car7858's Blog

Monday, December 1, 2008

A Lake City man with a dozen drunk-driving convictions was charged with drunken driving today in Cadillac after leading police on a short chase and crashing into a police car.

David Scott Storey, 42, who wasn't employed, also was charged with driving without a license, the eighth time he has been charged with such an offense.

He has been in and out of prison four times since 1995 on drunken driving convictions, according to state records.

A gas station clerk had called 911 at 1:20 a.m. to report that an intoxicated person had stopped into the station and was driving his Dodge pickup without the lights on.

A state trooper tried to pull Storey over by activating his lights and siren but he wouldn't stop. He then pulled into a parking lot, striking the police car.

Storey refused to take a Breathalyzer test, state police said.

Car7858's Take: #1: How are idiots like this allowed on our roads even after the first DUI offense??? Our laws need to be restructured to send a very stern message to those that choose to drink & drive. Tether them to their homes, except for work hours, lock down their vehicles and even seize them for public auction, and stiffer sentences for repeat offenders. For those that has sense this holiday season, get a designated driver, take a cab, call a friend or even a person in the bar/party to take you home-Our family/friends' lives may depend on good judgement!

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

DETROIT -- Even at 17, it wasn't too late for Ki'Esha Moncrief to find her "forever" home.

The pretty, soft-spoken teen and her five siblings were among 225 Michigan children adopted Tuesday in recognition of Michigan Adoption Day -- a day meant to encourage adoption by showcasing families that welcome foster children into their families.

In Wayne County Circuit Judge Mary Beth Kelly's courtroom, 23 children -- all dressed in their Sunday best -- were adopted by seven families in a festive event that included teddy bears for the kids and roses for their parents. The youngest, 6-month-old Frank King, cooed happily in a blue terrycloth sleeper.

Similar celebrations took place across 30 Michigan counties including Oakland, where 24 children were adopted by 22 families; and Macomb, where eight became part of six adoptive homes.

"I know who my parent is now," said Ki'Esha, who was adopted by her grandmother, Sheila Rogers Starghill, 61, who also adopted siblings Michelle Moncrief, 15, Markus Rogers, 14, Christine Rogers, 12, and 10-year-old twins Carmen Rogers and Shawn Rogers.

"She is mom and dad and grandma," Ki'Esha said. "I'm happy."

Starghill, of Detroit, said the occasion was joyous but tinged with sadness knowing her grown son was not able to care for his children. The grandmother has cared for the kids since child protection workers removed them from their home four years ago.

"It's a happy-sad day," Starghill said. "Obviously you want your kids to be with their own parents."

Kelly praised Starghill and other relatives who have worked hard to keep families of grandchildren or nieces and nephews together.

Children over 14 must give their permission to be adopted. When Kelly asked Ki'Esha, her sister Michelle, and brother Markus for their consent, they said yes, and tears rolled down the girls' cheeks.

"I can tell you teenagers need a permanent home too," Kelly said. "It's hard for 16- and 17-year-olds not to be adopted."

The Michigan Adoption Day events were co-sponsored by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Department of Human Services, the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange and the Family Services division of the State Court Administrative Office.

Michigan has 4,125 foster children waiting for adoptive homes, said Ismael Ahmed, director of the state Department of Human Services, who witnessed the adoptions in Kelly's courtroom.

Ahmed said he was there to encourage more families to adopt children lingering in foster care, many of whom will age out of the system never having found a family to adopt them.

"I'd like to come here a year from now and have this proceeding be for 4,125 children," Ahmed said.

Christopher and Tanya Fowler of Livonia said their lives have been filled with love since they took in 6-year-old Kyler Beatty as a foster child about six months ago. They'd been married 10 years but had no children. Now they're Kyler's adoptive parents.

"Everybody focuses on what a blessing it is for the kids," Tanya Fowler said. "But it's been a huge blessing for us.

"I love being a mom, and it's added a whole new dimension to our lives."

You can reach Karen Bouffard at (734) 462-2206 or kbouffard@detnews.com.

Carmen Rogers, 10, center, was adopted Tuesday along with her siblings by her grandmother, Sheila Rogers Starghill of Detroit. (John T. Greilick / The Detroit News)

• Photos: National Adoption Day in Detroit

Michigan adoptions

 

• The state had 2,700 children adopted through foster care or private agencies in 2008
  
• of those, 49 percent were adopted by foster parents
  
• There are 6,100 children in the foster care system whose parents' rights were terminated
  
• About 4,125 of those children have the goal of adoption
  
• For adoption information, contact: the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange at (800)
  589-6273 or visit www.mare.org
  Source: Department of Human Services.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Philosophically, I don't like bailouts. But the likelihood of one or two of the Detroit Three automakers ending operations is very real. When you look at the scope of the domestic auto industry problems and the complicity of the federal government's role in them, Washington needs to do something to help the Detroit Three.

To permit any of the domestic automakers -- Chrysler, Ford Motor Co. or General Motors Corp. -- to collapse would scar the U.S. economy further when it can ill afford another blow. At stake are millions of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in lost tax revenues. Federal officials must decide: Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

The popular complaint is that the domestic auto industry got itself into this mess, and it should suffer the consequences. But the reality is the Detroit Three wouldn't have cash flow problems if the federal government hadn't caused the financial crisis, in part, by ensuring that Americans who couldn't afford a home suddenly could buy one. The resulting subprime mortgage crisis helped lead to the credit crunch, which has caused a dramatic decline in auto sales.

The federal government also contributed to the auto industry's problems with its lack of a realistic energy policy. The price of this hit home this summer, when the price of gasoline spiked to $4 a gallon and caused a massive shift in the types of vehicles consumers would buy. Now that the price of gas is below $2 in some areas of the country, there will be far less demand in the short run for the fuel-efficient vehicles that the government wants the automakers to sell in greater quantities.

So the government's complicity in the subprime mortgage mess and energy policy have brought the industry to the edge of the cliff. The cost of keeping the Detroit Three automakers in the automotive game will be dramatically lower than the cost of letting the industry go down.

If GM, Ford and Chrysler had to shut their doors, according to our center's calculations, the economy would lose nearly 3 million jobs in the first year. That is because the auto industry has the highest jobs spinoff of any manufacturing enterprise. For example, for every auto assembly factory job, there are another eight to 10 jobs outside of the plant.

Those job losses would translate into a first-year loss of more than $150 billion in personal income, about $25 billion in loss personal income tax revenue and another $21 billion in Social Security receipts.

If one of the automakers went down, it still would result in the loss of nearly 2.5 million jobs. That's because the closing of an automaker would have a ripple effect on its tightly knit supplier base. Severely fragile parts makers would be pushed into bankruptcy, causing an interruption in the supply of components to the remaining carmakers. The job losses would be less in the following two years, but the damage would have been done.

It still would result in the loss of $125 billion in personal income in one year and $276 billion over three years along with tens of billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

Clearly, the price of helping the Detroit Three with a $25 billion bailout would be far less than paying the unemployment benefits of auto workers and suffering the lost revenues from the shutdown of an automaker and suppliers.

Critics have said it would be better to let the automakers file for bankruptcy and get their financial houses in order. The problem with this approach is that industry experts know that consumers won't buy expensive products from a bankrupt company. That still leads to serious decline in sales and to 2 million lost jobs very quickly.

Keeping GM, Ford and Chrysler in the automotive game potentially could have a big payoff. The domestic carmakers have negotiated signficiant cost reductions in their labor contracts with the United Auto Workers. The savings alone for GM is $1,000 a vehicle.

In addition, the very low level of current sales and surprisingly low inventory of vehicles are creating a pent-up demand for new vehicles once the credit crunch subsides and the economy improves. The market promises to shift from the buyers' market of the past decade to a sellers' market where fewer financial incentives or discounts will be needed to sell a vehicle with the industry's reduced manufacturing capacity.

GM currently spends $3,500 to $4,000 a vehicle on incentives. If that number were cut to $2,000, it would translate into an immediate $10 billion improvement on the bottom line. Couple that with the fact that the automakers have improved the quality of their products, and the industry is poised for a significant recovery.

But the government needs to give the Detroit Three a bridge to this brighter future. A bridge loan now would be far less expensive than letting one or more of the domestic automakers fail.

David E. Cole is chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.  

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

There should be no question left that the federal government must step in to provide the domestic automakers with the cash they need to survive this economic downturn. Last week's dismal third quarter reports make it clear that General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are moving steadily toward bankruptcy. Privately held Chrysler is believed to be posting losses just as severe.

Congress has already approved $25 billion in loans to help the automakers meet federally mandated fuel economy standards. That money should be released immediately by the Bush administration.

But it won't be enough. An additional $25 billion loan package is proposed, is supported by President-elect Barack Obama and the congressional leadership and should be moved through Congress in the upcoming lame-duck session.

While backing the second lending proposal, both Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have said it should come with strict "conditions" rather than in the form of straight loans the automakers could use as they see fit to save their businesses.

It is unreasonable for the automakers to expect that the government not put some restrictions on the use of the money. But if the bailout comes with too many strings attached, it could just easily strangle the companies as rescue them.

The Big Three will likely have to expect some limits on executive pay and bonuses. That's inevitable. The companies can't expect to lavishly reward executives while they are on the public dole, although the government must be mindful of the need to attract, retain and reward top talent.

Other restrictions would be more worrisome. Obama and Pelosi have both said the aid package should be conditioned on the automakers building more fuel-efficient vehicles. All three have already adopted aggressive strategies for doing that. But they are not helped in that goal by sharply falling gasoline prices. They need to sell more vehicles and quickly. Forcing them to build products not yet supported by the market will not get them through this crisis. The automakers ought to be allowed to stick to the timetable they agreed upon last fall when new fuel economy standards were adopted by Congress and not be burdened by additional mandates.

The automakers must also worry about interference by the government in production and employment decisions. The manufacturers have too much capacity and may need to shutter as many as 10 assembly plants and lay off an additional 30,000 blue-collar workers.

How will the new Democratic administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress react to federal money going to companies that lay off members of the United Auto Workers union, a major Democratic sponsor?

And yet without the flexibility to reduce capacity and work force, and perhaps even to move more of their operations out of the country, the manufacturers will remain at a competitive disadvantage.

Finally, the government may ask for preferred shares in the automakers, giving taxpayers an advantage over regular shareholders if the companies go into bankruptcy. That possibility was reflected in another sharp drop in automotive stocks Monday.

For decades, the automakers have fought to keep the government out of their business. Now, their survival seems to depend on inviting the government in as a full partner.

Untangling the relationship may be more difficult than simply paying back some federal loans.

Car7858's Note: As some may notice, I switched the wording/title of this editorial in my main post title only. It is not any intention of mine to change the editorial nor discredit the source. Thank You.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has been drinking the "green jobs" Kool-aid, recently announcing that she is creating an energy department and naming an energy czar to pursue "alternative" energy and "create thousands of jobs." Yet in these times of economic distress, the governor's priorities are misplaced.

Environmental protection comes at a price -- after all, someone has to pay to keep air and water clean. However, politicians like Granholm claim that clever government policies can result in environmental protections that simultaneously grow the economy.

If something sounds too good to be true, it is. Environmental protection still comes at a price, and Granholm's green jobs initiative threatens Michigan's ailing economy.

The governor claims that "progressive policies that encourage renewable energy development" would boost Michigan's green economy. And she's partly right: Regulations that force green energy on consumers and producers would boost business for politically favored alternative energy companies, such as manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels. Increased demand, in turn, would create jobs at these green companies.

But at the same time, businesses that supply or use large amounts of conventional energy -- such as traditional manufacturers -- would face decreased demand for their products and would therefore lose employees. Indeed, more jobs would be lost at these firms than would be "created" at the environmentally correct ones. Granholm's "progressive" energy policy might create a net gain for Michigan's green economic sector, but it would create a net loss for the economy.

Granholm promises that Michigan will "celebrate job announcements," if it "continues to provide workers with the training they need" in environmentally friendly services. Again, she is partly right: Government can create green jobs by spending taxpayer money on training people to install light bulbs and solar panels so that consumers can meet energy efficiency regulations.

What the governor really wants is for the state government to pick winners and losers in Michigan's energy market. This will not yield efficient outcomes. Taxpayer money spent on creating "green jobs" comes out of the market economy, which otherwise would have allocated those resources more efficiently to produce goods and services that consumers actually want. Government pushing "green" goods and services on consumers carries a direct cost, which can be measured in taxpayer dollars, as well as an indirect cost, in forgone economic productivity.

Finally, Granholm argues that Michigan must "expand the funding available for research and development" in environmentally friendly energy technologies in order to capitalize on the green economic revolution.

Again, she is mistaken, because government has never been good at choosing the most promising emerging technologies. Government is run by bureaucrats and regulators, not venture capitalists. That's why the federal government has wasted so much money in the past on failed energy initiatives, like hydrogen fuel cells and synfuels.

Rather than produce a clean energy technology breakthrough, Granholm's clean energy initiative is more likely to become a pork barrel fund for Michigan legislators to have at their disposal to reward constituent schools and companies.

Tuesday night's presidential debate perpetuated the myth that not having health insurance equates to not having health care, or at least not having quality health care.

But a new study from the moderate Brookings Institute offers proof to the contrary.

Brookings looked at per-capita health care spending for all Americans and found that there is almost no difference in the amount spent on the poorest Americans and the amount spent on the richest.

For the poorest 20 percent of Americans, per-capita health care spending was $4,477 in 2003; for the richest, it was $4,451. The middle categories were in that same dollar range.

Medicaid and other programs for the poor, as well as unreimbursed care provided by hospitals and out-of-pocket spending by the poor themselves kept pace with the insurance coverage of upper income Americans.

There may be more efficient ways of providing health care to the poor, but the argument can't be made that they aren't getting care.

As the country decides how close it wants to move toward a nationalized health care system, it ought to at least deal with the facts and not the mythology fostered by political campaigns.

In terms of expenditures on health care, the poor are no worse off in America than the rich. Acknowledging that fact might lead to a more rational discussion of what health care should look like in this country.

President-elect Barack Obama has invited Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to be part of his economic advisory team as he prepares for the White House.

And it seems he is already adopting her playbook.

A top Obama advisor warned today that the change Americans thought they were voting for Tuesday may not come for a long time because, in his words, President George W. Bush is leaving behind such a mess.

Granholm must be his ghost writer. She spent her entire first term blaming her predecessor, former Gov. John Engler, for her inability to come up with any answers to Michigan's economic free-fall.

When state residents wearied of that excuse, she switched in her second term to blaming Bush for her paralysis in the face of disaster.

There's much Obama can learn from Granholm about dodging responsibility for not delivering on campaign promises to make things better.

Perhaps she can convince him to lead off his innaugural address with her now famous vow, "in five years, you'll be blown away. 

 Posted by Nolan Finley, Detroit News, 11/06/2008

If you were President, what would your plan for economic recovery be? More specifically which issue would you tackle first & foremost?

Inflate tires instead of offshore drilling???

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said it all in one sentence: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile.

Those who are receptive to Barack Obama's plan to increase taxes on "the rich" seem not to understand that the issue is the nation's loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it-- instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers-- and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.

The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.

Like so much that is said glibly by Barack Obama, raising taxes on "the rich" has serious-- and potentially disastrous-- implications for the whole country that have been ignored amid the political euphoria.

Moreover, like so much that is proposed under the magic mantra of "change," it is something that has been tried before in many countries and failed before in many countries.

Much wealth from Third World countries flows out to richer countries like Switzerland or the United States, where it is safer from confiscation. Jack up the capital gains tax rate in the United States and more Americans can be expected to send their capital elsewhere.

That means sending jobs elsewhere, so that even people with no capital to invest lose employment opportunities.

Economists have trouble determining how many people are affected by a tax increase because those affected extend far beyond those who write the checks to pay the government.

Taxes on businesses can get passed along to consumers, in whole or in part, even though it is only the business that writes the check to the government.

Payroll taxes or government-mandated employee benefits may be paid for directly by the employer, but these costs reduce the value of an employee to the employer. If these costs add up to $10,000, for example, employers bidding for labor may bid $10,000 less in salary than they would have otherwise.

As in other cases, who writes the checks does not tell you who really pays the costs, since the worker is now $10,000 worse off. The idea that you can single out one segment of society to be taxed or mandated, for the benefit of the rest of society, is reminiscent of a San Francisco automobile dealer's sign: "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you."

The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose. The whole economy can lose when ill-considered policies gain political popularity and stifle economic growth.

People who do not own a single share of corporate stock can still lose big time when capital gains taxes are raised-- not only because jobs can follow capital out of the country, but also because millions of working people's pension plans own corporate stock, and those people's retirement incomes will depend on the value of those stocks, which is reduced by capital gains taxes.

One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested.

Given the staggering cost of the government's financial bailouts, there is no way that Barack Obama's grandiose spending plans can be carried out without inflation.

When politicians start talking about taxing "the rich," remember the old saying: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. His column is published Thursday in the newspaper and Sunday online at detnews.com.