciding which religious practice of marriage is acceptable. Marriage between one man and one woman is ok, but between two men or two women is not. Following that line of logic, the state should then be able to determine who is eligible for baptism and who is not.
We understand that this issue brings up strong feelings but we implore our readers to apply reason and logic to the issue before making a decision.
We have a hard time finding a logical argument against gay marriage. The most-often used argument is that marriage is part of the fabric of society and that if marriage is “ruined” to allow gays to marry, society will somehow collapse. In fact, the proposed amendment’s own wording says that the intention is to preserve the benefits of marriage “for the children.” But, exactly how would gay marriage harm children or be any different than today’s world of straight-only marriage?
Around 50% of marriages currently end in divorce. How, exactly, is that a benefit to society? The tremendous rate of failure of traditional marriage, many involving children, seems to be more of a threat to society than a very small minority who simply want to have the same rights as everyone else.
If two people, who love each other, repugnant as the behavior may be for some, want to dedicate their lives to each other, why not allow that?
What gay marriage proponents often try to use as another option is the concept of a civil union. A civil union essentially confers the legal rights of a marriage on a couple without calling it a marriage. This amendment would outlaw any such civil union legislation in Michigan.
Opponents of this proposed amendment say that it will outlaw domestic partner benefits for those who work for companies that offer such benefits. If a man and woman live together and have a child, but are not married, many companies will offer benefits to the whole family. This amendment appears to outlaw such benefits.
But an even more fundamental question comes to mind. Why should we mess with our constitution on an issue that has purely emotional effects? We can’t determine one real, tangible, societal effect gay marriage would have. Who would be harmed by gay marriage?
Our constitution is designed to do two things – define the rights of citizens that government cannot infringe upon and define how government operates. It does not define social issues that should be handled solely by the legislature, nor should it.
For these reasons, we will be voting NO on Michigan’s Proposal 2.
Posted by: GRPundit on Monday, 25th Oct, 2004
