1005 Granholm’s Anti-Federalism
As of the middle of April, CBS News was conducting an online non-scientific poll. Its purpose was apparently to gauge the overall mood of the country.
The poll was simple. It asked participants to grade President Obama’s first year in office by focusing on ten policy issues. Over eighty percent of respondents gave D’s and F’s for handling of the economy, healthcare, bipartisanship and an overall rating. Over seventy percent gave those same grades for the threat of terrorism, energy, environment and social issues.
Of course President Obama’s government doesn’t see it the same way and neither doesMichigan’s chief executive. At a press conference in March, governor Granholm exemplifiedWashington’s progressive disconnect in reference to the virtual nationalization of health care. According to her statement, when Michiganians realize they don’t “have the actual facts” the tide will turn.
In an off-handed sort of way, the same big government disconnect is happening in the aftermath of the new rules for fuel efficiency. As of April second, twelve states have filed suit challenging the EPA’s patently unscientific finding of a threat by carbon dioxide to human health. Conspicuously missing from the list of states participating in the suit isMichigan, the one state whose auto industry dependent economy could be hurt the most.
With both of these and other missed opportunities to defend state interests, governor Granholm’s actions and inactions seem to default toward big government, both Washington’s and Lansing’s. Her administration seems to have lost a most important perspective. AsMichigan’s constitution puts it, “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection” (Art I, Para.1, Sec.1). Or as the U.S. Constitution declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (Amend.10).
Probably the most telling evidence of Granholm’s allegiance to Washington’s progressive crusade against true federalism and constitutional state sovereignty is evident in her dispute with Michigan’s Attorney General Mike Cox. In her letter of March 24th to Cox, she rebuked him for doing what she refuses to do, defend our state against the most massive federal intrusion into the private lives ofMichigan citizens in generations.
The governor made passing reference to federal constitutionality in the letter but based the bulk of her Obamacare defense on standard talking points. That has become the norm of late, so it is not unexpected. There are other more noteworthy items in the letter. It recognized the Attorney General’s authority to “protect any right or interest of the state, or of the people of the state…when in his own judgment the interests of the state require it” (MCL14.101, 14.28) but then nullified his ability to represent the state without the governor’s express permission.
In the wake of Granholm’s efforts on behalf of all things progressive, her administration has missed and continues to miss what Attorney General Cox has not. Cox recognizes the growing move byWashingtontoward minimizing state sovereignty in favor of Washington-centered rule as opposed to constitutional federalism. Indeed, while claiming her superior pro-state role, she has worked tirelessly to enable the most recent federal encroachment through the EPA and health care reform.
Lawrence W. Reed (Foundation for Economic Education andMackinacCenterfor Public Policy) has noted in his “Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy”, “Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got”. Reed’s principle applies as much to relationships between governments; local, state and federal as it does between individual citizens and their government.
When bureaucrats at any level of government get used to taking from “the people” in order to do “what’s best” for “the people”, constitutions eventually get in the way. A growing list of governors and state attorneys general get it. Jennifer Granholm and her supporters don’t get it – to our state’s peril.