As if it wasn’t just a few days ago we here at RightMi.com learned of Sen. Rick Jones creating carve-outs for his fellow retired LEO brethren. Today, we learn that Sen. Jones has taken it upon himself to gift a little extra in the till to those beloved public sector retirees in Schuette’s Office.
Yes, unanimous vote so, it must meet Lansing’s bifarceisan two-party standard. Still have doubts about the legalese jihadi cabal ruling supreme? Just look no further than their former revenue recruiting LEO who champions a wallet lining statute.
Makes one wonder if it’s an old prosecutor’s office bootlicking reflex or, just riding out of office in a payola bang?
“Our review … identified 48 of 92 [52%] expired warranty projects that needed corrective action,” the report said. “As of June 30, 2014, 24 of the warranties had been expired for over one year without MDOT having addressed the corrective action.”
MDOT said it agrees with all six recommendations made by the auditor general and is taking action to improve its system of monitoring and enforcing warranties.
“By October 2015, MDOT, in working with the Department of Attorney General, will develop a procedure for non-responsive contractors that have been notified to perform warranty work,” the department said in part of its response to the audit.
But the auditor noted that similar issues were raised in an earlier audit, released in 2010, and at that time the department said it would “strengthen its procedures to assure the completion of inspections.”
The other is if it’s one who is in the big spending Democratic Party calling for tax hikes and bogus *transportation* funding, AG Schuette will fake having a pair in the name of rah-rah go Team R nonsense. However, if it’s AG Schuette’s teammates who call for a $2,000,000,000 constitutional amendment tax hike and bogus *transportation* funding? Nope. Not so much as a peep. I know, old story. Constitution schmonstitution. It’s all just doubleplusgood speak.
“I will not tolerate companies that seek to take advantage of Michigan citizens and get rich on the backs of hard-working entrepreneurs through trickery and deception,” Schuette said in a statement.
No level of protection for the taxpayer is left, as any defining lines to cross are swept away like sand.
That’s right, ‘the king’ dictates a yes vote.
Enjoy the commercial Rick Snyder has made with taxpayer dollars. All we did was add the funk for all the junk in Lansing’s trunk.
When the bureaucracy cannot (or WILL NOT) tell the difference between an opinion and a directive (express advocacy), no citizen protections are left in play. The Bureau of Elections had already tipped its hand that a denial of my complaint was coming prior to receiving it. The spokesguy Fred Woodhams made that announcement even admitting they had not yet seen it.
How could it possibly be doing its job if it had already made the decision without review of the facts? How could the process be properly run, if the denial of the complaint had to be crafted and spun to fit a predetermined outcome? Strangely enough, Woodhams himself has previously said that no statements about such things should happen prior to review. In 2012:
“Secretary of State Spokesman Fred Woodhams said that the office had received the complaint as of Friday. Woodhams said the Secretary of State’s office does not comment on allegations until they have an opportunity to review it.”
Pretty FUNKY, yes?
Indeed. Something stinks in Lansing, and it ain’t the Red Cedar Drain.
Why would our public servants feel compelled to offer opinion on a matter that is not yet before them?
There are 9.9 million people living in Michigan.
Of that number 77% are of voting age, and most are legally able to cast a ballot. And of those who can and do cast their preferences, most have no clue of their responsibilities beyond placing their mark, and walking out from the curtain a couple of days a year.
Indeed, the roughly 7 million registered voters of Michigan will in their lifetime: Miss votes, Make uninformed Votes, Will unknowingly vote in opposition to their interest, and never truly hold their elected officials accountable to promises and integrity of office. They will not complain when lied to, or even call out their own party’s elected when the situation demands it.
But this one will.
Why on earth would we have platforms, rules, and constantly repeated promises of action when at most we might get lip service and disappointment? Why would we have laws to protect the public from abuses of government, when the slight of legalese is used to exempt the perpetrators from culpability?
And why will so few actually speak up against it? Perhaps it should come as no surprise that those few might not want to be told they are wrong, and won’t try in the first place.
Having no one to tell them "NO" previously, our leadership brazenly assumes immunity from the law.
Watching Obama the other night was something many of my friends could not do.
As he quite literally leaned on the podium and gave an in-your-face ‘I don’t give a damn about your efforts’ speech to the congress, he further provoked with the threat of veto for anything that did not meet his agenda. The soft sneer of disrespect to the people’s house and its ‘opposition’ inhabitants was palpable. But it was not unexpected.
How else might a top executive act when he is given every thing that he wants? In what other way would he comport himself when weak threats are buttressed by inaction and outright political cowardice? The Republican controlled House of Representatives has hardly put its foot down each time the president has acted in an unconstitutional manner, and there is little indication it might in the future.
So the law does not matter to this president, and for many of the same reasons, it does not matter to Michigan’s governor. When people seek power, they are sometimes willing to overlook the blatant disregard for checks and balances, and pretend the emperor is indeed fully clothed.
“.. if the Secretary of State stays true to its history of enforcement, it’s likely the district will receive a slap on the wrist.”
In 2011, Michigan Capitol Confidential looked at the Secretary of State’s enforcement of school districts it found to have violated the campaign finance law from 2006 to 2010. The state fined two districts that broke the law $100 each. In the case of TCAPS for their part 57 violation, it appears there is a new sheriff in town.
TCAPS was assessed a $26,656 fine to be paid back to the district.
TCAPS officials must decide by May 30 whether to accept the ruling and prove reimbursement, which cannot come from TCAPS general fund or other taxpayer-supported funds. If TCAPS officials refuse to pay, the case could be referred to the state attorney general’s office for criminal prosecution.
The state did not specifically state who is responsible for repaying the $25,656.