So why not mention that the new tax is now applied over a much wider area and that more people now have to pay?

Remember the overall idea was to bring in more state matching funds to get more federal largess (from a government that is in debt over its eyeballs, no less).

I'm a little disappointed that you also still haven't mentioned that state revenue estimates did come in higher than expected (a lot more). The word on the street is that legislators WERE aware of this fact even before it was officially released...at least a month in advance.

There's a motto in this corner of Michigan, perhaps you've heard of it. It goes something like this:

"Because every dollar the government takes, that it doesn't absolutely need, is theft."

'Nuff said.

Getting to my third point, much like Lansing DOESN'T need my BMI, blood pressure, weight, cholesterol or any other medical information, it has no pressing need for who my auto insurance is with. Fourth Amendment, anyone?

If you want to fix that problem, I suggest going about abolishing EMTALA.

The fourth point, yes I saw how you, Franz and Opsommer voted on that one. This is what doesn't make any sense.

Why is it only okay to oppose requiring the collection of personal information into a federal database when I'm buying Claratin-D at the corner CVS store, but it's perfectly acceptable to requiring the collect of personal information on other items?

Finally, why is it automatically assumed that just because someone opposes an individual who doesn't even stand for the principles of his own party that he purportedly believes in, that is supporting the MEA?

The MEA can keep thinking happy, happy thought until they go the way of Pullman.