 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Election Watch Can Anyone Find the Little Picture in the 2006
Elections? The economy is the only issue propelling Michigan politics and policymaking. Who—particularly between the gubernatorial candidates—will create the greatest number of good-paying jobs, and could that be by the weekend, please? Skepticism about politicians seems not to inhibit voters from expecting them to produce overnight great-paying jobs for them and their friends, next-door neighbors, and relatives. Clients want their accountants, car manufacturers, and dry cleaners to underpromise and overdeliver. Clients of democracy grab hold of synthetic promises. Some years ago, my middle-school daughter defined “a Mona” for her mom and me: “She’s sort of like the Mona Lisa. She looks good from far away. But when you get close to her, she’s ugly as sin.” We love our state, its people, culture, and natural beauty. Upon a close-up view, however, state voters see something far from pretty. Many anxious Michiganians curse their business, labor, and political leaders for the state’s economic doldrums. The well-heeled fret. The underemployed and unemployed try to get through the day. They mark their ballots in polar opposite ways (most people translate their class standing into partisanship) yet concur in viewing current times as awfully rough. A little sense of perspective, please V oters have no sense of perspective. The unemployment rate in Michigan today is half of what it was in 1981–82. Were it not too lengthy, the phrase “The last one to leave Michigan, please turn out the lights” may have found its place on state license plates. The federal government had to bail Chrysler out of bankruptcy. In cities like Flint, one of four job seekers could not find work; hardly any American city had seen those levels of unemployment since the Great Depression. We begged Japanese bankers to buy Michigan bonds. The state legislature extended the fiscal year from 12 to 15 months to find enough revenue—and stave off recording expenses—to stay in business. We accepted the theory that when the nation caught an economic cold, Michigan developed pneumonia. We’d ride it out. We had perspective. Then, we felt that we would ride it out; now, we are sure. To nearly every economist and business and labor leader of that day, 1981–82 was a correction (a polite way of saying that “this is one fine mess you’ve gotten us into!”). The years 1999–2006 are a portent. It’s not only scary out there, it will get scarier. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger told the rank-and-file this month that they have not seen the worst of benefit cutbacks. The UAW has lost 60 percent of its members since 1979 and a couple of hundred thousand Michigan members just in the last six years. Michigan will lose at least another 60,000 manufacturing jobs and, as spinoff, 200,000+ other jobs in the next three years. Financial and job losses at Ford and General Motors are astronomical. In 1982, interest on home mortgage loans stood at a usurious rate of more than 20 percent. Today, you can pick up a 30-year mortgage for about 7 percent. But Michiganians felt then that their homes appreciated in value every year (their property tax assessments certainly did). Today, we are next to dead last in the nation in homestead appreciation. Most homes are depreciating in value. When adjusted rate mortgages come due, holders will see steep increases in payments, prompted by higher interest rates. Roughly one in five Michiganians feels that the state is on the right track. Honest political, labor, civic, and business leaders tell the remaining 80 percent that, bad as things are, they will get worse. Soon, optimists could become an asterisk. College-educated young people relocate in huge numbers to hip places out of the state. Boomer worker bees check off their days to retirement. The “lucky to be on Social Security” set maintains their Up North cottages and Florida condos, while grousing about the mental torture of deciphering Medicare drug benefits (which in Michigan equates to the value of giving every newborn an annuity of $12,000). The nation’s workforce grows by about 200,000 each month. Over the last 12 months, Michigan’s payroll employment declined by 29,000 (24,000 in manufacturing). Yet, an entirely new economy lies beneath this state’s “creative destruction.” Many people prosper who provide professional services, such as medical care, research and design, and computerization. The ennoblers of a New Economy press on, make money, employ people, and invest. Still, it is a far different economic landscape than years ago. The blame game If there is nobody to blame, there is no problem. If there is a problem, there is someone to blame. That is what “shall we re-elect, consider someone else, or want someone different” polling numbers represent. Since there are problems in Michigan, there must be someone to blame. Will legislators take the blame? Not on your life. The unnatural laws of politics immunize members of the U.S. Congress, state legislature, city councils, and county commissions from voters’ wrath. Executives take the fall. State Democratic chair Mark Brewer might not be willing to give his firstborn, but certainly would sacrifice a limb to have George W. Bush on the November ballot. Bush will not be there—Jennifer Granholm will. Hardcore partisans, of course, will adjust all facts and blather and revert to their default button—loyalty to party. Some may sit out the election. The 60 percent of voters who are embedded in their party are as unlikely to bolt to the other side as the octogenarian U of M alum is to root for the Spartans in the big game. Between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her Republican challenger Dick DeVos, dispassionate voters will find one splendid game decided, quite likely, by an end-of-clock field goal that will decide it. Moving on Michigan has its share of problems in addition to the economy: health care, education, transportation, the environment, crime, poverty. The little picture of the 2006 elections has not yet—and likely will not—override the economy as voters size up where they want to go from here. The question is, when looking much closer at the choices
and having been bombarded by negative advertising, will voters see
ugliness in what, from a distance, appears to be pretty? Will their
primary focus be on things that are bad or things that will get
better? Will they recognize the economic transformation under way?
Will they share with politicians the responsibility for adapting
to and embracing economic change? View other Michigan
Policy Circle documents |
