Tag: Stealing

Badly enough to risk Michigan manufacturing jobs as I have pointed out before:

"Its a sure bet Michigan jobs will go away in certain parts of the upper peninsula, and given the backhanded way in which the current white house occupiers pee where they eat, it is likely not an isolated concern.¹ A billion here, a billion there.  Hardly any pressure on the working stiffs when those costs are passed along.

Right?"

Congress had already done its snow job pre-2010 election however. And today, President Obama will unveil his plan to bypass Congress to force a radical climate change plan which will have devastating ramifications for Michiganders.

High-dollar political donors associated with Michigan's labor movement are encouraged and instructed on how to hide limitless, undisclosed campaign contributions in secret slush funds, according to a leaked letter and PowerPoint presentation being distributed by Andrew Nickelhoff, the union lawyer behind Proposal 2 and 4.

The leaked private letter and PowerPoint stands in stark contrast to hypocritical public statements from supporters of Proposal 2, Nickelhoff's employers, who have insincerely and hypocritically called other organizations "shadowy."

"The scheme by Proposal 2 and 4's attorney to solicit secret, undisclosed campaign contributions is another example of Prop 2 supporter's continuing pattern of deception and hypocisy," said Nick De Leeuw, Spokesman for Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution.  "Nickelhoff infamously told voters they'd simply have to "guess" what his deceptive ballot proposal would do; now he is caught instructing donors how to hide their contributions."

In a letter dated May 9 and distributed to potential donors, Nickelhoff solicited and outlined in detail how high-dollar donors could contribute potentially millions of dollars to a secret slush fund without ever disclosing their identity.

Using the "Keep home care safe" canard, these rotten thieves are literally asking for permission from Michigan voters to steal from those who can least afford it.  They are asking voters to endorse a harder life for the handicapped, the unfortunate, and looking to kick them when they are down. A yes vote would be akin to removing the wheels from a paraplegic's chair.

Under Jennifer Granholm, they (the unions and her administration) did it, and Snyder's failure to FIRE former head of community health Olga Dazzo right away gave these reprobates the courage to keep this farce alive through court action.  In the meantime families of those afflicted with debilitating conditions must suffer a little longer. The mass fraud her administration perpetrated, ought to have seen our former governor and her toadie lt. behind bars.

Its that bad.

Just imagine, life is clicking along fine, then something happens to a family member. Something that takes their ability to provide for themselves, or even perform the most rudimentary tasks.  A decision is made to either institutionalize them, (at great cost to the taxpayer typically) OR a career is suspended, and a job is given up by a family member to personally handle the situation.

We have made the decision as a state that we will provide that safety net, as it meets the definition of truly needy. IF we are going to provide assistance, that is an appropriate use. The better alternative for taxpayers is chosen.  Keeping folks in their homes is by far less expensive, and offers the afflicted a dignity seldom found in the institutional environment. As family members take on those responsibilities, it quite obviously comes at a cost.  A stipend is provided by the state to pay those family members for the loss of income they incur.

Then someone walks in the door and steals the silverware.

"Private individuals do not transform into government employees simply by participating in taxpayer-funded programs like Medicaid," said Schuette. "We will fight to defend state law prohibiting the withholding of public union dues from private citizens who provide home help to the disabled."

On May 29, 2012, SEIU Healthcare Michigan filed a lawsuit to challenge 2012 P.A. 76, legislation to amend the Public Employment Relations Act to reflect the original intention of the Legislature to exempt certain private individuals from being forced into public employee unions. And on June 20, 2012 U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds ruled in favor of SEIU Healthcare Michigan, ordering the State of Michigan to continue collection of union dues from payments processed for Medicaid home help providers under an agreement with the Michigan Quality Community Care Council, a creation of the Granholm administration and the SEIU to steal from the poor and fill union coffers.

This week Schuette filed a motion to request a stay of the Judge's order requiring continued collection of dues while the appeals process proceeds.  Schuette will file an appeal of the Edmunds' ruling granting the SEIU's motion preliminary injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later this month.

Illegal scheme continued despite law explicitly stating providers are not government employees

MIDLAND -- Michigan's 60,000 home health care aides should no longer have so-called union dues skimmed from their subsidy checks as a result of an informal but binding opinion letter issued today by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. The opinion was issued in response to a request by Rep. Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt, six weeks after Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation ending the stealth unionization. The Service Employees International Union has taken some $30 million from the state's most vulnerable residents over the last six years, including more than $680,000 since the scheme was outlawed.

"This episode demonstrates how government-sector unions often act in ways that benefit themselves at the cost of taxpayers and their shanghaied members," said Mackinac Center Legal Foundation Director Patrick J. Wright. "The independent contractors and family members who provide aid to the developmentally disabled were never government employees and should not have been paying dues in the first place."

Now don't get me wrong.  I am a firm believer in contracts. I ARE A RULE OF LAW GUY.

If a contract is created between parties, those parties ought to be bound to the terms of the contract.

Makes sense right?  As an example, if I voluntarily agree to terms that bind me to a particular end (like paying on a phone contract),  in exchange for something else (the use of the phone service at a particular rate), then I should be held to account for the terms of the contract agreed upon.  If a termination of the contract results in one of the parties violating their obligation, then they should be held to the punitive measures agreed upon when entering the contract.

Yes, I believe in contract.  Morality is best served through the honoring of established agreements.