Why cast a vote to raise taxes when you can get a gullible Republican to do it for you in the name of "bipartisanship."

Though I suppose they could just plain see the writing on the wall and not want to lose their jobs.  The AP, discussing the pressure the legislature faces these days has this to contribute:

...Some legislators who support the tax hike could end up in the crosshairs of former state lawmaker Leon Drolet, a Republican who served in the House for six years and is now a Macomb County commissioner and leader of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance. He travels with a half-ton, hardened foam pig named Mr. Perks to rally opposition.

"I will have the resources to put some heads on the wall," Drolet said. "We will end the careers of some of those people who vote for a tax increase..."

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm says the recall talk is counterproductive. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer has vowed to fight fire with fire, saying he will try to recall Drolet if the Macomb commissioner follows through.

"If they go after our people, we will respond in kind," Brewer said.

Brewer would have a pretty tough time being less sincere.  The "progressive" big government liberals have been clamoring for recall efforts against Republican "obstructionists" for months now.  Heck, the leading lefty blog in the state practically published a manual on how to recall any Republican who doesn't support billions in new taxes and spending.

I'm inclined to think Dillon's caucus will eventually get their stuff in order and pass a massive income tax hike.  When that happens recall efforts are a certainty.  At this point they just are.  The Michigan Taxpayers' Alliance is even holding several "boot camps" this week to train volunteers and activists in the basics and get them ready to hit the streets.  And then the shooting starts.  Brewer will be forced to return fire.

Things could get really messy, really fast.  Period.  Which is too bad.

I understand the urge to "kick the bums out."  I really do.  But there's this part of me too that says `you get what you vote for.'  Though I'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Robert Dean or Marc Corriveau or Mary Valentine or Mike Simpson or Terry Brown saying "I will raise your income tax by $1.8 billion."  I mean, did anyone see that coming?  With all the talk about fixing Michigan's economy during the 2006 campaign the last thing any of us really expected was this complex attempt by the new majority to cripple the state for the next generation or to tax 19,000+ people right out of work.

Especially when opportunities for savings continue to smack us right in the face.  Proving even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while the Detroit Free Press is even advocating a new way of doing things in prison spending this morning, and, contrary to every other piece they've written on corrections this one doesn't flat out call for early release of violent offenders.

So far, more than 4,000 inmates have gone through re-entry programs. For that group, recidivism has dropped 20%. At that rate, Michigan would save $50 million a year in prison costs as the program goes statewide -- and communities will save tens of millions of dollars in costs incurred by crime.

...Re-entry programs like these are commonsense, practical ways to reduce crime and safely control Michigan's prison population.

More than 95% of Michigan's 51,000 inmates will eventually get out. Making sure more of them stay out is one of the smartest investments the state can make.

Who could argue with that?

Now, if you think that one is common sense wait till you check out the op-ed page of the Detroit News today.  Further eradicating the notion that any department in the state has "cut to the bone:"

The practice is not widespread, but some districts actually force taxpayers to subsidize presidents of teacher union locals so they can focus exclusively on their union duties. Rochester Community Schools pays more than $105,000 in salary and benefits for its teacher union president to stay out of the classroom. Livonia's local president spends half of her time overseeing a teacher mentoring program and the other half doing union business. The district pays her full salary.

...Union officials argue that releasing union leaders from teaching helps districts operate more smoothly. The leaders are available to handle grievances and other disputes, says Doug Pratt, a spokesman for the Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teacher union. And their teaching time isn't constantly interrupted, which would hurt students, he argues.

By the same token, however, students are robbed of experienced teachers when districts are laying off instructors. We suspect parents might be willing to let students suffer an occasional interruption to have an extra teacher in the building. Or school and union officials could save their matters for after-school hours.

Should a state actively considering a nearly $2 billion income tax increase really be paying teachers to handle special interest business instead of educating our kids?  As a proud product of the Grand Rapids Public Schools the answer is clearly no.  But isn't it ironic that "educators" are often the last to understand economic facts and real-world applications.