Barbara Amble Does Amble on About Proposal One

[XLFD]

The outside of the only letter I received earlier today was from a woman from Okemos, Michigan named Barbara Amble written in an elegant cursive script.  I don't know anyone from Okemos, but knew it was near Lansing, and figured the letter may have been regarding some relatives I have in that general area. 

I opened the letter to find the same graceful penmanship addressing me personally about... well, I'll let you read for yourself:

Usually, I don't receive letters from unknown octogenarian women telling me how to vote on a proposal, so I was perplexed why this woman would take the time to write me, when you think she might have more important things in her life to do.  The stylish writing seemed a little out of sorts for an 81 year old woman.  My mother is the same age, and has terrible penmanship due to the aging process. 

On closer inspection, the cursive script was too perfect, it was computer generated.  Barbara knows her computers, good for her.  Furthermore, her words sounded like they were designed by a political consultant, advertising executive, or attorney, especially with the repeated mantra of Yes on Proposal 1. 

A look back at the envelope it came from made Barbara appear a bit less grandmotherly.  Here's your own look at it, see whether you see something that makes it seem 'less personal':

If you noticed that the stamp was a presorted first class stamp, a special mail rate for mass mailings, then you get the prize-- the use of my full Christian name (which I only see on my birth certificate and driver's license, typically) and  'or current resident' also clued me in to something being amiss on second look.   

Good ol' Barbara says she lives in Davison, and a quick look at people search websites indicate that there is a 'Barbara Amble', age 81, living in Davison.  But why then, does her return address say she lives at 2145 Commons Parkway, Okemos?   Can you guess who lives at this address, before I tell you in the next paragraph, starting after a picture from a local proposal that failed miserably even with the support of this elegant older couple?

The first thing you find regarding who lives at 2145 Commons Parkway is attorneys.  Mclellan Law Offices and Doster Law Offices and more attorneys in the same area.  But also within the office building at that address is the Safe Roads Yes With Regulated Funds 'movement' who have their address at the bottom of each of their web pages. 

Barbara Amble should know better at her age than to hang around attorneys with an agenda.  What she should be sending via precision-scripted pre-sorted first class mail is letters to our representatives in Lansing trying to figure out why Michiganders already have among the highest taxes in the nation, and yet have arguably the worst roads.  Yet, we have enough to subsidize just about every business that asks for handouts from the public trough, even when they really don't need it. 

The inertness and ineptness our leaders show at fixing that problem is what is going to be among the biggest problems your children and grandchildren will face, Ms. Amble, and is actually tantamount to the problem 'you' write about in your letter.  

[Willy]

That letter has been mailed to people all over the State. A relative from Lansing told me today about receiving a letter from an elderly 81 year old woman who is voting to raise our taxes to help pay for roads. My relatives letter also had the same return address. Thanks for checking on this X. This shows how desperate the special interests are to have prop. 15-1 passed. Big business wants this because there are billions of dollars waiting to be doled out if this passes. I hope people are not fooled by this side show.

[rob henderson]

I received the same letter. Obviously they think the public will fall for such a simple trick. I hope they're wrong for more than just Proposal 1.
I wonder if they teach such low tactics of using an elderly woman (who is probably in a nursing home. I tried to find if she was a real person) in law school.
I am trying to attached an article from the local Grand Blanc View.
Also anytime we receive expensive colorful mailings from only one side of an issue, you can be sure somebody's up to no good.

[XLFD]

Welcome to the Ludington Torch, rob, thanks for your input.  Do you know how many potholes could be fixed with the amount of money that Prop. 1 advocates have used for mailing Ms. Amble's letter and all those double-sided matte finished and glossy fliers I get about every other day?

If you were trying to supply a link, you just have to hit the link square in the upper left of the dialog box and copy the web page''s address into the bottom line. 

[Dave]

Got one of these letters as well.... haven't opened it though and now knowing what's in it, I won't bother and file it in the appropriate trash basket.

[XLFD]

Both of the parties of Mason County, Republican and Democrat have decided that this proposal is not for them.  When both parties come together to oppose a tax increase, you know there's some serious problems for its passage.  Not even the meaningless platitudes of 'Barbara Amble' can save this baby.  But be sure to get out and vote, because the proponents are counting on a low May election turnout and are organized enough to get their people out, few though there may be.

[shinblind]

Looks like the yes side has a bit more money to work with...$8.7 M vs $200K.

http://www.topix.com/county/saginaw-mi/2015/04/150424J4UO91

[XLFD]

They can spend tons more, but the truth of this clunker just shines through.  The basic precepts behind this proposal is unheard of, and a big overreach of governmental power, much like the creation of the Court of Claims in 2013 covertly and unconstitutionally in order to shield the State of Michigan from claims against them. 

A good article concerning the complexity and unconstitutionality of the new law is found in the MCP by Constitutional scholar, and local pundit, Nick Krieger, which is worthy of reprinting here:

"The Michigan Constitution is not akin to other state laws that may be changed by the Legislature at will.  It is the fundamental charter of our state government.  It is the sacred, organic document that gives Michigan life.  It can only be amended by a statewide vote of the people.

I am skeptical whenever Michigan’s legislators place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot seeking to alter the elemental rules that restrain the Legislature itself.  The proposed constitutional amendment that makes up Proposal 1 would do just that.

Some legislators have been forthcoming about the structure of Proposal 1 and the ends it would accomplish.  Others have not.  But it is clear that both conservatives and liberals are contributing to the confusion.  I have spoken widely on the topic of Proposal 1, mainly in southeast Michigan.  Wherever I go, I find that the people who claim to have the best understanding of Proposal 1 are often the people who spread the most misinformation about it.

We all agree that Michigan’s roads are in bad shape.  But the proposed constitutional amendment on the May 5 ballot will not fund our roads.  The constitutional amendment, itself, pertains almost entirely to education funding and local revenue sharing.

We’re told that Proposal 1 would result in a slight net increase in annual School Aid Fund (SAF) revenue.  However, we’re not told that most of this additional revenue would never make its way to K-12 classrooms.  This is because Proposal 1, if adopted, will alter the overall nature of the SAF and will constitutionally authorize the use of SAF money for several brand new purposes including community colleges, career and technical education programs, and certain scholarships.  We simply do not know how much of the additional SAF revenue might be dedicated to these new uses.

There is no binding formula in place to tell us how much SAF money will be spent on each of these programs; nor are there any past data to guide us in this calculus.  What do we actually know?  If Proposal 1 passes, the allocation of dollars among the five SAF uses will be left entirely to the whims and uncertainties of the legislative appropriations process.  The state constitution will have nothing to say about the manner in which the SAF money is divvied up among these five areas.

Accordingly, and contrary to what you’ve heard on the television ads, it is entirely possible that Proposal 1 could lead to a decrease in aid to K-12 schools, siphoning off money that was formerly earmarked for primary and secondary education for new, untested programs.

As for the 10 public acts that are tied to the outcome of the vote, there are more questions than answers.  True, two of these public acts would alter the structure of Michigan’s motor fuel tax and dedicate the resulting fuel-tax revenue to transportation purposes, including roads and bridges.  But these same acts would dedicate most of the fuel-tax revenue collected during fiscal years 2016 and 2017 to debt service on certain transportation bonds.  In other words, even if Proposal 1 passes, no large-scale road construction (other than patching and resurfacing) will begin until the fall of 2017.

On a more academic note, the Legislature’s decision to tie the effectiveness of the 10 public acts to the statewide vote is likely unconstitutional.  The Michigan Constitution provides only one way in which the Legislature can make the effectiveness of a public act contingent on the outcome of a statewide election:  It may submit a public act to a statewide vote and declare that the act will not take effect unless it is “approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon.”

It unavoidably follows that the Legislature may not submit a package of public acts to the voters en masse, tying their effectiveness to a separate, proposed constitutional amendment.  Yet this is exactly what the Legislature has done.  Instead of submitting each act to the voters individually as required by the state constitution, the Legislature has dubiously tied the effectiveness of all 10 acts, as a single package, to the outcome of the May 5 vote.  The Legislature’s blatant disregard for our constitution, standing alone, gives me enough reason to vote no.

Further, consider this fact:  If the voters approve Proposal 1, the Legislature will be perfectly free to amend or repeal any of the 10 public acts at any time.  Therefore, it is completely misleading to say that Proposal 1 will “guarantee” additional revenue for Michigan’s roads.  The promised road funding, which is set forth in two of the 10 public acts, would be “guaranteed” only to the same extent that any other statutory creation is “guaranteed.”  That is, not at all.

And what about the tired, old argument that there is no plan B?  In actuality there are several plan Bs.  The Legislature could simply raise the motor fuel tax without changing the sales-tax structure.  Or the Legislature could revisit the idea of levying a sales and use tax on services.  Perhaps Michigan could even adopt a graduated income tax.  There are many options to raise revenue; our Legislature just lacks the will to do it.

We’re constantly bombarded with ads telling us the roads are so dangerous that Michigan’s children aren’t safe.  If our roads really present an immediate safety emergency, shouldn’t the Legislature have devised a road-funding solution by now?  By punting the issue to the voters, our lawmakers are attempting to avoid blame for raising taxes.  They seem to have forgotten that they were sent to Lansing to do a job.

Proposal 1 is complex and difficult to understand.  It would make ill-advised constitutional changes and is, itself, of questionable constitutionality.  It would add uncertainty to the allocation of education money and could even result in lower per-pupil foundation grants going forward.  Lastly, how many of us can say that we truly trust the Legislature to allocate the dollars as promised?  Trusting the Legislature to follow the constitution when money is involved is like trusting the proverbial kid in a candy store.  I’m voting no, and I think you should too."

[Willy]

Excellent letter by Nick Krieger. I hope the voters are not fooled by all of the adds promoting prop. 15-1 and will soundly vote against this proposal.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said guys, and good investigation. Unfortunately, the voters are mostly lazy, and don't investigate much. They see letters like this, TV ads, written newspaper articles, and politicians favoring something, and that sticks. When you talk about lop-sided efforts and organization, plus a spending difference this drastic, it is hard to believe that the proposal could fail. The no side should be publishing this letter scam to the hilt, letting everyone know it's core reality. It wouldn't hurt either if the people receiving such letters return them and announce they are NOT fooled by such tactics, to deter them into the future. It's easy to either believe them or cast them out, and not do this injustice it's fair return to show they are found out, and can't fool the voters.

[XLFD]

Over a week later, even some of the other 'mainstream' media outlets are getting the hint that Ms. Amble's letter is faux, as is most of the other grass roots support behind this bill:  http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/04/ken_braun_safe_...