In which I praise Mitt (but explain why I won’t vote for him)

While it is fashionable these days to engage in vitriol and vilification of the political “other side,” I am having a hard time thinking of Willard Mitt Romney as truly evil. Really.

Sure, I cringe when I think about having a private equity guy in the White House. I know enough about that business to realize that it can be creative and helpful or deeply cold-blooded and destructive. Romney’s work at Bain Capital apparently included plenty of both kinds of deals. That makes me uncomfortable. But it’s a big jump from knowing that to believing that one can divine what’s in a man’s soul. People are complicated, Romney more so than most.

Along with his shortcomings, Romney has some very good qualities – as a candidate and as a person – that make him by far the best Republican in the presidential field. None of those qualities make me want to vote for him in the fall, for reasons I will explain shortly. But even so, it’s worth noting some of them:

• Romney is no ideologue: Like Ronald Reagan, Romney has a strong pragmatic streak. As governor of Massachusetts, he was willing to pair spending cuts with revenue increases by raising fees and closing loopholes in the state tax code. That does not endear him to Tea Party activists. But a “cuts only” approach to fixing the Massachusetts budget would have been a nonstarter. Mitt chose to get things done. 
• He made health care a priority: “Romneycare,” seen as Romney’s biggest vulnerability in the primaries, was actually a ground-breaking achievement. It is not the approach I would have chosen to provide near-universal health care in Massachusetts. But, for the most part, it worked and provided a template for the national Affordable Care Act. 
• He’s boring – in a good way: It’s commendable that Romney has been married to the same woman for 40-plus years, raised a family and lived a scandal-free personal life. I try my best to be a good family man and it’s a trait I admire in others. 
• He’s sane: That might seem like a “damning with faint praise” comment, but it’s not. In a Republican field that once included Michele Bachmann and still includes Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, it’s good to have a remaining candidate whom I would easily trust with nuclear launch codes. Now that Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman are out of the race, Mitt is the only GOP contender who, as president, would not make me want to sleep in a bunker. 

I could go on here, but I think you get the point. There are many good reasons to think Mitt is not the presidential candidate equivalent of Lex Luthor. In his own out-of-touch sort of way, Mitt really does seem to mean well. I see little indication, however, that Romney understands my interests or would do much to advance them. More importantly, I think a continuation of President Barack Obama’s policies would be better for me. So, I won’t be voting for Mitt.

The handling of the “managed bankruptcies” and federal rescue of General Motors and Chrysler is probably the best example of what troubles me about Romney. In November 2008, he famously called on the government to “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” and for the government to stand back and let it happen. In a stunning failure of imagination, Romney was unable to see that a “bailout” (I prefer to say “rescue”) was perfectly compatible with the bold restructuring of both car makers that he called for.

Given Romney’s background, I doubt it would have occurred to him to match Chrysler with Fiat. Nor does it seem likely that he would have worked with the United Auto Workers union to preserve U.S. jobs. And that makes perfect sense. From a traditional business perspective, the path of least resistance would have been to let GM and Chrysler go down in flames and take the UAW with them. Afterward, investors could have picked the meat from the carcass of the domestic auto industry and moved ahead into a radically outsourced, union-free, low-wage future. Or, maybe, everything could have just been sold for scrap – whichever was most profitable in the short run.

As I have written in the past, I am glad the Obama Administration pursued a riskier, bolder path. That is the kind of unorthodox resourcefulness that the United States needs right now. I see similar fresh thinking in Obama’s vision of rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, investing in education, boosting exports and encouraging the development of new energy sources.

By contrast, Romney’s main ideas come down to cutting taxes for corporations (again), a variation on “drill, baby, drill,” attacks on unions and more vague promises of “deregulation.” The only Romney idea that appeals to me very much is his proposal to stamp China as a currency manipulator. But, frankly, I wonder of Mitt really has the guts to do it. That assessment makes Romney’s evilness – or lack thereof –irrelevant.

So, sure, I think Romney owes the American people a full accounting about his offshore bank accounts, and his involvement in legal-but-distasteful business practices like dividend recapitalizations while at Bain. I also really look forward to seeing what is in his tax returns. But I honestly doubt that any of those things will prove that Mitt is secretly in league with Lord Voldemort, so I won’t bother to try.

The less-glamorous reality is that, instead of being evil, Romney is a guy who has very different values than me and who looks at business ethics through very different prism. His policy proposals reflect that. There certainly is room in my America for people like Mitt and I wish him the best. But I don’t want him to be my president – even if he is a first-rate husband and a really good dad.

Children are our future? Michigan Dems act like they really believe that

Michigan Senate Democrats are swinging for the fences. The Dems want to offer tuition-free higher education to qualified young people who graduate from the state’s K-12 system – and they want to pay for that by repealing corporate tax breaks.

At first blush, that might sound like a hippy-dippy fantasy dreamed up in the tents of the Occupy Detroit movement. It also could be the best thing that ever happened to free enterprise and entrepreneurship in this state since Henry Ford learned to use a wrench.

Under the proposal, called Michigan 2020, Michigan high school graduates would be eligible to receive a grant for tuition and other costs at one of Michigan’s public community colleges or universities. The price tag for the plan, which is based loosely on the Kalamazoo Promise program, is estimated to be about $1.8 billion per year. That money, the backers say, could come from closing “the loopholes that allow companies to avoid paying taxes.”

In an announcing of the plan, Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement, “It’s time for us to be bold and there’s no better place for us to start than by giving each and every child in Michigan the chance to compete in the 21st Century job market.”

Well it is bold – and that is one reason why Michigan 2020 probably has no chance of being passed as-is in the current state Legislature. It probably should not be passed unless taxpayers can be sure the tuition grants would go only to students prepared to succeed in college. However, the instinct behind the proposal – that Michigan needs to invest in its young people if it wants to avoid the status of economic backwater – is absolutely correct.

Michigan is not attracting or creating enough of the high-growth companies that one finds in places like Boston or Silicon Valley. As things are now, there is no level of tax reduction or deregulation that will help. It’s not a “low-tax, low-regulation environment” that keeps Apple in Cupertino, Google in Mountain View, or Facebook in Menlo Park. It’s the workforces those places (all in tax-heavy, highly regulated California) can provide.

Now, sure, there is something of a chicken-and-egg dynamic at work. Many of Cupertino’s college grads are there because of Apple and its high salaries. But that does not change a basic fact: Michigan competes for investment and talent with a lot of places where “brain drain” is not a problem on the lips of policy makers.

A real bright for spot Michigan is Ann Arbor, which ranks as one ofAmerica’s smartest cities. An amazing 72 percent of Ann Arbor residents above the age of 25 hold bachelor’s degrees and 43 percent have advanced degrees. That’s even smarter than Cupertino, and by a good margin. But, statistically, Ann Arbor is an outlier. In Michigan overall, only about 25 percent of adults held a college degree in 2009. That puts us at No. 31 among the 50 states and four percentage points below the average of the top 10 states.

Those numbers are not bad for a state that has relied heavily on jobs that do not require high educational attainment. For a state that wants to diversify itself into newer, knowledge-intensive industries that require a dynamic mix of technical skill and creativity, they’re not good enough. We need to do a lot better if Michigan wants to play in the technological big leagues.

If we want to do that, we need the whole state to be a lot more like Ann Arbor. And, by “a lot more like Ann Arbor,” I mean a place in which people get good educations of all kinds and not just technical training, though we certainly need a lot of that.

Nobody doubts the need for more graduates with degrees in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, but the dynamic American economy was built on more than that. Just ask Kim Korth, president at IRN Inc., a Grand Rapids-based consulting firm that serves the transportation and equipment markets. Korth holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Western Michigan University. She spent her junior years taking courses in medieval studies at the University of Wales.

What’s important over the long run is not providing training for the jobs we have now. As any former Wang word processor expert can tell you, a lot of specific skills become useless in just a few years. To really compete, Michigan needs people who can think, imagine and adapt – the people writer Richard Florida calls the “creative class.”

The creative types Florida refers to aren’t just writers, actors and painters. They also include innovators in fields like engineering, biotech, education, architecture and small businesses of all kinds. Put them together and really good things can happen to a community and its economy. And that brings us back to Michigan 2020.

Unlike other kinds of “workforce development” ideas, Michigan 2020 is not aimed at simply shoveling unemployed people into specific kinds of positions that need to be filled now. The goal is to raise the overall level of educational attainment in this state and thus, provide the building blocks for a better, more creative, dynamic economy for years to come.

I have some reservations about Michigan 2020. I want to know, for example, how the program would ensure that students receiving the grants are set up to succeed. Four-year colleges are not for everyone, so it is good that the plan also would pay for community colleges. But what about students for whom apprenticeships might be more appropriate?

Also: What incentives will there be to encourage colleges and universities to keep tuition affordable? As it stands now, the grants to students would equal the median tuition level of all of Michigan’s public universities — currently $9,575 per year. The program might not be sustainable unless tuition increases can be kept at or below the rate of inflation. Doing that could be a challenge.

If it works, Michigan 2020 could set up the Great Lakes State for success in a world that puts a premium on brainpower and creativity. It could start to reverse years of job losses and give our best and brightest a reason to stay here. As the backers put it, sometimes it makes sense to be bold. This could be one of those times. Could the results really be worse than what we have gotten from Lansing’s history of timidity?

Michigan ballot measure could strike a blow for legalizing pot nationwide

The end of Prohibition started in the states. If a ballot initiative here in Michigan is successful, Michigan could lead the nation in helping to put marijuana laws in the same dustbin of history where the federal ban on “demon rum” now resides.

A Detroit-based organization wants to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would eliminate all state laws against the cultivation, use, sale and distribution of cannabis plants to anyone over the age of 21. While I am dubious about the measure’s chances of making it to the ballot and passing, I think it is worthy of debate and serious consideration.

As I wrote in a previous column, I am not a marijuana smoker and think regular, recreational use of the drug should be discouraged. Based on what I have seen, I believe immoderate marijuana use is a destructive habit. It can be psychologically addicting and sap the ambition and creative energy out of heavy users. However, I also have seen how helpful cannabis can be for very sick people and I am enough of a civil libertarian to think adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about pot.

I also am persuaded that, whatever one thinks about marijuana, its use is not likely to be stamped out any time soon. On its website,Committee for a Safer Michigan, the group organizing the ballot initiative, says the elimination of “marijuana prohibition” would reduce criminal gang activity; make it easier to restrict access to marijuana by minors; create jobs; save the state money; and free up law-enforcement resources to fight violent crime.

I agree with all of that. It makes no sense to maintain the marijuana trade as a major source of income for criminal gangs when it could be sold in the open, regulated and taxed. And clearly, our police and prosecutors have better things to do than send non-violent offenders to jail on marijuana charges.

The proposed Michigan constitutional amendment would have no impact on federal law. Pot users, growers and sellers would still have to contend with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and other arms of federal law enforcement. Given that, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Michigan ballot initiative is a waste of time. But history indicates that the measure could have a big impact in the long run.

In 1919, the federal government passed the Volstead Act, which outlined how Prohibition – enacted under the 18th Amendment – would be enforced. But ominously, states never took it seriously and did little to help the feds stamp out the trade in “intoxicating liquors.” Maryland never even bothered to pass a state-level enforcement statute. Of the 48 states in the union at that time, only 18 allocated money to enforce their prohibition laws. Those that did tended to make only a token effort. New York repealed its statute in 1923, 10 years before Prohibition was eliminated nationwide.

Without the vigorous support of the states, the Volstead Act proved to even more unenforceable than it otherwise would have been. By 1933, Prohibition was gone. The 21st Amendment rendered the Volstead Act unconstitutional and booze became, once again, a major source of jobs and tax revenue.

In the case of marijuana criminalization, state-level cooperation has been a lot better than that it was for Prohibition. In Michigan, for example, selling pot for anything other than medical use is a felony, punishable by prison terms up to 15 years and fines up to $10 million for serious dealers. Like other states, Michigan spends a lot of money enforcing those laws.

But as the spread of state medical marijuana laws shows, the states are already wavering in their commitment to the war on Mary Jane. Several states have already decriminalized it, even for non-medical purposes. In many cases, incarceration has been replaced with civil fines or drug treatment for small-time possession and prosecution of marijuana offenses has been officially made a low priority.

What if that state-level support for marijuana criminalization went away entirely? If Michigan stopped using its law-enforcement resources to prosecute marijuana sellers whose customers are adults, would the feds be able (or willing) to pick up the slack? If the feds took on the task, how many states could they realistically police in that way?

Say what you want about the over-arching power of Washington and its growth over the past 50 or 60 years. The fact remains that the United States still has a robust federal system of government. We also are living through an era in which the appetite for any expansion of federal law enforcement power is almost non-existent across the political spectrum. If the states ever withdraw their own marijuana laws, the criminalization of cannabis will be doomed.

Let me be clear about one thing: I am not advocating that Michigan attempt to “nullify” federal law in this case. As far as I can tell, that is not the intention of this amendment. Regardless of what neo-Confederates and 10th Amendment purists have to say, no state has the right to declare any federal law to be void within its borders. Michigan ought to continue to respect all federal drug laws and cooperate with the federal government in enforcing them.

But if the Michigan amendment passes, the state would no longer be burdened with enforcing marijuana laws on its own books. And if just a few other big states followed our lead, federal marijuana laws could end up as ineffective as the poor old Volstead Act. That, in turn, might give Congress the incentive it needs to turn the whole issue over to the states the way it did with alcohol after Prohibition ended.

To get the amendment on the November ballot, Committee for a Safer Michigan will need to collect just over 322,600 valid petition signatures by July 9. I plan to be a signer.

Drug testing welfare recipients would ‘solve’ a nonexistent problem

Determined to keep Michigan on the frontlines of the nation’s divisive, unnecessary culture wars, Republicans in the state government have found another way to single out a group unpopular with their base. Fresh off their success in banning domestic partnership benefits for public employees – a move seen as a victory against the “gay agenda” – they’re now focusing on welfare recipients.

House Bill 5223, introduced last month by Rep. Jeff Farrington, R-Utica, would require applicants for cash assistance to pass a drug test. Those who failed or refused the tests would be deemed automatically ineligible. Those who passed could receive welfare payments if they met all of the other requirements, but the cost of the tests would be deducted from any benefits received.

A similar plan is under consideration by the Michigan Department of Human Services. In that case, actual tests would be administered only to those who failed a “screening” process of some kind.

The ostensible reason for either policy is that we would save money. The thinking goes like this: Because everybody knows welfare recipients are heavy drug users, widespread screening would be a good way to reduce the number of people on assistance. Such a plan also would, in theory, provide a powerful incentive for those on the dole to get clean and stay that way, enhancing their employment prospects.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Here is the thing, though: There is no evidence to back up the underlying assumptions and therefore no reason to believe that the program would save much money. In fact, based on the recent experience of a drug-testing-for-welfare plan in Florida, there is plenty of reason to believe the whole thing would be a boondoggle.

The Florida plan went into effect on July 1, 2011 and was in operation until it was halted by the courts last October (the case is complicated and the state is expected to appeal). It’s impossible to know how well the program would have worked over the long run if it had not been put on hold, but the Tampa Tribune was able to examine some of the early results.

According to a story published in August, Florida officials told theTribune that “about 2 percent of applicants (were) failing the test; another 2 percent (were) not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.” Because the Florida law required the state to reimburse people who passed the tests, the program was expected to save the state, at best, a bit under $100,000 per year, according to the Tribune’s number crunching.

Michigan’s savings could presumably be more because our state would not reimburse those found to be drug free. But the budget impact would likely be insignificant. The cost of the tests – $25 to $150 per person, depending on the type – would represent a real burden, however, for those struggling to get by on public assistance.

People might disagree about whether imposing that cost is fair. But let’s back up a bit. Remember that, in Florida, only 2 percent failed the drug tests and only 2 percent refused to take them. Thus, among the Florida applicants, no more than 4 percent were users of illegal drugs. That compares to a rate of 8.7 percent of the whole U.S. population over the age of 12, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Florida, at least, welfare applicants were found to be less likely to use illicit drugs than the overall public.

Those Florida numbers reinforce the findings of academic researchers such as University of Chicago’s Harold Pollack, who has found illegal drug use among welfare recipients nationwide to be fairly rare and confined mainly to “casual” marijuana use.

So if the goal is to find drug users and punish them, Michigan would do a lot better by randomly testing everybody in the state above middle school age. (Doing that would be unconstitutional as heck, but you get my point).

If drug use among welfare recipients is not out of control (or at least, less out of control than in the country as a whole), then why do it? Michigan’s Rep. Farrington has described it as a matter of fairness. On his campaign website and in media interviews, Farrington has said that if private employers require drug tests for job applicants, then the state ought to do the same with people who go to it for money.

I understand that argument, I really do. But welfare recipients are not the only ones who benefit from state spending. If poor people are being tested for drugs, then why exclude wealthier people who make money doing business with the state? Why not test the top executives of companies that get state tax credits? What about members of the state Legislature who draw nice salaries from the state? Clearly we don’t want our tax dollars subsidizing illegal drug use by those people, either. Am I right?

I don’t want to assume anything about Rep. Farrington’s personal motives. Based on what I have read about him, he seems like a decent guy. But, as state legislators consider HB 5223, I would encourage them to examine why they really are bringing up this idea.

If the purpose of HB 5223 is to create better public policy, save money and attack the state’s drug problem, then it is a waste of time and should die a dignified death in committee. If the bill was drafted to help Republicans pander for votes by playing up the worst false stereotypes about poor people, then it is cynical, disgusting and beneath the dignity of those who call themselves public servants.

Either way, I hope HB 5223 never reaches the desk of Gov. Rick Snyder. If it does go to the governor, he should veto it.

Lansing bureaucrats need to go slow (really slow) on a takeover of state universities

I have, for a long time, been a fan of encouraging local units of government to share services, or even consolidate with each other, where that makes sense. I have argued, for example, that the metro Detroit region ought to share police.

But even for a let’s-all-work-together guy like me, a proposal to put all of Michigan’s state-supported universities under the control of a single governing board is nerve-racking. The idea – and really, that’s all it is at this point – is moving slowly though the state Legislature. I think that’s the right pace. Any attempt to fast-track a Lansing takeover should be discouraged because, in this case, doing the wrong thing could be far worse than doing nothing.

While Michigan’s university system is probably more expensive than it needs to be, it is far from broken. It is, in fact, something our state should be very proud of – and the best asset we have if we are serious about creating a diversified, knowledge-based economy. Not only do they train people for jobs that actually exist, our universities are important research factories that keep Michigan in the game in terms of creating and commercializing new technology.

The University of Michigan, for example, was responsible for $1.14 billion in research in 2010. An astounding $751 million was funded by federal grants and another $39 million was funded by industry.  In 2010 alone, that resulted in 10 start-ups launched; $39.8 million in royalties and equity sales; 290 new invention disclosures; 153 U.S. patent applications; and 97 new license agreements. The university also boasts some of the top scholars in the country and turns out thousands of in-demand graduates.

Likewise, Michigan State University and Wayne State University (my alma mater) produce incredibly valuable research, while also doing a good job educating students at all levels. MSU is best known for its agricultural breakthroughs, but also makes important strides in things like chemistry and computer science. Among other things, WSU has a medical school that has trained nearly 40 percent of all practicing physicians in southeast Michigan and is making its own mark in life-saving research.

I could say similarly good things about the rest of Michigan’s 15 taxpayer-funded universities. In each case, these are institutions that serve the state well and provide good educations.

On the other hand, it is a bit odd that Michigan is the only state that gives its universities the level of autonomy that ours enjoy. To the extent that independence helps produce great institutions of learning, it should be preserved. But where it leads to costly duplication and a “silo” mentality in higher education, it does no good for anyone.

It’s for that reason that I was encouraged when U-M, MSU and WSU formed the University Research Corridor alliance a few years ago. The alliance’s goal, according to its website, is “to transform, strengthen and diversify the state’s economy.” Toward that end, the URC has tried to coordinate efforts to make the universities more relevant to the economy outside the rarified world of academia. Recently, URC formed a statewide university-business engagement network aimed at connecting businesses with university resources.

If Lansing can find ways to encourage more coordination between universities and break down the barriers between academic research and commercialization, I am all for it. But putting our universities under an all-powerful statewide board is a ham-fisted idea that has fiasco written all over it.

Does anybody really think our remarkably dysfunctional, partisanship-obsessed, back-biting state Legislature could quickly devise a way to deliver better higher education in Michigan? Is it obvious to anyone else that a state-appointed overseeing board could be politicized, play favorites or find other ways to screw things up?

Any plan for revising our state university system needs to be considered carefully. Any commission appointed for the purpose of creating such a plan needs to be transparent and non-political, and needs to include input from the universities themselves, their students, alumni and Michigan communities. Only such a process – which would be painfully slow and tedious – could create an outcome likely to improve our already-good university system.

If done well, an effort to achieve better coordination between universities, find economies of scale and cross-pollinate good ideas could help better enable the state to deliver higher education that students can actually afford. Done poorly, it could lead to an exodus of our best scholars and diminish the reputation of the whole system.

If we are to avoid creating a debacle, we need to move slowly and carefully in doing something as important as this.

Jamie Dimon should relax; nobody wants to take his stuff away

Jamie Dimon wants you to know that he’s not a bad guy and wishes people would stop picking on him and people like him.

Speaking at an investors’ conference in New York recently, Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it. Sometimes there’s a bad apple, yet we denigrate the whole.”

You’re right, Mr. Dimon, you don’t understand it. If you really think the rise of Occupy Wall Street and the rest of the “99 percent movement” is about demonizing individuals or denigrating the notion of success, then you really are missing the point.

The angst we see in the country today isn’t so much about “hatin’ the playas,” it’s about “hatin’ the game.” By “game,” I don’t mean capitalism, but the way capitalism has been used in recent years to further enrich people who were already wealthy, while the incomes of those in the middle class have stagnated or declined in real (after-inflation) terms. We see that not only in the Occupy movement, but in the Tea Party as well.

One does not have to be a Maoist, a follower of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un or some other kind or extreme egalitarian to be concerned about the rapidly growing income and wealth inequality in the United States. For a lot of people, there is a sense that the 2008 banking crisis was just a symptom of a bigger disease – some kind of cancer eating away at the ability of folks like them to get ahead and feel confident about their financial futures. They don’t want to seize the riches of the top 1 percent. They just want to be able to earn enough at work to provide a little comfort and security for their families – and maybe buy a new car every few years or take a trip to Disney World.

These kinds of modest aspirations get harder to achieve when wealth and income become more concentrated. That is because, despite everything that has been said about the rich being the job-creating class, a broader distribution of national income is better for an economy like ours.

In terms of generating current economic growth in the U.S., it’s better for 86 families to make about $70,000 per year each than it is for one family to take home the entire $6 million by themselves. Why’s that? Those 86 families are likely to buy 86 separate homes, at least 172 televisions, and probably 120 or more vehicles. Chances are good that all $6 million – and then some – will be spent every year.

Meanwhile, the family earning $6 million is likely to buy no more than a couple homes – the main house and maybe a vacation place – and a handful of nice cars. Most of their $6 million probably will be saved and invested. That can be a good thing in its own way. But, 70 percent of the U.S. economic activity is consumer spending and that one family simply cannot generate the same demand for goods and services as those 86 families making $70,000 each.

Does that mean nobody should bring home $6 million a year or that large incomes should be confiscated or redistributed? Of course it doesn’t.

In a lot of cases, that $6 million income actually will come from job-creating activity, like running a business. It’s also pretty clear to me that societies are better off in the long run if they can dangle the incentive of getting rich in front of its more ambitious, creative citizens. The reward of luxurious living can be a powerful incentive to work hard and take risks.

However, the thing about incentives is that, at some point, they become counter-productive. Consider JPMorgan’s Dimon. I am sure he works long hours and cares a lot about what he does. Suppose his board paid him $15 million instead of $23 million back in 2010, or his income taxes were increased by a few percentage points. Would he decide to quit banking and spend his time playing World of Warcraft full time? I doubt it.

At a macro level, the top 1 percent of Americans now controls 40 percent of our wealth. A decade ago, it was about 33 percent. For the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007. In terms of distribution of family income, the U.S. is now in roughly the same league as Cameroon and Iran.

At levels of wealth distribution seen in 2001, the richest Americans had a level of affluence that would have been undreamed of by the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. If we could dial back to that level  through some a combination of political decisions – new regulations on business, tighter trade policies, looser restrictions on union organizing, slightly higher taxes, etc. – would that destroy the incentive to be rich? Would industrialists fulfill the fantasy of writer Ayn Rand and go on strike? If they did, would they prove to be irreplaceable?

Those are the kinds of questions I have been asking myself lately. That so many of our leaders aren’t asking them has me worried.

I don’t know at what level wealth and income inequality leads to serious social instability. There is no exact “tipping point” at which people become more likely to pour into the streets to burn things down, or become susceptible to the appeals of nutty demagogues who offer up radical and destructive “solutions” to a desperate populace. But we’re now a closer to that point than I am comfortable with.

If we are going to stay away from the brink of real insanity, our policymakers are going to have to drop partisanship and ideological bantering and get down to a real, sober assessment of what it will take to maintain a large, healthy middle class in this country.

It also would help if the Jamie Dimons of the world stopped trying to make us feel sorry for them.

Let’s not be a gay-bashing state, OK?

The unemployment rate in Michigan is 10.6 percent. So, can anybody explain to me why some Michigan politicians think attacking the gay community should be a priority?

As Michigan works to claw itself out of the hole it fell into during the greatest recession since the Great Depression, some of our state and local officeholders want to send the world a message. That message is that Michigan is open for business, we want your investment dollars and your 21^st century jobs and, oh yes … one more thing: We’re pretty darned intolerant when it comes to gay people.

Late last week, state legislators sent Gov. Rick Snyder a bill that would ban domestic partner benefits for unmarried public employees in the state. The bill would affect the live-in partners of all unmarried employees, straight or gay. But the main targets are homosexual couples who are not only unmarried, but unlikely to get married any time soon, thanks to a constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004.

Snyder – who is smart enough to know what kind of message this kind of legislation sends to the world – is expected to sign the bill anyway, after a review period.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman has said she fully expects the university to lose employees over this if the bill is deemed to apply to state universities. In a statement Coleman issued prior to the bill’s passage, she wrote “employees currently responsible for providing health coverage for their families may well leave, and other top candidates will choose not to come.”

This action is bad enough on its own. But the measure was not passed in a vacuum. It is happening within the context of a nonsensical culture war we really don’t need to have.

Last month, our Lansing lawmakers embarrassed themselves by trying to insert language in a school anti-bullying bill intended to carve out an exception for bullying motivated by “sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.” Critics rightly called that provision “a license to bully” for those who might want to express disapproval of homosexuality by tormenting others. In the end, the legislation, dubbed Matt’s Safe School Law, was passed and signed without the “moral conviction” language. That the clause was even debated, however, was mortifying.

More recently, it was revealed that newly elected Troy Mayor Janice Daniels had posted anti-gay slurs on her Facebook page prior to being elected. When the posts were discovered, Daniels sort ofapologized, but in a way that also defended her comments. The whole affair earned Daniels a “Worst Person in the World” awardon “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” which airs on Current TV. (The only silver lining here is that hardly anybody watches Current TV.)

I have to ask: Is this how we want our representatives to spend their time? When outsiders think about Michigan, do we really want them to think “gay bashing” instead of “lakes, cars and good universities?”

OK, I get it. Some of you do not “approve of” homosexuality. Maybe you have religious objections, or perhaps, the whole thing just strikes you as “icky.” That gives you the perfect right to refrain from gay sex and shun homosexuals if you choose. That does not, however, give you the right to dictate those choices to other people – through legislation, intimidation or any other means. Even if you had that right, it would not be in your interest to exercise it.

Michigan needs to attract the best talent – the most creative, smartest people out there. I am not suggesting that most of those people are gay. But a lot of educated people care a great deal about the culture that surrounds them. Tolerance matters to them. If Michigan is seen as a narrow-minded, bigoted place that goes out of its way to pick on the gay community, the state will be less likely to attract those “creative class” people and companies it needs to strive.

Here is another thing: When people decide to use the power of government to take “moral stands” against homosexuality, what exactly do they hope to accomplish? Do they believe driving gays into the closet will make society better? Do they think homosexuality can be done away with if we apply enough disapproval and persecution to gay people? Not. Gonna. Happen.

As long as there have been humans walking the planet, there have been some people attracted to members of the same sex. This leads me to believe that homosexuality is as normal to the human condition as variations in skin and eye color, or the urge to bet on football. It also is evident that knowing a person’s sexual orientation, by itself, tells me nothing about his or her character. It is a trait, not a failing.

But, but, but … if we offer things like employee benefits to the partners of gay employees, isn’t that an attack on the traditional family structure? Doesn’t that diminish the whole institution of traditional marriage? Shouldn’t we all stand up for old-fashioned family values?

I am a big fan of traditional marriage. I have been part of one for more than 18 years. For the life of me, though, I don’t understand how the legal status of the gay couple up the street has a negative impact on my family. Nor do I see how denying health insurance to the loved ones of certain people helps me in any way. If anything, it hurts me if it means somebody is more likely to depend on charity care when he or she goes to the hospital.

So, if the goal of denying family health insurance to gay couples is to protect the sanctity of my home, don’t bother. We’ll be fine.

Speaking of intolerance…

I have been watching with amusement efforts by the home-improvement chain Lowe’s to retreat from its decision to pull ads from the TLC network’s TV show “All American Muslim,” filmed in Dearborn.

Lowe’s pulled the ads largely because of pressure from the Florida Family Association (FFA), which objects to the show entirely because it does not confirm FFA’s pre-conceived ideas. The subjects of the show, FFA says, are just too normal. Not one member of the families highlighted spends time participating in a worldwide jihad or planning for the establishment of a global caliphate. That, according to FFA, distorts the truth.

Here’s the thing, FFA: You could not be more wrong. If the Muslim families featured on “All American Muslim” seem like normal, middle-class suburban people just trying to get by, it’s because that is what they are. The kind of assimilated, normal, classic American-with-a-twist existence depicted on “All American Muslim” is far more representative of Muslim life in Dearborn than anything you folks in Florida could dream up in your fevered, Islamophobic imaginations.

Instead of organizing advertisers to boycott “All American Muslim,” perhaps the leaders of the FFA and their flock should watch the show and see what they can learn from it. Better yet, maybe they should visit Dearborn for themselves. The restaurants alone would make the trip worthwhile.