LANSING– Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette issued this statement following the State of the Union address by President Obama:
“The last thing America needs is a tax increase. What hard working American families and job providers deserve is comprehensive tax reform that cuts taxes and provides the incentive for growth that will create jobs and keep the United States as the economic leader worldwide.”
We applaud our Attorney General for opposing Obama's illegal acts.
Michigan is a border state.
We have also been blessed with planned migration of illegal children, and causing what I believe to be an outbreak of disease we have not seen in decades. Then taking the immigration action the fraud-in-chief has perpetrated into account, its about damned time we do something as a state to fight back. Its not like we haven’t been encouraging it, right?
Yup, Its bad enough our congressional delegation hasn’t done JACK. But I guess a limit was finally reached in Lansing. From an Attorney General’s Office release:
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today joined a lawsuit brought by attorneys general and governors from 20 other states to challenge the President’s recent unilateral executive order on immigration.
“America deserves a hopeful immigration policy. Throughout our history, America has provided a beacon of hope across the world. But the President’s unilateral executive order on immigration, bypassing Congress, is constitutionally flawed,” said Schuette.
The States’ complaint was filed by Texas in Federal District Court and was immediately followed by a request for a preliminary injunction. The multistate coalition includes Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Read the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction filed on December 04, 2014, HERE.
How should the press release by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette be taken?
One would think that a member of the party supporting ‘free and open markets’ would be inclined to liberate those same markets.
Yet recently and not for the first time, the Michigan Attorney General’s office has investigated, and prosecuted privately-held businesses for responding to demand and availability in ways they felt were necessary. Using taxpayer dollars, the AG’s office obtained a $500,000 settlement from a provider of propane, because that business raised its prices.
Though some of the investigation had legitimate reason to happen (established deals were not being honored), the underlying premise that the AG’s office presents is one that seemingly panders to the “its just not fair” crowd. When Schuette says :
“I’m happy we can put money back into the wallets of hard-working families who paid steep prices to heat their homes last winter while already trying to make ends meet.”
He is not saying he is “happy to provide enforcement of contract”
THAT is a problem. Its not the job of the Michigan Attorney General to make sure pricing is fair. Its not the Job of the Office of the Attorney General to ensure people can afford their utilities or everyday needs. Its definitely not Bill Schuette’s job to “put money back into the wallets” of those he deems to have been victimized by a brutally cold winter, or those who must provide the resources to deal with it.
Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced his Corporate Oversight Division has secured more than $500,000 for approximately 5,600 Michigan propane consumers to resolve customer complaints against AmeriGas concerning propane-pricing issues during last winter’s heating season. This settlement marks a key development in his ongoing investigation into hundreds of consumer complaints related to propane pricing and delivery during the 2013-2014 winter season.
“Cooler autumn weather means many Michigan families are already anxious about upcoming heating bills,” Schuette observed. “I’m happy we can put money back into the wallets of hard-working families who paid steep prices to heat their homes last winter while already trying to make ends meet.”
The overturning of the Sixth Circuit Court may have positive impact on other Michigan imperatives.
The US Supreme Court decision today was probably an easy one.
In a 6-2 ruling. (see KG’s article for a link) the court upheld the ban enacted by Michigan voters in 2006; Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Race shall NOT be used in admission policies in our colleges and public institutions, or for purposes of employment or contracting through government. From the Detroit News
The ruling championed the right of the voters to set policy in writing their own state constitutions.
“Perhaps, when enacting policies as an exercise of democratic self-government, voters will determine that race-based preferences should be adopted. The constitutional validity of some of those choices regarding racial preferences is not at issue here,” Kennedy wrote. The decision here “is simply that the courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who appealed the appeals court ruling, hailed the justices decision.
That was a free promo, Bill. Lets start working on the next battle shall we? – JG
There is no doubt Michigan’s Attorney General carried this one across the finish line, but the argument was simple on a number of levels.
Fact is, there is no inequality to start with. Consider that simply because marriage is between one man and one woman, it does not exclude those who are of a different sexual orientation from enjoying that same privilege, or right. They can still do so within the definition established by we the people of the state of Michigan!
It was his courage to stand up against the formerly unimaginable wanton persecution by state agencies like the (feral) DNR and the AG’s office. IT was the support of people who were aware of what was going on that allowed him to survive, and cause the Attorney General’s office to fold under the weight of a huge, easily recognizable, mistake. It was his willingness to suffer the loss of business as the state threatened his customers, and cut off his sole income.
And all throughout this process other farms were shut down and forced to slaughter their livelihoods because they had no means to fight ‘city hall.’
At least I do. He knows it, and there are a lot of good reasons why. Of course we have disagreements on a couple of issues, and will call them out as we see them, but he has done a reasonable job of representing the state and its constitution (reasonable – not great) during his term.
But he needs to get out front on this thing.
In fact he could have done so a while back. The feral DNR issue has been a debacle from the get go, and THEN AG Schuette’s office sends out the guy in the video below. He first verbally challenges the Mark Baker directly (bypassing the attorney) in way that certainly appears threatening, pulls the I don’t really give a $Hi# attitude with the rest of the crowd, and then decides the pledge of allegiance is not for him.
Clearly, we dodged a bullet by not establishing a state run exchange. The AG appears to be watching for 'ricochets.'
For anyone who wondered WHY we did not establish a state run exchange, the answer is clearly about surrendering authority.
Not unlike the camel’s nose, the exchange was a buy-in to undermine state sovereignty. Fortunately, Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette appears to be trying to make sure the mandate does NOT apply to Michigan residents. From MLive:
Attorney General Bill Schuette is arguing an IRS rule offering tax credits to individuals buying health insurance on the federal exchange from states without their own exchanges violates the U.S. Constitution.
The argument was made in a “friend of the court” brief filed in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where individuals and businesses from states without insurance exchanges are challenging the ability of the IRS to offer tax credits for buying insurance through the federally established exchange.
Schuette and the attorneys general for Kansas and Nebraska argue that allowing the IRS to offer the credits overrules the decisions not to set up exchanges under the Affordable Care Act that 34 states made and is invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
Schuette’s on the right track.
Additionally, it should be noted that this might not be the most popular move, and could be painful to his campaign in the general. As many Michiganians are expecting a federal subsidy, it may not happen or they may lose that subsidy if this action is successful.