Being non compliant should not result in being dead

I had heard about this particular Republican maneuver last month. I had heard about the consequences of it. I had heard Democrats complain about it. But the major news sources I regularly listen to or read didn’t explain how it happened. So when another chapter of the saga was in the news I looked up the story in Michigan Advance. Back on December 11 Ben Solis of MA wrote:

GOP members of the House Appropriations Committee, who control the majority, voted along party lines to employ a little-used provision in the Management and Budget Act that allows either House or Senate appropriators to disapprove any newly requested work projects. The vote allowed the committee, chaired by state Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton Township), to cut more than a half-billion dollars in current work project spending.

Elsewhere Solis explained the total amount of money was “nearly $645 million.” A few things about this: This was a committee, not the full Michigan House. The funds had previously been approved by the full House (controlled by Republicans) the full Senate (controlled by Democrats) and signed by the governor (a Democrat) as part of the state’s annual budget, which had been signed about a week late. The various groups had negotiated an agreement acceptable to all. That “little-used provision” is not described nor explained, leaving one to wonder how it gives a mere committee the power to overturn duly enacted spending laws agreed to by the full legislature and governor. This is another hardball tactic by Michigan Republicans. After 40 years of Republican control of the legislature fairly drawn maps allowed Democrats to control both chambers in 2022 and they made good use of their time. In the 2024 election the House reverted to Republicans by a tiny margin (the Senate was not up for election). Matt Hall was elected Speaker and he has been trying to do as much damage as he can (but that would take up more time than I’m willing to devote to it). But this effort wasn’t led by Hall, though he gave his full support. It was led by Rep. Ann Bollin, who chairs the Appropriations Committee. These agency projects have long been her target. Hall reviewed the list of cuts with Republicans so that it would not alienate them. That means all the cuts would have great effect Democrats and little effect on Republicans. Bollin said the Democrats on the committee had seen the list of cuts for 30 days and that her door was always open for discussion. One can imagine Democrats thinking such discussion would not be on the record and not be worth the effort. But at the committee meeting Bollin did not allow discussion but went straight to the vote. The line given by Hall and Bollin was they were stopping “waste, fraud, and abuse,” the old line Republicans have been proclaiming for quite some time as an excuse to cut things they don’t like. Alas, media doesn’t ask (at least doesn’t get an answer to) what the meaning of waste, fraud, and abuse is that Republicans are using. It’s also annoying that “fraud” has come to mean a reason to eliminate a program rather than enact rules to lessen or prevent the fraud. It’s also annoying the phrase is applied only to programs Democrats sponsor and not programs Republicans sponsor, even though cronyism, as in fraud and abuse, is more likely. Some of the programs targeted are the Holocaust Memorial Center, a program that provides mental health services for kids who have been sexually assaulted, a program that helps kids with cancer, temporary assistance for needy families, nurse workforce development, continued assistance to Flint because of their water crisis over ten years ago, and many more. Of course, there will now be efforts by Democrats to revoke that “little-used provision.” On December 10 Katherine Dailey of MA reported on the press conference Bollin and Hall gave to celebrate and defend their maneuver. It’s the same blather as one expects from Republicans these days. On December 17 Dailey reported that the Michigan House passed a bill to restore most of the $645 million that House Republicans blocked. Five Republican senators voted in favor. Since then the House hasn’t touched it. What brought this story back to my attention was the news, as reported by Michigan Public and Solis of MA, that Democrats had asked Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel for her opinion on the maneuver and she gave it. She said it was unconstitutional because no committee should have the power to undo what the full legislature had passed. This is an opinion without the force of a court decision. As expected Hall will take it to court. Bollin said her opinion was more “a political defense of Democrats’ pet projects than an objective legal analysis.” She pointed out the statute was enacted in the 1980s, so it is legal. This maneuver may not have been used before. And “legal” is not the same as “unconstitutional” and Bollin seems eager to confuse the two. Then there was lots of language about thwarting Democrat pet projects, again eagerly confusing that with real needs of residents. Kyle Davidson of MA reported this afternoon that Hall and Bollin have filed that lawsuit against Nessel. They described Nessel as on “a power-trip.” More on the shooting of a woman in a car by ICE agents in Minneapolis a couple days ago. Steve Inskeep of NPR spoke to Juliette Kayyem, assistant secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. They discussed the shortened training ICE agents are getting because the nasty guy is demanding they be put on the job as quickly as possible. That means they don’t have time to develop the judgment they need. Then Kayyam said:

Just take a step back 'cause it's the responsibility of law enforcement to do two things. One is to preserve life. And second is to deescalate any situation that they might view or might be perceived as being hostile. Look, giving every narrative that the White House wants me to believe about or wants us to believe about Miss Good, the victim, assuming she was hostile, she was an activist, all of it, although none of that has been proved true. But even assuming their narrative, honestly, so what, right? I mean, in other words, the whole point of law enforcement is people are often not compliant. That doesn't result in death of them, right? And that is - and that's why we have to think about use of force protocols not as an on-off switch. This is what we often - you know, people talk about it in the political space, well, she was not compliant, therefore, she's dead. Right? That's - it doesn't work that way. Use of force is about a graduated escalation so that you don't get to a shooting immediately. And you didn't see any of that in any of the videos.

Daily Kos community member commander ogg noted the shooter has been identified as Jonathan Ross. Videos have shown his life was not in danger. News reports say he had been dragged by a car a year before.

I believe it was not fear that drove Ross’s action but anger. He was determined to show this b***H that she could not defy him. So in a moment of stupidity he disregarded all of his training (if you believe DHS he had over a decade of experience) and elected to be Judge, Jury and executioner. Did getting seriously injured less than a year earlier affect his judgement? Maybe? Should Ross have gotten counseling if he noticed any anger issues? Definitely. Were his Superiors aware of any behavior changes? Who can say? And should they have ordered Ross to seek counseling if they had? Well uh yeah. Is any of this justification for murdering an innocent citizen? Not only no but H*ll No.

Asterisks in the original. Stwriley of the Kos community posted the statement that Becca Good released to Minnesota Public Radio. Becca Good is the wife of murdered Renee Good. She is now left to raise their six-year-old son. I’ll reproduce only Becca’s last paragraph, which is a great one.

We thank you for the privacy you are granting our family as we grieve. We thank you for ensuring that Renee’s legacy is one of kindness and love. We honor her memory by living her values: rejecting hate and choosing compassion, turning away from fear and pursuing peace, refusing division and knowing we must come together to build a world where we all come home safe to the people we love.