Lary Holland: Official Blog, Links, and Resources

That's right folks, even the folks at Protein Wisdom see right through the Title IV-D smokescreen with one of their newest articles entitled The Mother of All Laws of Unintended Consequences.

Largely supported by Molly Olson's work at CPR in Minnesota, Protein Wisdom detailed the problems with Title IV-D on their front page earlier today.

Simply put, we need to remove the already self-sufficient families from the Title IV-D program so that the unintended consequence of States forcing the middle and upper class families into the program for additional revenue generation is rectified. This will allow the States to shrink 45% of their caseloads, allowing the States to streamline performance to aid those that the program was intended for.

Thanks to Protein Wisdom, tens of thousands more people were made aware of the problems with this unrestricted, free for all welfare program, that is wasting our tax dollars.

For Immediate Release: September 4, 2006

Contact:   Lary Holland, Iosco County Chair
                747-0079
Stop OverSpending proposal will help create jobs, slow exodus of residents from Michigan, lower taxes by ending legislative pensions and limiting the unrestricted growth in state spending.

OSCODA, Mich. – Nearly two-thirds of Michigan voters plan this November to vote "yes" on Proposal 6, a statewide ballot measure that would eliminate state legislators' taxpayer-financed lifetime pensions and limit increases in state government spending to the annual rate of inflation plus state population growth unless voters approve larger spending hikes, the Detroit Free Press reported Monday.  http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006609040341

Sixty-five percent of likely voters surveyed last week responded "yes," the Free Press reported, when asked by pollsters if they would support "a proposal that would do two things: First, halt any future contributions by state government to pensions for state legislators, and second, require voter approval for increases in state and local government spending above the rate of inflation."

Lary Holland of Oscoda, Iosco County chairman of the YES on Proposal 6 campaign, said voters "are clearly fed up with politicians in Lansing and want more say in how our tax dollars are spent."

"Just eliminating lifetime pensions for politicians will save taxpayers over $800,000 a year," Holland said. "Beyond that, Proposal 6 puts the people in charge by putting a reasonable, modest limit on how much government spending can increase every year and requiring voter approval first before politicians can spend above that reasonable limit."

Holland said voters also agree with the Michigan chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, which endorsed the measure after 78 percent of Michigan NFIB members responding to an internal poll supported a "yes" vote on Proposal 6.  "This poll indicates that voters overwhelmingly understand, as small business leaders have pointed out, that limiting the growth of government spending and taxes will help Michigan create and attract the new jobs we desperately need right now to support our families."

NFIB/Michigan State Director Charlie Owens said in a news release endorsing the proposal, “I think small business owners sense a direct link between our state and local governments’ tendency to tax and spend at a higher level than most other states, and the fact that businesses are fleeing Michigan for better economic climates.”  http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_29724.html

The poll also found that 21 percent said they would oppose the proposal, the Free Press reported, while 14 percent said they were unsure.  The poll was conducted last week by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, Iowa, which surveyed 803 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Last week, the Michigan Secretary of State's office found that 80 percent of the over 500,000 signatures gathered statewide in support of Proposal 6 are those of valid registered voters, far more than the 317,000 required to place the proposal on the November general election ballot.

The bipartisan state Senate Fiscal Agency reported earlier this month that Proposal 6 will prohibit pensions for future members of the Legislature, saving taxpayers $837,000 a year.  www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa

The proposal would also allow state government spending to increase each year, but limit that increase to no more than the annual rate of inflation plus the annual percentage of Michigan’s population growth.  Lawmakers could increase spending above and beyond the allowed increase limit by placing a higher spending proposal on the ballot for voter approval.  The proposal would also require local voter approval of all new city and county fees, assessments, and long-term indebtedness.
 
The bipartisan Senate Fiscal Agency reported that beyond the $837,000 annual savings on lawmakers' pensions, "it is difficult to suggest any other direct fiscal impact that passage of the constitutional amendment would have on the budgets of state or local units of government.”

The increase in this year’s state budget over the previous year, the agency reported, is actually less than the inflation and population growth limit the measure would establish.  Supporters say that proves how reasonable the proposed limit is, and that its primary effect will be to ensure spending increases remain at a reasonable rate after Michigan's economy recovers. 
# # #

Requesting Change begins with holding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the intent of Title IV-D Welfare.

Preventing the States from using Title IV-D welfare to generate revenues is essential for program success and is required for States to focus on providing a safety-net for needy families. Improved administration and legislation that limits Title IV-D incentives for increasing the number of broken homes will keep over participation problems from plaguing Title IV-D and allow States to focus on needy families.

Find here my letter to Dr. Wade Horn requesting both administrative controls and legislative modifications of the program to be put into place.

To see Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund's endorsement click this link. A list of additional supporters and endorsements will be provided at a later time.

The Federal Government needs to bring Title IV-D back into compliance with its original intent (recuperate money expended through TANF/AFDC) and improve the program for needy families not streamline it for state revenue generation by preventing children substantially the same access to both parents.

If your organization wants to endorse this effort, you may fax your endorsement or letter of support to 989-764-5920 addressed to Dr. Wade Horn stating that "Our organization supports the proposed modifications of Title IV-D requested on July 17, 2006") Others are already circulating this effort in Washington D.C.

Remember, Title IV-D in 2006 amounts to over $4.2 BILLION dollars out of your Social Security for the inclusion of the wealthy and middle-class into this welfare program. The program currently rewards States for preventing children from having equal access to both parents and conflicts with Healthy Marriages and two responsible parents. It's time to get real and fix this drastic social and economic problem created by Title IV-D. Join in to help facilitate change.

The Detroit Free Press (August 10, 2006) printed opposing viewpoints on the binding power of opinions from the Office of Attorney General in Michigan. Speaker of the House, Craig DeRoche, wants to end the "unchecked power of the attorney general's office." Maintaining control of our government means ensuring restrictions on the exercise of their powers, and this is one of those cases.

Hon. Craig Deroche: Should state's attorney general decide the law?

Attorney General Mike Cox: Constitution backs power of chief legal officer to interpret legislation.

After reading both viewpoints I found that Mike Cox's interpretation of the Office of Attorney General is the equivalent to the Judges in the 1995 Action movie, Judge Dredd. One man, Judge, Jury and Executioner.

I sent my response to the Detroit Free Press as well as to Honorable Craig DeRoche and Honorable Joel Sheltrown (my rep) requesting publication.

--------------

RE: COX: Constitution backs power of chief legal officer to interpret legislation

Although the Michigan Attorney General, in his August 10, 2006 editorial, alleges the office has issued opinions interpreting the law and that those opinions are binding on state agencies and departments, it does not mean that the decision is final and not subject to appeal to our State’s Supreme Court for judicial review. As with most of our agencies and offices in Michigan, it is assumed there is authority until that authority is challenged in a court of law.

Article VI § 1 of the Michigan Constitution establishes that the “judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice…” and Article VI § 1 provides that “all final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum , the determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record…”

There is nothing in the Michigan Constitution that prevents any such individual or affected agency from appealing to our court system any advisory opinion issued by the Attorney General or raising an issue as an original action in our court system to properly settle a dispute. No executive officer should have the power to both enforce a law while simultaneously interpreting it without the possibility of further judicial review. To grant such broad powers to a single branch would be similar to the movie Judge Dredd (1995), with the lead being played by Sylvester Stallone in which one man is “Judge, Jury, and Executioner.”

Sincerely,

Lary Holland

Cc: Honorable Craig DeRoche via FAX

       Honorable Joel Sheltrown via FAX

Efforts to oust Circuit Court Judge Deborah Tyner were sucessful this week as she announced her resignation. The Detroit Free Press (www.freep.com) announced on August 1, 2006 that "an Oakland County Circuit Court judge who came under fire earlier this year after a television news crew filmed her on camera spending weekday afternoons shopping and working out at the gym, told her colleagues Tuesday that she will leave the bench at the end of the year." This was a welcomed report before the upcoming election.

In February 2006 Judge Tyner was stated by the Detroit Free Press as being "on the fast track for an appointment to the Michigan Court of Appeals" Immediately upon the announcement by the Detroit Free Press of this Judge's conduct requests were made by several individuals acting on the information located at http://www.removethesepeople.org/content/view/13/27 (www.removethesepeople.org) calling for an investigation of the allegations.

What the current Detroit Free Press article doesn't mention is that there are Internal Operating Procedures IOP 9.220(C)(2) at the Judicial Tenure Commission that allow Resignation in Lieu of Formal Complaint. Judge Deborah Tyner's timely resigation prevents her from facing an embarrasing formal complaint against her by the Judicial Tenure Commission regarding her alleged misconduct. Additional investigation will determine if IOP 9.220(C)(2) agreements were entered into between Tyner and the JTC.

Additional Information:

February 11, 2006 (Detroit Free Press Article)

Februart 11, 2006 (Request for Investigations to Judicial Tenure Commission)

August 1, 2006 (Detroit Free Press Article)

Please note original articles below by reading more on the story.

Continue reading "Efforts to Oust Judge ... »

The Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Michigan (Macomb County) responded to inquiries made under MCR 8.113 (Request for Investigation of Courts) today and admitted fault and corrected the issue. The result: Pro Se Litigants now have 42% more time to file initial objections to FOC recommendations. (you still have 21 days to request a De Novo hearing)

See: Macomb County Court Administrator's letter.

Excerpt of linked letter:

"After reviewing the court rule and conferring with the Friend of the Court, we agree that our objection period needed to be modified in light of the court rule. We have already made and implemented the change so that 7 days are allowed for objections to be filed."

"Thank you pointing out this situation so that we could correct it"

Prior Filings and Information:

Initial Request: Request for Investigation

Follow-Up Request: Follow-up Request for Investigation

Letter: Letter to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Clifford Taylor

SCAO RESPONDS: Letter from State Court Administrator's Office

FOCB RESPONDS: Letter from Friend of the Court Bureau/SCAO