DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU WILL DO
There's been a lot of "Granholm promised such-and-such and didn't deliver" criticisms, courtesy of the DeVos campaign. Thanks to the magic of the Interweb, one can easily go back in time. look at what she actually said she'd do when she was elected, and compare to what she did and is doing.
Without further ado, and thanks to archive.org, here is Granholm's plan for Michigan from October 2002:
http://web.archive.org/...
Quoted here is her overview of what her big action items and plans were at that time, and some commentary on how well she did (or didn't), along with my take on DeVos and the Republicans:
What is why I am presenting to you, the people of Michigan, my plan for the future of our great state. It is an ambitious plan that recognizes the fiscal realities before us and is responsive to the challenges all the people of Michigan face, at one time or another. For now, the budget situation may mean that we can only start implementing some of the changes we seek. But I am confident that once we deal with the budget crisis left by the Engler-Posthumus Administration, we will be able to move forward and build the better, fairer, more prosperous Michigan outlined in this blueprint.
At that time, most figured the deficit was a billion and change, but it turned out to be about $4 billion. This doesn't have a bulletpoint, but it was definitely the overriding #0 goal (yes, I count from zero, like a good computer geek). Granholm did indeed balance the budget.
Some of the key goals I propose are:
* Making education our number-one priority - by making sure that every child comes to school ready to learn, by setting high expectations for our students and giving them world-class schools in which to meet them, and by expanding access to quality after school programs.
Education was cut initially to balance the budget, but has since been raised to its highest per-pupil funding ever. The higher standards have been implemented. Michigan is #1 per capita in students going to college. On the down side, average test scores, while higher in some areas relative to when she started (Reading, Social Sciences) are down in others (Math, Science). 10% more students, and disproportionately more from "alternate education" programs are taking the MEAP test than when Granholm started, which may be at the heart of the declines. We're now doing a better job of capturing how bad the problem kids are.
http://www.michigan.gov/...
http://www.mi.gov/...
Is this success or failure? Overall, I'd say it's on a successful path, but reasonable people could differ.
Note this is the #1 listed goal, not "creation of jobs", even though there was much more job loss in the years leading up to Granholm.
* Opening the doors to college to more of our young people through the Great Lakes Scholars Program, an innovative public-private partnership that will fund 4,500 scholarships for Michigan students by the end of my first term.
I'd count the $4000 scholarship as pretty much in the bag. It has bi-partisan support. The only thing holding it up is with the state Republican congress, who supports it but either:
a) doesn't want to give Granholm a victory prior to the election
-or-
b) is so incompetent (courtesy of term limits, which removed all of their institutional intelligence) that they had to spend precious time rewriting minimum wage laws to avoid catastrophic loopholes and other nonsense
Take your pick, or come up with some other reason. Here's the state Republican leadership endorsement:
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/...
Note that most of the money for this comes from tobacco settlements. As it stands, 3/4ths of the settlement money goes here, with 1/4th of it going to the 21st Century Jobs Fund.
Note also that university prices have gone up at alarming rates, though that's true nationwide so it must be Granholm's fault. Just ask Dick.
* Lowering the cost of prescription drugs by leveraging the state's buying power.
MiRX exists, and was mentioned in the debates:
http://www.michigan.gov/...
It's not perfect, but the prescription drug problems the nation is facing are obviously all Granholm's fault. "Disappointing."
* Expanding access to affordable, quality healthcare for working men and women.
Oh oh... the first promise she really hasn't kept! She's been working on it continuously, though. This isn't an October surprise election promise, nor are her timelines for getting it done any shock:
http://www.detnews.com/...
We're getting down to #5 in the list of promises. Since it's not as good as some DeVos-backed Mike Rogers plan to make the rich get richer by turning Medicaid dollars into a glorified health savings account, we should fire the governor.
http://www.detnews.com/...
Of course, inside of 4 months, DeVos has flip-flopped on that plan, now supporting an approach like what's used in Massachusetts:
http://www.freepress.com/...
which goes to show what kind of "Get a job" visionary he is.
* Creating cutting-edge businesses and high-wage jobs by establishing the Michigan Technology Tri-Corridor in which universities, industries, non-profits, and workers are brought together to research, develop, and commercialize new advancements in the life sciences, automotive, and homeland security technologies.
This is the followup to Engler's "Life Sciences Corridor" and now monikered as the "21st Century Jobs Fund" with an expanded focus and budget (from $1 billion over 20 years under Engler to $2 billion over 10 years), which just got under way in its current form:
http://www.michigan.org/...
What took so long? This was one of many piggy banks Engler tapped that, combined with reckless tax cuts, led to the deficit being bigger than anyone thought.
Of course, pundits could contend Granholm should've been able to clean that up instantaneously. We'll ignore the fact that there wasn't job loss under Granholm. Both the state of Michigan:
http://www.milmi.org/ (go to Data Explorer's Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), searched for state of Michigan's Annual Employment #s, used seasonally-adjusted # for 2006 since the year isn't done):
and the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/... (Local Area Unemployment Statistics from January 2003 to date)
independently indicate job growth of about 25,000 jobs (out of 4.7 million -- a drop in the bucket, but definitely not a loss). The area where they deviate radically from each other is in just how much unemployment Michigan had at the start of Granholm's tenure (4.7% says the state, 6.7% says the federal stats), which indicates funny business about the number of people actually looking for work.
As an aside, this sort of "who's actually looking" voodoo happens at a nationwide level. Looking at more data from the BLS site (Historical Data for the "A" tables), 8 million jobs were created nationwide from when Bush started (143,800,000 to 151,799,000 -- a little over 5%). 5% in nearly 6 years isn't bad, but it's not mind-blowing, especially if you factor population growth -- human "inflation". Many of Bush's reported gains in unemployment come by jiggering the number of people looking for work. Combined with median income having declined 6% since the start of the Bush presidency:
http://www.freep.com/...
http://www.freep.com/...
and higher costs for insurance and energy, no Dick, 49 out of 50 states don't feel they're doing just fine even as the stock market is at an all time high. Worries about the economy are as bad as they were in the wake of 9/11. Most growth has been in the valuation of assets, which as folks around the country seeing their local real estate bubbles burst can attest, can be a fickle thing. (DeVos ads blame Granholm for Michigan real estate bubbles, too.) It's not about number of jobs but GOOD jobs. People in Michigan don't worry they can't get a job at a Wal-Mart or McDonald's. Instead, they worry about getting laid off from a better job where they have to get a job at McDonald's without benefits. BIG big difference!
* Demanding corporate responsibility by ordering all state agencies to cease doing business with companies that break the law, tightening state laws against corporate crime, and leveraging Michigan's power as an institutional investor to push for reform.
Nope, Granholm didn't get that done. She tried and failed to get Republicans in the state legislature to commit to such things:
http://www.michigan.gov/...
The Republican party is doing so well on ethics these days. I'm sure with a DeVos administration we'll have the highest ethical standards:
http://www.amquix.info/
Perhaps he can lay off 30% of the state's population and rename it after it's all over before leaving it worse than when he started off, much as he did with Amway. I'm fond of the name "Michicor"...
* Making state government fiscally responsible by holding the line on the number of state government jobs, re-engineering government so it works better and costs less, and reducing administrative and overhead costs to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
The pundits contend that state government "grew" from $39 to $42 billion, which ignores the fact that it's basically the rate of inflation and, more importantly, ignores the dynamics of the state budget. It can basically be broken up into three parts:
1) About a third comes from the federal government -- our federal taxes coming back to us -- which Granholm can't easily touch. As it turns out, the $ amount coming in has actually increased under Granholm somewhat (though of course, what we have been taxed federally has also increased -- the joys of being a donor state to red states):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/...
Is it bad that by attracting more of our tax dollars back to us, Granholm has grown the state budget?
2) Nearly $20 billion more comes from schools, roads, more restricted funds that she doesn't have nearly as much control over by law.
3) The general fund, the one that Granholm has the most control over, is only $9 billion. This is how $4 billion budget deficits combined with a balanced budget amendment are painful, even though that total state budget dollar amount is relatively large.
With that in mind, state finances appears to have been reasonably managed under her tenure, and we may in fact have saved a bit of money. Permits do get issued much faster, as noted in the debates, and Michigan has won "most e-friendly state in the nation" for a couple years now:
http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/...
* Fighting crime by using the latest technologies and focusing efforts to go after parole and probation violators who commit the most violent crimes.
That hasn't really happened, unless you count those well-publicized cybercriminal busts. However, looking at aggregate crime statistics from the FBI's Crime Index, best summed up here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/...
Though 1300 police were cut, and some types of crime did climb up (burglary, assault, DeVos has a laundry list he spits out like a wind-up puppet), others went down (murder, vehicle theft, property damage). Overall, the Crime Index indicates that 20% LESS crimes were reported since the start of Granholm's tenure, and less than it ever was under Engler.
Note that DeVos supported the man who cut police at home and stopped chasing the real terrorists to fund policing troops in a baseless war abroad. Some of those troops work for DeVos's brother-in-law. The DeVos family profits off Bush's change in policing policy which makes us less safe... and Dick DeVos thinks he's furious?
* Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime by demanding that those on parole and probation stay clean to stay free and expanding the use of drug treatment courts.
That's done:
http://www.michbar.org/...
* Protecting the quality of our air and water - and our children's health - by fighting drilling in the Great Lakes, banning new hazardous waste incinerators, and cracking down on polluters.
Drilling in Great Lakes and waste incinerators addressed:
http://www.mecprotects.org/...
There's the trash issue, which turns out to be more 'federal' than 'state' and which our federal reps have been trying to do a little something about. I'm sure DeVos can get it done by passing a law that's unconstitutional, which he implied his role would be in the second debate.
* Building One Michigan by ensuring that all of our people have an equal shot at their dreams and are welcomed into our inclusive community.
This was Granholm's "Cool Cities" initiative.
--------------------
I've got Granholm fulfilling over half her big promises, and on track to fulfill most of the rest. By politician standards, that's pretty darn good execution, hardly the do-nothing record DeVos prattles of. You may not like her because she's pro-choice or didn't pick you on the Dating Game, but slamming her on execution and her ability to deliver? Get real!
One can argue that her plan itself was bad, that she didn't focus enough directly on job growth. Of course, they'd have to ask why her approval ratings were nearly 80% midway through her term. (Perhaps being bombarded with negative soundbytes from a billionaire whose family is keen on "buying influence" has some role in dragging her down?) What's the role of the Republican state legislature and judiciary? If they're so impotent that they couldn't prevent this from happening, why aren't many of the incumbents in trouble? Don't the Republican CEOs of Ford and GM, who donated money to the president who won't give them the time of day, whose stupid war destabilized gas prices and screwed up the local automakers, have any accountability? Was there stuff promised in this term aside from the above of great consequence? Am I'm citing misleading data? I tended toward impartial and hawkish sources for the most part.
Think for yourselves! Don't let soundbytes forge your opinions. Don't be afraid to do some digging and critical thinking. Pass this recap along to any Republican or conflicted friends. Encourage people to look at their candidates' old plans and how they delivered.
And, keep right-wingnut special interests like the DeVos mafia far far away from public office!
Addendum:
"Class sizes are larger today" is an item that that DeVos cites continuously in debates and in robo-calls as one of Granholm's
"failed promises". Let's see what reality is:
"Smaller class sizes" wasn't listed in the highlights of Granholm's
2002 plan, a large enough goal to merit sounding it out specifically at the top. By contrast, stuff like "higher standards" and "after school programs" (another Granholm achievement I forgot to mention -- see http://www.micase.org) was specified. At best, class size may fall under the rubric of "world class schools". I'm sure it's in Granholm's plan somewhere, but it wasn't a biggie.
I'm no educator, but a few minutes of Google taught me that "class size" is a murky thing to count. Because the prevailing research says that small class sizes helps most at the beginning, lots of folks say "class sizes" when they mostly mean elementary or K-3. Some count special ed and|or roving art/music/librarian sorts and|or counselors as teachers, partially or fully. Many equate "class sizes" with "pupil to teacher ratio". I'll take that approach because I have a real job. Another minute of Google led me to the Michigan Department of Education's financials:
http://www.michigan.gov/...
In 2002/2003 (last year of Engler), they count 1,750,631 students and 78,734 teachers. Divide that out as you get 22.2.
In 2004/2005 (the last year they have), they count 1,723,087 students and 76,319 teachers. Divide that out and you get 22.5.
Yup, class sizes went up, a "disappointing" 1.5% in the wake of budget cuts. Looking at reports for the other years, that would appears to be within the normal range of fluctuation.
So, when you hear that DeVos commerical saying "Classes are larger today" ask yourself "was that something Granholm really promised", "how much did they go up" and "why". If the answers are "it wasn't a big item", "a trivial amount" and "normal variation", ask why that's being brought up. My hunch from this and other recent ads is that DeVos is trying to do darn near anything he can to shore up the women vote, to whom "schools issues" play particularly well.