Republicans could face backlash in 2018 over Michigan’s roads

"So much for running a government like a business. You can keep the $100 your tax cut will give me, if you take responsibility for your conduct and reimburse me what your potholes have cost me."

That's the message Ann Arbor attorney John Minnock had for Gov. Rick Snyder this week, as reported by the Detroit Free Press. He wasn't alone. Plenty of citizens from across the political spectrum told the Freep how fed up they are with Michigan's roads, which have long been terrible after years of neglect. A harsh winter and epic flooding have made some of the state's major thoroughfares look like the lunar landscape. Washtenaw County even closed one of its main roads indefinitely because it's been swallowed up by potholes, which is probably a sign of things to come.

Minnock was also referring to the bill that Snyder recently signed that restored the personal exemption in Michigan, which was wiped out by President Trump's tax plan last year. Republicans lopped on an increase over time so they could sell it as a tax cut in an election year.

But they rejected Democrats' attempt to fix roads with $275 million this year from the state's Rainy Day Fund.

“It’s raining in Michigan — literally, at times, raining concrete,” declared Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr. (D-East Lansing), which is a pretty pithy quote.

Republicans agreed to spend an extra $175 million for emergency road repairs — $100 million less than the Dems' proposal. But let's be honest. That's just a drop in the bucket. And drivers in Michigan know that.

With a Key U.P. Victory, 2018 Looks Brighter for Michigan Democrats

If you're looking for a window into 2018 in Michigan, the most important race took place last night in the western Upper Peninsula.

On first blush, it looks like a pretty routine result in the special election for the 109th state House District: Democrat Sara Cambensy held a seat that's been blue for more than a half-century. The district has a solid 56.9 percent Democratic base, per Inside Michigan Politics, and became vacant after Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette) tragically killed himself this spring.

But Republicans made a real run at this 109th. Why? They knew that this election was bigger than a single state legislative seat.

Democrats were palpably nervous about the race after Cambensy narrowly won her August primary. Divisions in the party reared their head, as leaders fretted her pro-choice and liberal politics wouldn't play in a district Donald Trump won by 5 points in 2016. Cambensy's history of primarying Kivela last year hadn't been forgotten. And the memory of Trump defying all expectations and winning Michigan in 2016 certainly put a fire under the Dems.

So if Republicans had managed to flip the 109th, I noted that they would have changed the narrative that 2018 would be a good Democratic year in Michigan. Democrats' efforts to take back the House next year (now split 63-47 in the GOP's favor) would have instantly been seen as lost cause and fundraising would have mostly dried up.

The GOP has controlled all three branches of government here since 2010. Trump became the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988. A Republican victory this year in the U.P. — an area that's been shifting conservative since 2010 and went big for Trump in '16 — would have confirmed that Michigan really is an emerging red state. And so even if 2018 continued to look bright for Democrats nationally, we'd have had good reason to believe that Michigan would be immune from the trend.

But those fears were laid to rest, as Cambensy didn't just win. She won in a 14-point rout. Any divisions in the Democratic Party didn't hurt the outcome — just as we saw in the marquee gubernatorial races last night in New Jersey and Virginia.

Republicans really did give this Michigan state House race their all and their nominee, Marquette school board President Rich Rossway, was up on TV. He didn't run a bombastic, base-inspired Trump campaign, either. In fact, he played down his party affiliation (much as Democrats in red areas have done for years) and even walked a picket line, something relatively unheard of for Michigan Republicans since they rammed through Right to Work in 2012.

So now House Democrats are back in the same place they were on Nov. 9, 2016, with two victories Tuesday (the other was the 1st in the Detroit area). Republicans once again have a 63-47 majority, meaning Democrats have to flip nine seats next year to take control.

That's the exact situation the Dems faced in 2016 when they failed to make any net gains. But Democrats' smashing successes in Virginia legislative races last night — a state that, like Michigan, boasts heavily GOP-gerrymandered districts — has definitely made leaders more optimistic. And with clear evidence of an energized base, Democrats are also feeling better about their chances at the top of the ticket with next year's gubernatorial race.

Winning the governor's mansion or the state House in 2018 would give Democrats a seat at the table during Michigan's critical 2021 redistricting — something that hasn't happened for three decades.

And of course, a big Michigan Dem victory would be a stunning reversal for a newly minted Trump state, portending serious problems for the president in 2020.

Republicans Launch the ‘Fredo Defense’ of Trump

"The president’s new at this. He’s new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI and White Houses. He’s just new to this.” — U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (D-Wisc.), at a Thursday press conference held during former FBI Director James Comey's Capitol Hill testimony

For years, we've been accustomed to Republicans chest-beating about their strength. The perception of this has been one of the party's greatest assets, as many of their policy proposals, like cutting taxes for the rich and ripping health care away from 23 million Americans, poll terribly.

There was Ronald Reagan telling Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down that wall" and end communism in the late 1980s. There was George W. Bush strutting across an aircraft carrier to (prematurely) celebrate victory in the Iraq war in 2003. There was John McCain declaring he'd put the "Country First" during the '08 election, which everyone believed because he'd survived the Hanoi Hilton.

In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned as the ultimate alpha male. "I alone can fix it," he promised with his trademark braggadocio, while disparaging his rivals for failing to compete with his virility (remember his digs at "Little Marco" Rubio and calling Jeb Bush "low energy"?) During a March 2016 campaign rally, Trump made a big point of stressing he was 6'3'', not 6'2." And at the GOP debate in Detroit, Trump bragged about the size of his hands in such an awkward soliloquy that CNN cast subtlety aside and ran this headline: "Donald Trump defends size of his penis."

Now the president finds himself engulfed in a growing scandal over his campaign's ties to Russia, which is the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation, and a possible coverup. He admitted in a TV interview that the "Russia thing" was on his mind as he decided to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Comey was on Capitol Hill Thursday to testify and it was riveting. The former director said that Trump told “lies, plain and simple,” about he and the FBI as part of a coverup for his firing. He revealed the president had said he "hoped" he would drop his investigation, which Comey "took as direction." Comey also said there was "no doubt" that the Russians were behind the Democratic National Committee hacking last year, which sowed party divisions between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters that Republicans exploited.

So it's somewhat breathtaking that as the walls close in on Trump and his allies, Republicans are launching a "Fredo defense." Like the slow brother in "The Godfather," the president just doesn't really know what he's doing (although, fittingly, Fredo insisted until the day he was whacked that he was really the smart one).

This is not an exaggeration, as you can see by the quote from U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) above. He's really arguing that Trump is "new at this" and therefore what he did was OK. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former proud Never Trumper, tried out a version of the Fredo defense before the hearing: “I don't think [Trump] colluded with the Russians because he doesn't collude with his own staff." Look for this to become a popular talking point from the same folks that excoriated former President Barack Obama as "Obambi."

In case you're looking for a laugh through your tears, Democratic activist Kaivan Shroff sums the whole thing up nicely.

What people mean by "white male privilege" is a billionaire who claims he is a genius and should run country, then cries "I'm new at this."

— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) June 9, 2017

Go Ahead and Celebrate the Massive Failure of Trumpcare

There’s been some finger-wagging that liberals shouldn’t be cheering the Republicans’ huge defeat on Trumpcare.

As everyone knows, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) didn’t actually put the bill up to a vote because it was doomed by defections from moderate Republicans and Freedom Caucus members alike. And President Trump didn’t know the bill well enough to whip votes, Politico Magazine embarrassingly reports.

Yes, there are many other fights ahead on the debt ceiling, tax policy, Russian interference in our election, etc. And I don’t think Trump and Ryan are giving up the ghost of killing Obamacare, no matter what they say.

So if Democrats want to take the opportunity to craft some fixes for the Affordable Care Act, I think that’s great.

But for the time being, it’s OK to celebrate that a bad policy died. Because that means:

• 24 million people get to keep their health insurance.
• People won’t see massive insurance rate increases.
• People with pre-existing conditions won’t be priced out of care.
• Essential health benefits, like prenatal and post-natal care, are still protected.
• Seniors won’t be targeted for rate increases.
• The more than 650,000 people who gained insurance through the Medicaid expansion in Michigan are safe.
• Small business owners and the self-employed can get better rates on policies through competition afforded by the health care exchange.

And there’s a whole lot more. So go ahead and revel in the fact that Republicans failed to do what they’ve promised for seven long years. Go ahead and celebrate that people’s lives will be better without Trumpcare. After all, there haven’t been a lot of reasons to smile since November 8.

Wake Up and Smell the Freedom Not to Have Health Coverage

The U.S. House Republicans' super-secret Obamacare replacement is out and it's all about freedom.

Yes, if you're one of the 20 million Americans who gained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, you may soon enjoy the freedom of no longer being covered. We don't know how many people will be covered, but even Republicans acknowledge that it will be a lower number than the ACA.

As President Donald Trump finally noticed last month, health policy is kinda complicated. So it will be awhile before we know all the details of the GOP plan. But one key element to reducing coverage is that they'd end the federal funding in 2020 for states who expand Medicaid. Currently, 31 states, including Michigan, have expanded Medicaid to cover 10 million people.

That could definitely put Michigan's program in jeopardy. Gov. Rick Snyder had to fight tooth and nail with his fellow Republicans in the Legislature just to get the expansion in the first place. The Legislature has only gotten more conservative since then and Snyder is term-limited next year. It's easy to imagine a Gov. Bill Schuette, who fought Obamacare all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, joining together with GOP lawmakers to scrap Michigan's Medicaid expansion.

There are 640,000 Michiganders who now have health coverage due to the expansion — more than 6 percent of the state's population. Yanking away health insurance from them would be unnecessarily cruel. And it's not even smart economic policy. The expansion will have a $432 million impact this year, according to a University of Michigan study commissioned by the New York-based Commonwealth Fund. And that's created 30,000 jobs. Given the fact that Trump goes around irresponsibly taking credit for companies keeping a couple hundred jobs in the United States, you'd think that losing 30,000 jobs in just Michigan alone might give him pause.

There are many other ways that people could lose their health insurance under the GOP plan. Insurance subsidies for low-income people would be replaced with age-based subsidies, which would likely reduce benefits and the number of people who are insured. The New York Times reports that people with preexisting conditions "would face new uncertainties in a more deregulated insurance market." And the plan cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood.

But at least people who didn't want to buy health insurance will escape paying that freedom-sucking penalty, right? Well, yes ... but if you let your insurance coverage lap because you've changed jobs, didn't want to pay for it, etc., the GOP plan allows insurance companies to sock you with a 30 percent premium increase. That's probably going to be a much bigger hit to your wallet.

The Republican concept of freedom always seems to come with a lot of not-so fine print.

If there's one thing Americans love, it's when politicians meddle and make things worse. And they really love having things taken away from them. So this new GOP plan should really go over well.

Michigan Republicans want to crack down on voting rights, but where's the evidence of fraud?

Let's just dispense with the euphemisms. Republicans are poised to ram through bills that will make it harder to vote in Michigan. 

Here's where we are. Michigan already had a voter ID law, but this new legislation toughens up the process. Currently, if you don't have your ID when you vote, you sign an affidavit and cast a provisional ballot. Your vote is counted in the tally.

But this proposed law would set aside your vote. And it requires you to go back to your local clerk's office and produce your ID within 10 days –– or your vote doesn't count at all.

Laws are traditionally proposed in response to a problem. In this case, you would expect that problem to be a rash of voter fraud cases in Michigan. After all, the bills were introduced after the Nov. 8 election, just in time for the frenzied Lame Duck session in the run-up to the holidays (when voters conveniently aren't paying attention).

You would be wrong.  

I have yet to see any documented cases of voter fraud in Michigan in the 2016 election. The Washington Post has only found four cases in the entire country. To put this in perspective, 135 million ballots were cast in this election.

That's why Republican former Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema and I both agreed in a Michigan Radio interview on Friday that these voter ID bills aren't necessary.

“There’s very little documentation of voter fraud in Michigan,” Sikkema said. “Some legislator ... or some party activist dreamed this up and said, well, Michigan ought to do this, other states do it, but in my opinion, they’re not necessary.”

Susan J. Demas: Marco Rubio is the perfect candidate for Millennials –– not Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders may have captured millennials' hearts, but Marco Rubio should really be their guy.

It's not because the 44-year-old Republican is obviously closer to that generation than Sanders, who will turn 75 before Election Day.

No, it's because Rubio embodies the ethos of Millennials, which the Washington Post snidely dubbed the "Participation Trophy Generation." Hey, it's an unflattering stereotype, but trend-story hazing is a rite of passage for each generation coming of age.

As a Generation Xer, I recall being told how lazy and entitled we all were, as well. And some of us were, just like snot-nosed twentysomethings who act like they're ready to run the company on their first day just because they know what Snapchat is. (Hey, I'm 90 percent sure that I do, although I've clearly never used it).

But Rubio is the ultimate "Participation Trophy" candidate of 2016. He's gone an embarrassing 0 for 4 in the first nominating contests. And yet he still parades around like he's the frontrunner, enabled by the desperate GOP establishment that's determined Rubio is their last, best (and dreamiest) hope against Donald Trump.

When Rubio finished third in Iowa, he had the chutzpah to give a victory speech. It wasn't a bad strategic move, and plenty of pundits ate it up. Politics is often about faking it till you make it, and the freshman senator has that motto down cold.

But then Rubio went on to take fifth in New Hampshire. He failed to capture a single delegate in South Carolina and still gave another "victory" speech. Donald Trump then crushed him 2-1 in Nevada.

And yet Rubio backers are out there goading other candidates to drop out, like Ted Cruz, who actually won something (Iowa) and John Kasich, who pulled out a surprise second-place finish in New Hampshire and could do well in the Midwest primaries ahead. New polling shows Rubio is even losing to Trump in his home state of Florida. 

Rubio has the swagger of a candidate who's never lost anything, because he hasn't until now. When Republican powerbrokers have been pumping you up as the fresh face of the party –– the only one who can defeat the Democrats –– it goes to your head.

People are always quick to blame parents for raising selfish millennials who crack under pressure. Maybe the Republican establishment deserves some for emboldening a green freshman senator. Because Marco Rubio obviously doesn't seem ready to be commander-in chief.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Watch the National Review shift the goalposts in the SCOTUS confirmation debate

Thanks to my former MLive editor, Jen Eyer, for directing me to this. 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death has triggered a furious debate whether President Obama should appoint a successor.

The idea that a president with more than 10 months left in his term shouldn't do so is curious, but let's not pretend this is a serious tussle over constitutional intent. 

This is about Republicans, who have a majority in the U.S. Senate, flexing their political muscles to prevent a Democratic president from reshaping the High Court, as is his right. And yes, Republicans have the right not to confirm a nominee. 

But it is breathtaking that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sent out a statement shortly after Scalia's death decreeing that "the vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." He's not arguing Obama's nominee is unqualified –– there is no nominee yet, of course. McConnell has declared that the Senate shouldn't confirm anyone, presumably even if Ronald Reagan came back to life armed with a law degree.

McConnell's stance is particularly questionable when you consider a 2007 piece in the National Review, the conservative journal of record. After the Democrats won control of the U.S. Senate in '06, there was great Republican consternation that then-President George W. Bush couldn't get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed.

National Review judicial columnist Edward Whelan argued thusly:

"Briefly put: Under long-established Senate practice, every Supreme Court nominee is afforded an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. A departure from that practice would threaten to impose severe political costs on Senate Democrats. In a competently run confirmation campaign, a strong proponent of judicial restraint will win majority approval in the Senate, with votes to spare."

In 1988, the Senate followed the Whelan rule and voted confirm Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Anthony Kennedy, on a 97-0 vote. This was during Reagan's last year in office, and yes, McConnell was one of the 97 votes.

But things change. Now a Democrat is president with a Republican Senate. And so has Whelan's argument. Not long after Scalia's death, he posted this:

"Senate Republicans would be grossly irresponsible to allow President Obama, in the last months of his presidency, to cement a liberal majority that will wreak havoc on the Constitution. Let the people decide in November who will select the next justice."

Whelan seems vaguely aware that this might contradict his previous position, so he throws this in here:

"There has never been an election-year confirmation that would so dramatically alter the ideological composition of the Court."

Gotcha. Keep moving those goalposts, sir.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found atSusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter.

Oh, noes! My newspaper's editorial page is biased!

A good 50 percent of my hate mail comes from folks accusing me of bias -- liberal, conservative, anti-warlock, you name it. Although the right-wing whack-jobs lately have been the most persistent (and potty-mouthed).

For some unknown reason, I feel the need to explain to folks that I write an opinion column, which, by its very definition, is biased. That, dear readers, is the point and what makes it fun. And it's notable to me that some of my most loyal readers, who have to comment on every post, are those who disagree with me the loudest. Columns and blogs should create a dialogue. My preference is that it's a respectful one, but some people have other ideas.

So when I see post like this accusing the Detroit Free Press editorial board of ... drum roll ... bias, I tend to snort. Feel free to disagree with its analysis. But yes, indeedy, the Freep has the more liberal editorial page of the two Motown papers, although it's pretty centrist. And yet this Republican is shocked, shocked that the editorial page would criticize Mike Cox for cozying up to the NRA. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Detroit News will endorse a Republican for governor next year.

Read more.