Governor Granholm pulled a rabbit out of the hat during her State of the State message -- and the other side of the aisle doesn't appear to like it too much.

We're aiming to provide college education for every high school graduate in an effort to become the most educated state in the country.  Not to achieve that mark but to regain jobs that have been lost over the last several decades.

And now she's asking the entire legislature to act as one, unified body to achieve transformation of the state of Michigan.

Standing O, bay-bee!!

And now the rebuttal from the Republicans...they're talking about accountability and tough choices, having to live within our means.

What *sshats!  They're the majority party in power here, and the budget deficit we face was the result of Republican Governor John Engler's three terms; Governor Granholm was handed a two billion dollar deficit when she took office in 2002 because of Engler's reducing tax revenues while failing to cut expenditures.

Who's at fault here?

They say they're full of ideas.  Yeah.  And full of beans.  Michigan beans, but beans nonetheless.

8:13:43 PM    comment []

This bill is SERIOUSLY flawed.  I cannot emphasize this enough.

While the overall intent of the bill is admirable, the following text is completely, utterly unacceptable:

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

[emphasis mine]

Read the Act yourself:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418:

Then contact your Representative -- you can do so via email at: http://www.congress.org

I recommend making a phone call, though.  You can find your representatives' phone numbers at the same site.

It's critical you do this; this is not the first time this wording has been presented in a bill.  It's the second attempt.  They'll keep trying until we drop our guard and let it slip by.

Some will argue that this pertains solely to "expeditious construction of the barriers and roads"; without judicial review, what's the limit of this?  Who will interpret what is NOT a barrier or road?

Is the internet something that requires a barrier, being a digital highway?

Even the military is subject to review by the Senate Armed Forces Committee; even the CIA is subject to the Senate Intelligence Committee.  And judiciary review is an alternate backstop, behind those committees.  There is some form of oversight.  What's the oversight that governs the Homeland Security?  Given the sprinkling throughout the original bill HR 418 amends of the powers of the Attorney General, what oversight will prevent the office of the Attorney General and Homeland Security from running amok?  In this administration we're talking about two highly questionable characters: Gonzales as AG and Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security.

You want advocates of torture to work together with this kind of unlimited power?

You'd better think about this carefully if you're a member of the majority party.  Let's suppose that in four years the Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans have enough of the Bush dynasty and put a Democrat in office.

Let's say that this same Democratic president selects Hillary Clinton to be the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Would you want her in the position to suspend all laws - without judiciary review??

I don't think so.  But then I'm one of those folks who believe that NO person is above the law.

Get on it, quickly; this goes to the floor in a matter of days.

8:59:34 AM    comment []