foolmenot.comAs always the “real story” is buried within the story; not in the headline. First, Governor Granholm must take a lot of the responsibility in regard to Michigan’s poor economy. Secondly, yes, the two Michigan Senators whose job it is to represents Michigan’s interests in Washington have failed.
If both had spent as much time and leadership energy in developing a case for need and establishing positive relationships in [their] state as they did on party politics, foreign trips, and national issues, maybe [our] state would have faired better.
Carl Levin is an influential member of the Senate and is often effective regarding Michigan issues. On the other hand, have you ever seen a Democrat being interviewed at the capitol without Debbie Stabenow lurking in the background… She obviously spends her time tagging along after headliners hoping for the photo opportunity! How is that supposed to help Michigan?
Full article follows…
Washington continues to shortchange Michigan
State's delegation must get larger share of federal dollars
The Detroit News /
Monday, January 02, 2006
Michigan is arguably the most distressed state in the nation, and yet it is still being asked to contribute money for other states to spend.
In the latest Census Bureau report of federal spending, analyzed by Kurt Metzger of the United Way for Southeast Michigan, Michigan lags well behind in the amount of money that it gets back from the federal government.
With 3.4 percent of the total U.S. population, Michigan gets just 2.8 percent of the federal dollars spent. While federal spending was up 5 percent in 2004, in Michigan the increase was just 1.8 percent.
Michigan ranked 46th in per-capita federal spending out of 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The shortchanging of Michigan reflects poorly on its congressional delegation, particularly its two U.S. senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. They aren't doing enough to make sure Michigan gets a fair shake when federal spending priorities are set.
We are not advocating more pork barreling simply to raise Michigan's ranking. But some federal money does have to be spent, and more of that money should be spent in Michigan.
Defense spending, where Michigan ranks next to last behind Oregon, should be an area of opportunity. Levin is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and ought to be a better advocate for Michigan firms seeking defense contracts. (To his credit, the 2006 defense appropriations bill does contain additional research dollars for Michigan businesses and institutions.)
Michigan can't afford to be a donor state. With its base of research universities, manufacturing companies and technical firms, Michigan ought to be a magnet for federal projects.
But in almost every category of spending, Michigan ranks in the bottom third of states.
Federal spending is not the answer for raising Michigan out of its economic morass. But a state as depressed as this one ought not be sending so much of its tax dollars to its more prosperous neighbors.
Michigan's members of Congress must do a better job of getting this state its fair share from Washington.