A common question asked by companies seeking to establish themselves in Michigan centers around the issue of young flight out of the state. Why do recent high school and college graduates feel the need to leave Michigan in search of “better” opportunity? Well, state legislative cuts to scholarships like the Michigan Promise certainly don’t help the situation. As the state faces a scarcity of young talent compounded with a fiscal crisis, legislators are forced to make tough choices about what to cut next. Unfortunately, their choices may further exacerbate the economic woes plaguing the state.

The state senate recently voted to cut the $4000 Michigan Promise Scholarship that the Granholm administration passed to help retain young talent in the state. The scholarship went to high school seniors that passed the state’s academic tests and chose to attend a Michigan college of university. Breaking the promise to these students would only re-entrench their distrust in the Michigan state government, further encouraging their exodus out of the state. Moreover, without this scholarship many students may choose to attend colleges outside the state of Michigan that have comparable costs. Oftentimes, $4000 is the difference between attending and not attending college and the value of this scholarship cannot be measured in college attendance rates alone. It also impacts student and parent spending practices and graduate retention rates. If Michigan wants to retain young talent in the state the legislators of the state should either stop making promises they can’t keep or keep the promises they make.

I strongly encourage the state house to consider the direct and indirect implications of cutting this scholarship and not follow in the footsteps of their senatorial counterparts. Programs and grants have to be cut, however, this goes beyond a simple budget cut. Parents and students were planning on this scholarship when deciding whether to send their kids to college or when they were making family budgets for the future. It represents 10% of the average college educational costs and makes a substantial impact on the financial viability of Michigan households. In order to retain credibility in the eyes of the next generation of Michigan youth we must avoid this cut.

Hey all,

This is just an announcement for an event on Saturday June 6th called the Millenial Mayors Congress in which a group of mayors will join young people ages 18-35 to try and make decisions regarding the Southeast Michigan Community. Anyone is welcome to join and be a part of the audience or panel discussion. The event will be held on Saturday June 6th from 9:30 am to 3:00 pm and at the Detroit Regional Chamber (1 Woodward Ave, 19th Floor, Detroit, MI 48226). It is a wonderful opportunity to have your voices heard.

~Bala~

Amazon.com has apparently been preparing changes to its search feature and ranking system for months, culminating in a recent flurry of alterations which basically amount to excluding books about sexual minorities from some of the more prominent search results. Amazon explains:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

A compilation of Playboy centerfolds retained its search ranking. Books like Orlando by Virginia Woolf, Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence, A History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault, Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg, and a biography of politician Harvey Milk were stripped of sales ratings. So what, exactly, does Amazon.com mean by “adult” content?

Amazon later claimed that at least some of the de-listings were due to a glitch, but many are suspicious of this excuse, given the fact that this “glitch” primarily seemed to target content dealing with sexual minorities, and that it has not yet been “resolved.”

An online petition indicating opposition to Amazon’s policy can be found here.

Update 1
There is a persuasive argument to be made for this event being the result of either anti-gay religious groups or internet trolls intentionally flagging books with content on sexual minorities, which may be what Amazon means by a “glitch” – perhaps their system automatically removes books from search listings when they have received a certain amount of flags. It looks like they may need to revise that system to avoid giving this kind of power to groups of motivated users.

Update 2
A hacker has claimed responsibility for the Amazon “glitch,” but Amazon denies outside involvement, maintaining that it was an internal “cataloging error.” Neither story makes perfect since: the targeted books were not all LGBT-themed, but many were. Amazon has, however, at least temporarily disabled the feature which allows users to flag books for inappropriate content.

Update 3
The argument for a glitch is becoming more persuasive, and it looks like it’s being fixed.

All 27 members of the European Union sign, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel sign. Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba and Ecuador all sign. Even countries like Nepal, the Central African Republic, Armenia and East Timor which have very traditional and preindustrial societies signed.

Only one country in the civilized world was so callous, so backward as to deny that homosexuals ought not be jailed or executed. You guessed it, the United States of America.

Our fair nation and our then lame-duck-in-chief joined the likes of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe in opposing the declaration. Mr. Bush cited possible legal obligation the United States may face if it signed the resolution and expressed concerns that it limited the power of the federal government.

But that was then, and this is now.
Mar. 18, 2009: President Obama declares his intention to sign the UN Declaration on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation.

In a statement, State Department spokesman Robert Wood has this to say: “The United States supports the U.N.’s statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity and is pleased to join the other 66 U.N. member states who have declared their support of the statement.” Mr. Wood also went on to say that the United States would continue to remind other countries of the importance of human rights in all appropriate venues.

This announcement was hailed as a major victory for gay rights groups, and it has breathed new life into a resolution that had been treading water for months. But even with a powerful new ally, the resolution is still facing strong opposition.

The Vatican has voiced strong opposition to the measure, fearing that it may force countries to recognize same-sex unions or allow the adoption of children by gay couples. But although vociferous, the Holy See has been relatively benign in its opposition, stating that they “continue to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided.”A more formidable opponent to the resolution than Rome lies in a counter-resolution backed by many Arab countries.

The measure, which is currently backed by 57 countries, claims that the European-backed resolution “delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states.” Also a primary concern of the signatories of the opposing resolution was a fear that “deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and polygamy would naturally follow the “social normalization” of homosexuality.

In all likelihood, this resolution will not pass the general assembly without the support of Russia or the People’s Republic of China, both of which are unlikely to back such a progressive civil rights measure.

It seems probable that this bold new measure against discrimination will remain nothing more than a symbolic gesture gone wrong, and a stark reminder of how far the world has yet to come in its recognition of civil rights. Its not much, but at least its something. One step forward, 1.999 steps back, just like its always been.

Here we are at the end of January. Earlier this month our new president was sworn in, twice. We threw parties and had weeks worth of jubilant, self-congratulatory newscasts. A wave of unprecidented excitement swept across the nation as nearly every American joined in the celebratory mood.  But what exactly were we celebrating?

We were celebrating because we had elected a charismatic and talented young leader who had made a series of wonderful promises to us. He promised that we would have alternative energy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. He promised that he would cut taxes on the middle class and the working man and raise them on those who could afford to pay. He promised to change the way we fight the war on terror, reform our schools, and extend the rights of gays and lesbians. A slate of lofty and worthy ideals that we can all be proud of, but ideals can quickly fade in the face of pragmatic concerns.

When he was campaigning for president, Bill Clinton promised gay rights groups that he would overturn the army’s policy of excluding gays from service.  This seemingly minute promise became a major issue when the Republicans fought any suggestion of a change tooth and nail. Blindsided by a full-on political assault, President Clinton had no choice but to arrive at the entirely unsatisfactory compromise that is “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell.”

The ambitious Clinton healthcare plan that had been much-lauded during his campaign met an equally dismal end at the hands of an uncooperative congress. As did the Bush plan to privatize social security and the 2000 campaign promise to put and end to interventionist foreign policy.

It seems to be the pattern with presidents now that they only keep whichever promises are most politically expedient for them, but it wasn’t always this way. Franklin Roosevelt was swept in on a ticket of economic recover through massive government intervention, and he did it. It wasn’t easy for him, he had to fight conservatives in congress and a supreme court that frequently struck down his programs. He had to fight, but he did, and he won.

The pragmatic concerns of government all too often put an end to the promises of the campaign season, but please, please Mr. President don’t let it happen to you. We elected you because we believe in you and your ability to do what you said you would do. We danced in the streets and wept tears of joy.  Don’t make our celebration for nothing, don’t betray the confidence we placed in you. We elected you because of what you promised us, not the color of your skin or the masterful way you use language. We need a new healthcare system, we need a restructured tax code and a new way of looking at education. We need a focus on the real front in the war on terror and a return to principled dimplomacy. Compromise, reach across the aisle and build concensus, but whatever you do, don’t break your promises.

Hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday season. Have a fantastic new year!

Some of you might have been curious about the lack of activity at MYPA. We are currently undergoing some renovations for the new year… Check back once January hits! Stay tuned. We’ll keep you up to date.

As Democrats are pushing for the auto bailout in Congress, urging for a quick and effective rescue of the Big 3, Republicans are stalling the push forward, discontent with certain provisions of the bailout plan. Republican support will be critical, especially in the Senate where a filibuster is probable if there are not at least 60 votes in support for the bill. Originally, lawmakers sought to complete and finalize the bailout plans today; however, they will likely need to renegotiate and resolve several issues over the weekend to ensure the bill’s passage.

The plan debated by Congressmen and women is to provide $15 billion immediate loans to the automakers with strings attached. These automakers would have to submit a restructuring plan by March 31 to a “car czar” who would oversee negotiations between the companies, unions and creditors. If the czar finds the companies to not make enough progress, the loans will be called back. The czar will be able to review any transaction valued at greater than $25 million The auto industry will have to give up stocks worth 20% of their loans to the federal government and its taxpayers. Another interesting addition to the plan are further conditions outlined by Bloomberg:

It would prohibit the automakers from paying dividends and owning or leasing corporate jets, and pay and bonuses would be limited.

Thus, the main plan of action is to take the auto industry under the federal government’s wing. The Wall Street Journal points out a humorous metaphor used by politicians to describe the unique situation:

“We call this the barbershop,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. “Everybody’s getting a haircut here, in terms of the conditions of the bill,” she said, noting the likely impact on labor, bondholders, shareholders, car dealers, suppliers and executives. “The management itself has to take a big haircut on all of this.”

One key issue is the possibility of future costs. Republicans are firmly opposed to the plan because there is no assurance that taxpayers would not assume more auto industry costs in the coming months or years. New York Times reports:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, said he would not support a bill that does not protect the taxpayers’ money while prodding Detroit to change its ways.

“I want to support a bill that revives this industry,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The auto industry is vitally important to our nation’s economy, and it is vitally important to my home state of Kentucky.”

But he said the proposal being discussed was “deeply flawed” because it would not do enough to spur management reform and cut labor costs. With those weaknesses, the proposal might mean that taxpayers would be asked “to shell out billions more a few years or even a few months from now,” Mr. McConnell said.

While this argument should encourage more care in crafting the bailout package among Congressmen and women, it should not prevent them from crafting it in the first place. In rough economic times, there is little reassurance anyone can provide to prevent another bailout in the future. The auto industry will likely need money from the government again; however, this should not be an indication of failure of government policy or the industry itself. Rather, it should be taken as a sign of the turmoil the current economic decline has forced upon the auto industry. The Economic Policy Institute demonstrates that the overall economy has caused sales to severely decline not only for US automakers but for foreign automakers, proving it is the economy that has been the root of the industry’s troubles:

The current industry collapse is a direct result of the financial crisis rather than past industry decisions. Nervous consumers are delaying large purchases, sending vehicle sales in the United States to their lowest level in decades. More than 16 million light vehicles were sold in 2006 and 2007. Sales fell to 10.6 million units in October, a 35% decline from 2007 and the lowest absolute level since February 1983. The collapse in light vehicle sales has hit both import and domestic companies. GM sales fell 47% in October, but Suzuki (-48%) and Isuzu (-49%) were equally hard hit. While Chrysler sales fell 38%, Kia’s fell 40%. Ford’s sales were off 33%, but Nissan’s fell 36%. Overall, domestic sales fell 41%, and Asian producers dropped 29%. Every company experienced a sharp drop in sales last month. These declines are particularly troubling because the auto industry is one of the most capital-intensive sectors of the U.S. economy.

The White House is currently working with Democrats to convince Senate Republicans in passing the bill. Isn’t it a little frightening that the true result of the package relies on the just the few tens of Senate Republicans? I certainly hope they come to the right decision–and with haste. The industry does not have enough blood to live for too long now and let the gridlocked Congress drag on the rescue plan for days, to weeks, to months.

Too often when discussing the bailout, and the proposals the Big Three (General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford) submitted on Tuesday, we think only of ourselves in Detroit. We think about how if the auto industry failed, we’re looking at unemployment rates that shoot through the roof. We think about Obama, and how he’s going to bring ‘change we can believe in’, and worry about the rust belt literally rusting away. We think and worry about whether we’ll still have our jobs the next day, or if we’ll become mere numbers in the unemployment statistics.

Chrysler assembly worker Leroy Feltz works on a 2009 Jeep Wrangler at the Toledo Supplier Park Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio December 3, 2008 (Reuters).

Rarely do we wonder about people outside of the U.S., or even outside of Michigan, who can and will be affected if the auto industry folds. In their proposals, the Big Three have asked for a combined 34 million – a proposal Washington is still debating today. Many have commented on the car companies’ propensity for losing money quickly, and while this isn’t always an accurate accusation, it does have its slivers of truth – slivers that have potential to cost them the bailout.

In any case, as politicians discuss the proposal at the capital, European nations have sounded their own responses to the proposed bailout. According to an article in TIME in partnership with CNN online, “Europeans warn that a rescue of Detroit amid a major global slowdown could be the first shot in a new trade war”.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy also called for a loosening of the strict E.U. regulations, even before the bailout proposal was submitted by the Big Three automakers yesterday. Other European countries are worried about whether or not the bailout could increase competition for their own auto industries. In Europe, new car sales have dropped around 14.5% in October, Peugeot – Citroen (one of the top French automakers) was scheduled to submit a plan on Tuesday cutting around 2,700 jobs.

The global economic slowdown has hit more than just the rust belt, and when we think about it, we tend to forget that. People across the country have been barraged by price increases, one after another. Rice, gas, produce – the products pile up in the list of things people have to stretch to spend. Instead of scrimping and pinching for that far off vacation, many people save up now just so that they can afford food.

Some believe that without the automaker’s bailout, Michigan could find itself in a slump that rivals the Great Depression – I am amongst them. The bailout is necessary for the survival of Detroit as a city, and as a historical landmark. Despite this, many people continue to lobby against it.

What they might not realize is how many jobs are tied to the auto industry. A massive amount of work goes into every car produced and without the Big Three, a lot of people would find themselves out on the streets. It’s true that consumer demand has gone down; but if the Big Three were to focus their efforts on developing more fuel-efficient cars, people would eventually buy them. After all, transportation is a basic need.

Yes, the Big Three have not always been the most frugal of companies, but their survival plays a large part in the economic survival of Michigan and the country as a whole. The European automakers may be concerned about international competition – but it is competition that has driven us in the past and will drive us in the future. The steps the Europeans have taken shouldn’t serve as a reason not to go through with the bailout, but as incentive to do so.

The world today has changed in the last eight years. Terrorism is abound and most recently the attack in Mumbai are a reminder of how fragile things are and the impact that will make on Obama once he takes office in January. Obama has not said much in response to the Mumbai attacks because he recognizes that there is only one president at a time. The test for Obama will be his foreign policy. Obama was elected president but foreign policy was not the issue that was the catalyst to him being elected it was the crash of the Wall Street Markets. CNN found that those who found that foreign policy and terrorism were the most important issues to them voted overwhelmingly for McCain over Obama.

Obama is going to inherit two wars from the Bush Administration, and with it being reported that the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will remain on for at least a year in the Obama Administration, Obama will have to guide the Defense department slowly from the Bush Doctrine to the Obama Doctrine. With issues like Iran and the situation in Mumbai–if they do not better by the time Obama takes office– it will be Obama-driven in terms of how America will respond to the crisis. With the announcement of his foreign policy team imminent, Obama will face the serious threats in the world and it will behoove him to have the best team possible there with him.

Throughout the election, Obama showed over and over his ability to remain calm under pressure and that calmness will be necessary for him during his first year in office, maybe more. Vice President-Elect Biden was right when he said Obama would be tested because every president has been tested and every president to come will be tested as well.

What makes the difference is the response to the test.

It seems like one word is on every Michigander’s lips these days, and that word is bailout. It has become an issue of paramount importance to all of us to see that Michigan sees its own little slice of that 700 billion dollar pie so that we all don’t end up worse off than we already are. As important as I think some aid to the sagging auto industry is, federal funding alone won’t keep these manufacturing behemoths from collapsing under their own weight, they need a new direction and sound management.

Too often lately I have heard people echoing the same over-simplified analysis: that the unions destroyed the big three. This assessment echoes across FOX News and in conservative newspapers across the country, a chorus of reactionary spin doctors blaming big labor for all the problems in the economy. They say that we don’t need unions, that the lack of unionization is what makes the foreign automakers more profitable. This viewpoint is bitterly opposed to any legislation which would allow easier unionization by workers and claims that this would only further weaken the Big Three, I couldn’t disagree more. I think that stronger union laws are an integral part of any rescue for the domestic automakers.

If we pass more pro-labor legislation (such as the Employee Free Choice Act), our auto companies could level the playing field against their foreign opponents. Factories operated by overseas companies like Toyota and Honda are strewn throughout the south in Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky and not one of these has a significant UAW presence. These companies prevent nearly all unionization in their plants and thus get away with paying much lower wages to their workers than the big three do. If we force these foreign corporations to allow their workers to organize, then the playing field between them and our own companies would be equal. All companies would have to pay the same level of benefits and the same wages to their workers, allowing the Michigan-based American companies to more successfully compete.

Even with a large sum of money to serve as life support for these failing titans and a leveled playing field that forces foreign companies to unionize, the Big Three can’t stay in business if they keep making bad decisions. Indeed, the most vital component of any rescue should be a massive re-tooling of the business models that our auto companies have been running on. One of the principle reasons that Honda hasn’t been as completely devastated as GM has is that Honda’s business model was more forward-thinking. When gas prices were relatively low in the early part of the decade, it seemed like a great idea to build cars the size of an M1 Abrams Tank. People loved to buy Escalades, Expeditions and yes, the infamous Hummer. The Big Three were raking in the money from the sale of these gargantuan cars and times were good. But even as GM kept building bigger and less efficient cars, a storm cloud was gathering in the distance.

For years, geo-scientists have been warning us that global oil production will hit its peak soon and that prices will begin to skyrocket. But GM and Chrysler were ignoring all of the warning signs, they stuck their heads in the sand like Ostriches and pretended that gas would be cheap forever. Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota began to focus on building smaller cars and hybrid vehicles, preparing themselves for the oncoming price hikes. Among the American companies only Ford began, albeit too late, to change their business plan to fit the times that we all knew were coming. This lack of foresight by GM and Chrysler is really what has led them to ruin and it is the kind of thing that will lead them to ruin again if they don’t correct it.

Even if the government handed GM twenty billion dollars a year, it might still fail if it continues to make stupid business decisions. The entire auto industry needs to adapt itself to the times to come. They need to focus their research on hydrogen cars, electric cars and new hybrid technologies. They need to run their business thinking about the future, not trying to seize on the fleeting market conditions of the moment.

Do the automakers need help? Yes. Do they need a level playing field to compete on? Of course. But will these things alone save them if they keep making bad decisions with their money? Absolutely not.