Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Being pro-equality IS pro-business

Janice Daniels sold herself as the pro-business candidate who would listen to the people and business leaders to better our city.
But you can't believe the promises of politicians.
Instead, she is ignoring Troy's real experts -- the people who live and do business here -- and relying on the advice of people like Birmingham resident David Wisz who she praised as an "expert" on the transit center.
What a laugh.
And in spite of the fact that our anti-oh-so-many people (RINOs, public sector workers, union workers, gay people, none extreme conservatives, etc, etc, etc) mayor was a real estate agent, and by law expected not to discriminate against various kinds of people, she doesn't seem to understand the importance of that.
Businesses that desire to hire the best and brightest know that bigoted hiring practices don't lead to the best candidates for the job.
Need proof?
A reader sent me this link
He wrote:
"Great example of how our local state representation is out of touch."

And it's true. As the Old Fogey bigots like Glenn Clark, Bob Gosselin, Tom McMillin and Janice Daniels do what they can to keep gay people out of Oakland County and Michigan, our state is struggling to keep the best and brightest in Michigan.
But last week they were handed another blow by these fools.
And even a very conservative columnist from the "The Michigan View" cannot defend this pointless anti-gay fervor.

Posted by Dan Calabrese on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Michigan bans domestic partner benefits . . . um, why was this again?

I actually sat down to try to come up with a substantive defense of HB 4770, which Gov. Snyder signed today, and which prohibits a lot of public sector employers from offering benefits to the unmarried partners of employees.

Our friends on the left are having a field day ripping this to shreds, and we can't have that.

So my intended defense of HB 4770 was to be based on simple fiscal priorities: The cost of government is out of control, and it's hardly unreasonable to tell employees that you'll extend benefits to their spouses and kids, but not to their boyfriends and girlfriends.

But I'm finding I can't make this argument with a straight face. Because if saving money is really the objective, then why did the Legislature impose the ban on local governments and school districts, but exempt state employees? Didn't the state just go through hell and high water to balance its own budget? It doesn't need the same fiscal restraints as governments at other levels?

I'm not going to say this "doesn't pass the smell test," because writing that uses that tired cliche stinks.

But let's just say, it's hard to believe saving money was really their objective. Besides, we all know that the preponderance of public employees with domestic partners getting benefits are at state universities, and they're not touched by the bill, either.

So before I can make a defense, I need to understand: What, exactly, is the objective of this law? If it's to save money, the limited scope of the bill renders it ineffective.

Did the Legislature pass the bill because it bothers social conservatives that people shack up instead of getting married? Especially gay people? Does it bother them that employers are treating shacker-uppers as the equivalent of married couples in their benefit policies?

And if it does, I still don't understand the objective of the bill, at least in a policy sense. "Stop bothering us, everyone," is not a legitimate policy objective.

So it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the law is merely a sop to social conservatives who like it when government pats them on the head and gives them legislation that makes them feel good.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to defend that.

These yahoos that we and Oakland County are saddled with are truly out of the mainstream.

No comments:

Post a Comment