But I have to ask... why on earth would a small business need a loan?  Didn't we just pass a massive Democrat tax hike that took $2.3 BILLION out of the local economy and away from small businesses?  Wouldn't it stand to reason that they are rolling in the cash?  I mean, the Governor and Andy Dillon and their cronies in the Democrat caucus all claim that they care about the State's economy, right?  And that that's their number one priority.  And if that's true then that record-setting tax hike must be good for the economy.  Right?

Yeah.  Wrong.  Now read this excerpt from the News and every time you see the word loan imagine it says "tax break."  

To date, $500,000 has been distributed in 18 loans of from $5,000 to $35,000. The money can be used for equipment, inventory, supplies and working capital. To make sure the loans go to people who faced challenges in getting their businesses funded, the city requires owners to prove that they have been denied loans at least twice from traditional lenders.

"It's extremely important for us to support the local entrepreneur who believes in Detroit and has already made the commitment to be here," Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said in a written statement. "These loans are designed to aid small businesses, especially startups, who often have difficulty accessing the capital and credit necessary to survive the first few years in business."

Alright, now go back and re-read it and insert "tax hike" for loan.  Doesn't work the same way, does it.  Could that be because tax hike's don't aid small businesses?  And that if you want a company to grow and create jobs you need to let them have access to more capital, not less?

I know... absurd.

But nothing compared to the happenings last week in the Democrats' ongoing efforts to repeal Michigan's FDA defense law in favor of ambulance chasers and personal injury lawyers statewide.  The Trial Lawyer Enhancement Act moved through the House months ago but the Senate continues to stop them from killing tens of thousands of life science jobs.  But that hasn't stopped the Democrats from attempting to demagogue the issue.  (I'd say "demagogue it to death" but some might say that's cruel and heartless.)

They claim that the repeal is necessary so that patients who've been on the wrong side of an FDA approved drug will have the right to sue.  In other words, they claim that they don't already have that right today.  And they've got a teary-eyed housewife who lost her husband some years ago running around the State telling folks that she's not allowed to sue.  Except... turns out she wasn't being entirely honest with us.  She HAS sued and she's in line to recover damages!

According to the Associated Press:

"Under the agreement, Michigan consumers have the same rights as those who live in other states," said Merck legal spokesman Ted Mayer. "There is nothing in the Michigan statute that prevents them from participating in the settlement agreed to several weeks ago."

Leslie Richter, a leading activist who has sought to reverse the state law, is on a list of state plaintiffs who could receive money. The 64-year-old Lansing woman says her husband, Richard, died in 2003 after using Vioxx, which was pulled from the shelves by Merck after studies showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In 2006, Richter talked about her husband's death in TV ads that helped defeat a Jackson-area state representative.

"I know Merck lied and my husband died," Richter said during a news conference held last week by the group Drug Industry Immunity Must End - also known as D.I.I.M.E. She helped unveil YouTube testimonials urging the Senate to repeal the law.

But John Truscott, a consultant for the pharmaceutical industry, pounced on the news that Richter and other Michigan residents had sued Merck in New Jersey and stood to benefit from the settlement.

"The fact they were telling the Legislature and public for a couple years now they could not sue, yet the main spokesperson filed a case in New Jersey, completely shreds their credibility on this and completely takes away their argument," Truscott said.

I'm not sure what's more absurd about this story... that this poor woman, who unquestionably suffered a terrible, life shattering, heart breaking loss, was willing to go on TV and lie or the fact that the Michigan Democrats so eagerly took advantage of her grief and turned her into their own little made-for-tv puppet.  

I can understand the impulse to lash out in grief.  That's natural.  And it can impair judgment.  But the Dems have no such excuse.  They were aware of the fact that the woman had in fact sued the company when she claimed she couldn't under Michigan law.  They were aware of the fact that she stood to recover damages.  They used her, a grieving widow.  And they continue to use her.  That's not just absurd, it's heartless.