GCYD Endorses Lt. Governor John Cherry for Governor

The Genesee County Young Democrats are honored to make an early endorsement in the 2010 Michigan gubernatorial race. It is our privilege to endorse Lt. Governor John D. Cherry, Jr., a citizen of Genesee County and an incredibly talented public servant!

Lt. Governor Cherry has worked to make college affordable to all Michigan residents through his efforts as Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education & Economic Growth . Also, he has advocated against a culture of corporate irresponsibility and Washington political stunts aimed at the destruction of the American automakers, while passionately supporting the right of employees to organize. In addition, the Lt. Governor has been a zealous advocate for the preservation of Michigan natural resources. Finally, Cherry brings a long career of experience and expertize in Lansing that will continue to serve this State well. For these reasons, the GCYD is proud to join a whole lot of democrats who have endorsed Lt. Governor Cherry, including our own Genesee County Democratic Party.

Congratulations for earning our endorsement as well as the respect and admiration of Genesee County.

Joy Comes in the Morning

Recently, I had the opportunity to hear from one of the bright progressive minds in Michigan, Prof. Jocelyn Benson of WSU, during a forum on Election Reform. I won't get into to many details of the discussion, but something has stuck with me since that meeting. In spite of all of the bad news and dreary projections for the future of our state:

THERE ARE STILL GREAT PEOPLE DOING GREAT THINGS IN MICHIGAN!

I sometimes feel like we should have periodic public service announcements that Michigan is still open for business. Michigan's entrepreneurs are still developing the technologies that will drive the world in the twenty-first century. Bright minds like Prof. Benson and countless others are drawing up ways for us to rethink and reform the way we do our business as a state.

Although times are tough, and will probably get tougher before we turn the proverbial corner, we will survive and indeed thrive. All of us have work to do, causes to champion, and change to advocate for. If we all pitch in and use our collective brilliance we will overcome our individual challenges.



Scripture tells us that the sorrow may last for the night but joy comes in the morning.

-Kyle McCree

Time for Our Government to Start Supporting the Troops

This Memorial Day weekend, remember our troops who are tirelessly fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 160 Michigan soldiers (here is a list of those who have died for our freedom from MI) have been lost in the War on Terror and the number of American casualties has climbed past 4,000. Yet, many members of our armed forces are frustrated with our government’s unwillingness to stick to its half of the deal. Some of our soldiers have been lied to by recruiters about the amount of money they would receive for college and the support they would receive as veterans of war. This government has had a hard enough time funding body armor and adequate health care facilities for our soldiers, yet, it routinely "misplaces" large sums of money appropriated for the war effort. Now the government refuses to pay the bill for having a well trained, standing army. Private employers are not allowed to get away with not paying the promised compensation to employees (see Fair Labor Standards Act), so why should the government? There is hope however. This week the United States Senate, in a rare show of bipartisanship, passed a funding bill for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan 70-26 that increases the benefits under the GI Bill for all soldiers who were active after 9/11. This support includes funding for college tuition. President Bush continues to threaten veto, but if these numbers continue in the House then Congress may be able to overturn. Surprisingly, JOHN MCCAIN DID NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. The bill goes before the House next week. Let's make our voices heard and keep our Representatives responsible to our troops.

Additionally, our soldiers are being stop-lossed and forced into an extension of their active duty service. The president is granted this power under 10 U.S.C. § 12305(a), which states, “... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.” Soldiers are being told that their service will be over after a specific period of time; however, always remember to read the fine print. In the Armed Forces Enlistment Contract, paragraph 9(c) states that “In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.” Not only are our soldiers not being payed as agreed, the government has used deceitful contractual language to extend the duration of contract. In the law of contracts, individuals only have to pay damages to the other party if they choose to breach the agreement. Unlike normal contracts, a soldier's breach of contract means court martial. If the government wants to enforce these contractual agreements then they should be bound to the same principles of private contract that our soldiers are bound to as well as all Americans. Let's do right by our fighting men and women. These people deserve our support and admiration, and I for one refuse to let my country shove these people off the side of the cliff like it did with the American Vietnam Vets. Let's remind our legislators of our soldiers on this Memorial Day.

- Keith

Republicans Implement an Discriminatory Drivers License Policy

The decision to refuse non-residents and non-citizens a driver’s license seems un-American. Americans have enjoyed a long history of vehicular travel. The ability to move around the country and live anywhere we want seems important. In other countries with states, identification is required in order to move from state to state. We take the opposite of this totalitarian policy for granted in the United States. Now, the country seems to be reverting back to the Articles of Confederation when every state was on its own and statehood could be compared to nationality.

This policy can be used for some rather devious purposes such as the direct discrimination of foreign students who are here legally. The license has become a means of identification that police often use even when they have no right under the Fourth Amendment. Most people just hand their licenses over because they do not think they have anything to hide or they believe they have an obligation. I can imagine a situation where a foreign student or a visitor may feel threatened by handing over their foreign license. It seems like a clear way to separate individuals for discrimination and considering these “imperatives of national security” I am afraid of the behavior police officers can engage in with this new policy.

Additionally, there are other uses for a license that could unfairly restrain visitors to Michigan or individuals who have no desire to apply for a license. Airlines are making it more difficult to travel within the country without a license. Voters in Michigan are now required to present a license. Simple business transactions such as the use of credit cards, banking, or cashing a check require a license. This policy makes all of these activities unfairly burdensome.

Also, business has gone global. Global businesses depend on temporary international employees and this policy will not only burden the employees, but the businesses as well. If Michigan wants to compete in a global economy, this fetish for security is going to be hard to reconcile. Businesses want as little regulation as possible in many instances. This policy only makes their jobs more difficult in merging their international employees together with domestics and American life. The Republicans have just found another way to lose jobs in the name of security. Yet, who honestly believes they are secure in an economy this troubled?

If security is the only concern justifying these intrusions, then it is important to remind ourselves that some of the hijackers on 9/11 were in this country as legal residents. For those who were not legal residents, passports and licenses were forged. Terri Lynn Land and Mike Cox are only punishing law abiding citizens for the terrorist actions that they have already been victim to. Maybe they should change their priorities. The State of Michigan should be more worried about forgeries than preventing people from attaining legitimate licenses and harassing visitors. There should be excitement over visitors, tourists, and international diversity because right now this state is suffering from a huge population decline. Michigan needs to be practical and not rhetorical. Michigan needs to discard this policy and discourage harassment.

-Keith

"Right to Work " Misleads Michigan Voters

Republican big interests are targeting Michigan voters believing that their lies can mislead enough of us to eliminate our rights to organize at the workplace. These individuals want Michigan voters to believe that they are struggling to protect employees' right to refuse a union. These laws forbid unions and employers from negotiating over agreements where employees agree to join a union and pay fees in return for their employment. Their claimed motivation is disingenuous. These people are supported and manipulated by powerful conservative business interest such as local Chambers of Commerce and large corporations (Berkeley Miller and William Canak, (1991) "From "Porkchoppers" to "Lambchoppers": The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 2; pp. 349-366; Dane M. Partridge, (1997) "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition," Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 10, Number 2; pp. 127-139). The National Right to Work Foundation claims to be an organization based on ordinary citizens yet it was founded and financed by powerful and influential right-wing organizations ( "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," Media Transparency, Accessed December 14, 2007).

Do you think these entities care about you or the fact that unions are responsible for helping workers gain better benefits, better wages, and better safety conditions ( United States Dept. of Labor)? Wages and benefits are lower in right-to-work states. Without stable unionization, many jobs that depend on unionized wages and benefits could be on the decline. The reality is that companies are giving a lot of money to keep your wages down and to reduce the standard of living for all Michiganders, so they can take record breaking profits from your hard work. These third party out-of-staters want to convince people to agree to this obscene plan by misleading voters that their rights are being taken away by labor unions.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) almost all employees have the right to unionize and bargain collectively. There are already restrictions placed on unions to protect employees' right to refuse to partake in union activities. You can also choose which employer you want to take a job with. These rich elites want you to believe that you are not free to refuse, but you are. They are the ones who are not free to interfere with your right to organize and to engage in concerted activity for the mutual gain or benefit of fellow employees, which is a duty that was created to protect you from them. Please don’t forget that.

In a free market society, unions and employers should be free to negotiate an agreement to keep employers unionized. Unions give something to the employer in negotiations for these agreements because they provide employees with stability and security. This decreases industrial fighting and protects employee rights. Additionally, these agreements give employees a better bargaining position for all employees. In right-to-work states, employees who decide not to join a union still receive the benefits of your union fees as an employer cannot discriminate between employees based on union activity. These states force you to pay for someone else a free ride on the benefits unionized employees fight to protect. We are all in this together and without cooperation Michigan laborers will suffer.

If you care about this issue, please email Luke Canfora lcanfora@miaflcio.org at the Michigan State AFL-CIO and volunteer to work the polls on Janurary 15^th to stop this petition from threatening Michigan workers.

-Keith

MI Republicans Vote to Refuse Poor Children Health Care

I'm not exaggerating. Here is the list of your Congressmen who voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP). If reauthorized, the Bill would cover millions of low-income children and would cost taxpayers $35 million, which would be raised through a 61 cent increase in federal taxes on smoking. There are more details attached by link. The President vetoed the Bill and the vote was to overturn the veto. Considering the unemployment rate in Michigan and the many Michiganders who fall below the poverty line, one would think that this would be an issue all Michigan legislators could agree on. Unfortunately, many Michigan Republicans voted down the Bill. All Michigan Democrats voted to support the Bill and millions of disadvantaged children. Thank you Vern Ehlers, Candice Miller, and Fred Upton for voting your conscience and being the only Michigan Republicans to support this important legislation.

-Keith

Next GCYD Meeting Sept. 22nd!!!

Our next meeting will be Saturday, Sept. 22nd, Brown Sugar Cafe, at
noon. The Brown Sugar Cafe is located on Saginaw St. across from the University Pavilion in downtown Flint. We will endorse a Flint mayoral candidate, plan our strategy for aiding our mayoral candidate, and discuss our next community service project. It should be an interesting meeting so come on out. If you have any questions call 810-625-0741.

Michigan Primary Change

Unfortunately, an amendment has come up this week to change Michigan's caucus system to a primary system. Michigan has always utilized a caucus system, which allow political parties to stage elections to determine state Presidential candidate endorsements. Only Dems can vote in a Democratic caucus election and only Republicans could vote in a Republican Caucus election. All the funding came from the parties' pockets. A primary system would be subsidized by the state for parties. What this means is that Michigan tax payers will have to fund elections to determine Democrat and Republican endorsements for President of the United States. Elections can cost states up to $10 million to finance. With an unsteady economy and a broken budget, the state of Michigan has a lot of nerve picking up the cost for purely political reasons.

Proponents argue that a primary would open up the system to allow more people to vote. They argue that the party-run caucus system turns people away at the polls by staging polling sites in churches and union locals (oh no). However, these are determinations which should be left to political parties since these are the endorsements the parties' will be stuck with. The winning candidates in the caucus/primary would win the votes alloted for Michigan at the party conventions. This is a separate determination than one that elects a candidate to office. Parties have a right to exclude members of the other party and a right to set polling locations, which tend to be at union locals for Democrats and churches for Republicans. This is about figuring out who the party faithful believe should be the best candidate so Michigan can endorse a candidate that Democratic party members will be proud of.

Once again, everyone will have to pay for these decisions which should be made by the party infrastructure. An example of how this can be unfair is the 2004 Presidential race. In 2004, the Republican party did not have a primary. George W. Bush was their candidate. In the primary system the Michigan legislature is recommending, everyone would have to pay for the Democratic primary even if the Republicans decided not to have one. The same could happen if the Democratic Party decided to avoid a primary (which can and has happened). Then all Michigan Democrats would be forced to pay for a Republican primary. Some Democratic Presidential candidates are supporting this change including Hillary Clinton. The Edwards camp, however, is against it. At a time when we are struggling to survive here in Michigan, primary elections are not worth the price and the unfair consequences. Michigan, don't raise our taxes for political favors.

-Keith