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.

Detroit’s budget: Not something Batman can fix

As the financial crisis of the City of Detroit has played itself, a lot has been written about the city’s “corrupt city government.” Casual observers might be left with the impression that theft and mismanagement are the roots of Detroit’s budgetary problems. I wish it was that simple, but it isn’t.

If “rampant corruption” was the primary problem, then I could believe that the solution would be to simply turn on the Bat Signal. We could call in the Caped Crusader (or a financial manager) and locate hundreds of millions of dollars – hidden under rocks, inside mattresses or deposited in Swiss bank accounts – that could be used to balance the budget. But that’s not going to happen.

To be sure, Detroit’s politicians have not helped the situation. There is reason to believe that the feds, which have been handing down corruption indictments for about a year now, are not finished yet. And one could cite decades of bone-headed decisions made by Detroit mayors and city councils that have contributed to today’s budget mess. Despite all of that, Detroit’s biggest problem isn’t corruption, or even incompetence.

What makes the city’s problems so hard is the harsh reality of operating a government – any government – in these times, especially in Michigan. Along with all other municipal and state governments, Detroit is feeling the impact of a recession that was deeper than anyone realized at the time and a recovery that is taking longer than rebounds from regular recessions take. Those factors overwhelm anything former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick could have done to it.

For an example, let’s look at Detroit’s pension funds. A lot has been written lately about Detroit’s “unsustainable” legacy costs. The problem would be easily solvable if the shortfalls in pension and benefit funding could be attributed to greedy public officials stuffing their pockets with cash. The real story, however, is far more complicated and in no way limited to Detroit.

According to a recent Census Bureau report on the health of public sector pension funds nationwide, the total cash and investment holdings of funds surveyed decreased by a staggering 22.7 percent in fiscal 2009 (which in most cases ended June 30 of that year), thanks largely to the collapse of stock prices on Wall Street. That happened at a time when a sharp decrease in tax collections made it impossible for state and local governments to make up the difference from their own coffers.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System reported an investment return of about 7.4 percent. That’s not bad. But, it does not make up for the roughly 21.5 percent in losses it suffered the year before, when Wall Street went ka-boom. The Detroit General Retirement System earned a 6 percent return for the year ended June 30, 2010, but reported an eye-popping 31 percent investment loss a year before.

Public sector pension funds have been playing catch-up since reaching their peak asset values in 2007. Nobody in the pension fund world plans for the kind of market volatility seen in recent years.

Most state and local pension funds – taking the advice of highly paid consultants with impressive MBAs and nice suits – make plans (and promises) based on an average investment return of about 8 percent a year. However, from 2000 to 2009, the investment return for the average state-level fund averaged less than 4 percent per year, according to The Pew Center on the States.

For years, the consultants told pension funds that it was prudent to invest about 60 percent of their assets in the stock market. The consultants also advised the funds to invest part of their bond portfolios in mortgage-backed securities that turned out to be filled with toxic assets. Anybody who has been watching the performance of his or her 401(k) investments over the past decade knows how that kind of advice has worked out.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence that the Detroit pension funds could be better run. The losses in the funds’ “alternative investments” portfolio, for example, have been scandalous. But even under better management, those funds were unlikely to have sidestepped the financial tsunami of 2008.

It’s undeniable that, even if Kilpatrick had never spent liberally with his city credit card, or (as has been alleged, but not yet proved) steered city contracts to his friends, Detroit would have been unable to shore up the pension funds to make up for the losses. The money would not have been there.

The same kind of thing could be said about any other aspect of Detroit’s budget. Already burdened by things like decades of abandonment, the decline of the auto industry and the inability to collect money owed to it by the state, the city was in no shape to stand up to the body blow it was dealt by the Great Recession and the collapse of the nation’s housing market.

By all means, our leaders should root out all the corruption they can find. If Detroit’s city government can be reformed into a lean, mean, waste-free municipal machine, then it should be. But none of that will end the foreclosure crisis or provide a “mulligan” for the investment losses suffered in 2008.

To use a business analogy: It’s a problem if your employees are taking home reams of copier paper and improperly dipping into petty cash. But all of that becomes suddenly irrelevant if an electrical problem burns down the operation or a tornado hits the place. Likewise, residents of southeast Michigan might be better off (metaphorically) examining the wiring of our region and looking into the validity of the insurance policy, even as we (again, metaphorically) take steps to lock up the office supplies and install security cameras.

The actual problems Detroit faces are fixable. But to do that, we need to face what they really are. Calling in Batman won’t do the trick. The real solutions will require radical solutions, including a level of regional cooperation and sharing of resources never yet contemplated in this state.

Only if we are prepared to do that can we create a region that really works.

Metro Detroit should consider forming a regional police force

It’s a vicious cycle. The municipalities that have the most need for good police protection are often the least able to pay for it. So what happens? Crime fighting is inadequate, a lot of people and businesses move away and the situation gets worse. Then crime spreads to neighboring areas, people move away again, and . . . lather, rinse, repeat.

That’s about to happen again in Southeast Michigan unless regional and/or state-level action is taken to stop it. As I write this, Detroit is contemplating the layoff of hundreds of police officers – a move that could reverse impressive progress the city has made in reducing overall violent crime. Meanwhile, the much-smaller Inkster Police Department just announced it will lay off 12 officers, leading to fear that criminals there will see an opportunity and take it.

Those are just the latest examples of a trend toward reducing police protection where it least makes sense to do so – simply because local city budgets are tight and money to pay for more officers is not there. You can score one for the crooks; that is, unless we develop a regional approach to police funding that is less vulnerable to budgetary problems of any particular community.

By now, you may have guessed where I am going with this. Some of you who live in the suburbs are thinking: “Hey, wait a minute, the place where I live is safe. Are you suggesting that I should have to help pay for police for those people over there, using my tax dollars? How is that fair?”

Let me end the suspense. Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. And yes, it is fair. Hear me out.

As I mentioned in my Nov. 23 column, I strongly believe the way we govern Southeast Michigan ignores reality. Metro Detroit is more than just interconnected; it really is one big community. It’s a place where, except for purposes of divvying up tax money and political power, municipal boundaries have long ago ceased to matter very much. It’s typical for a family to live in Place A, but have husband-and-wife breadwinners who work in Place B and Place C. When they go to the movies or out to dinner, they might drive many miles to Place D.

Here in Southeast Michigan, we think nothing of making a 45-minute daily commute or driving an hour to take in a show or visit the in-laws. Thanks to our freeways, we routinely wander over a land mass that puts to shame the “home range” territory of an average mountain lion.

Thus, it is myopic to assume that crime “over there,” (meaning a place 15 or 25 miles away) is not a threat to folks “over here,” wherever that might be. “There” and “here” are just different parts of the same big place. And crime is the common enemy of decent people all over. We need to be unified against that more than we are divided from one another.

There are different ways we could move in that direction. For example, additional resources devoted to helping local police departments coordinate their efforts would be money well spent. But if we really want to ensure this region is able to combat crime in a consistent way, we need to do more than just share information. We need to share cops.

Other places are doing it. In New Jersey, for example, officials are considering plans to provide public safety entirely at the county level. I am skeptical about entirely abolishing local-level police forces. It makes sense for at least some cops to have a close connection to the neighborhoods they patrol. But, clearly we need to find ways to deploy officers in a flexible way and fund them in a manner that is sustainable in the long run.

One way to do that would be to supplement our down-sized city and county police departments with a new, shared police force serving the entire seven-county Southeast Michigan Council of Governments region. Such a force could help fight crime that stretches across municipal boundaries – notably drug trafficking – taking some strain off local officers over-burdened by routine police calls. It also could deploy officers, as needed, to help local police defuse crime “hot spots” and deal with emergencies anywhere in the region. Over time, such a force might serve as the vehicle for the sharing of expensive things like crime labs and advanced technology.

Such a plan could be paid for any number of ways. Probably the fairest and best way would be to levy a small, seven-county property-tax millage that would provide a dedicated, predictable and transparent revenue stream directly to the regional police force. Governance could be handled by elected or appointed board members representing each of the seven counties, with members apportioned based on each county’s population. To protect the interests of smaller counties, the rules of the board could require a super-majority for big decisions.

As with any human enterprise, there are numerous ways a region-wide police force could become screwed up. The potential for infighting and politicking would always exist. But if we could remain focused on defeating the common enemy – crime – a region-wide assault on the bad guys could make a big difference.

An aside: This week saw yet another stunning and example of unhelpful hand-wringing and doomsaying by the Detroit News.

On The Michigan View, a blog operated by the News, Bill Johnson, former chief-of-staff for the Wayne County Commission, and a Detroit-based consultant, declared Detroit to be more or less a dead city walking. “The city is like a comatose patient on artificial life support.” Johnson wrote in a post dated Nov. 28. “Its health is beyond the best corrective measures of an astute emergency financial manger. It must mercifully be allowed to die a natural death.”

I have no idea what Johnson means by that and he does not explain it. Does Johnson think the city should be disbanded? If so, what would come next? Would it be turned over to Wayne County? Broken up into smaller, bite-sized towns? Evacuated and then bulldozed? That’s hard to say. Maybe Johnson will make that clear in a future column.

News Flash: Detroit is not going away

Here is the thing about pessimism: It doesn’t get you anywhere. Throwing up your hands and declaring the hopelessness of social problems and policy conundrums does not make them go away. It certainly cannot solve anything.

That’s why it is disheartening when folks like Nolan Finley, who ought to know better, imply that the state’s largest city is simply doomed and there is nothing that can be done about it. In a Nov. 20 column, Finley, editorial page editor of the Detroit News, invoked the notion of the “end times” to describe Detroit’s current financial situation. At this point, Finley wrote, “Detroit’s fate seems tragically sealed.”

That kind of primal scream might be satisfying to those who see Detroit mainly as problem to be disposed of, rather than a challenge to be embraced. But it’s not realistic or helpful. Detroit isn’t a fall maple leaf that will dry up and blow away. On the contrary, Detroit makes up the roots and the trunk of its metro region and state – and is not going anywhere.

Why do I say that? It’s not just because I happen to live there.

First, of all, the historical significance of Detroit cannot be denied. Michigan would not be what it is now if Antoine de La Mothe Cadillac had not created his settlement on the straits 1701. It is in Detroit that our forebearers built grand monuments to God like Ste. Anne de Détroit, Sweetest Heart of Mary, and Jefferson Avenue Presbyterian. It’s where Henry Ford created his innovative Piquette Plant. Without the hodgepodge of immigrants, transplants from the south and others who came to Detroit to make a life, the suburbs – which now form the center of economic gravity for southeast Michigan – would not exist. That’s too much to throw away.

I also believe Michigan cannot hope to be competitive again without reviving the urbanity craved by the young and creative among us. If Detroit continues to decline, we’re going to keep losing them to Chicago, New York, Boston and other places where quality city life can be had. Don’t think so? Talk to some of the smartest undergraduates at University of Michigan, Michigan State or Wayne State. For the most part, they don’t wax nostalgically about life in subdivisions built atop former corn fields or the thrill of driving on I-75 at rush hour. More likely, they want to own a loft and ride a subway to work.

But even if you don’t buy any of that, one fact is undeniable: Whether or not the state could get along without Detroit is irrelevant. Detroit isn’t going to disappear. The city will not fall into the Detroit River and wash into Lake Erie. It’s not going to be annexed by Windsor. It isn’t going to be sold for scrap. As Detroit Councilman Ken Cockrel Jr. pointed out this week, it’s unlikely to be wiped out by a “zombie apocalypse” any time soon. Given that, pessimism is not an option because it is useless.

If  Detroit really does have a future (and it does), then the only thing left to discuss is what kind of future we want for it and what we can do to bring it about. That’s where things get hard.

I completely agree with Finley when he says Detroit’s situation looks bleak and that getting the city’s finances in better shape will be an ugly process. City employees will be laid off. Assets will be auctioned. Services will be cut. It’s possible that all of that will be overseen by outsiders brought in by the state.

But Detroit is not doomed, and its future need not resemble “chasing water down the drain” (Finley’s words, not mine) unless we choose to make it that way. It’s time to get serious about governing the Detroit area more like the region it really is, rather than the Balkanized set of little, disconnected fiefdoms that we pretend it is. To do that, we need to find ways to get over the racially charged suspicion and resentments that have kept us divided.

That will not be easy. Suburban communities fear that regionalism is just a gussied-up euphemism for “bailing out” Detroit and a lot of them hate the whole idea. Detroiters are suspicious that the real goal of regionalists is the wholesale theft of Detroit’s best assets (like the water system) by the same people who abandoned the city in the first place. Once the city is picked clean, they believe, city residents will be even worse off than they are now,

But as hard as the regionalist mindset has been to adopt, it’s the only path forward that won’t leave our grandchildren still assigning blame for the same old problems. So we have to take the risk.

Regionalism gets started when we recognize that the lines on the map of southeast Michigan are imaginary. The middle class people who fled the city over the past half century did not, I hate to tell them, flee far enough. And unless they move to Pluto, it’s unlikely that they will ever be completely free from the impact of problems like poverty, crime, drugs, unemployment and mental illness – all of which exist in concentrated form in America’s cities.

Like it or not, we’re all in this together. Detroit’s problems are your problems because, regardless of where you draw those lines on your map, the Detroit region really is one big community. If we abandon the richness of the city’s history, its institutions and its economic potential, we aren’t just hurting Detroit, we make the entire area – and in fact the entire state – less well off.

If you live, say, 20 miles outside the city, you are likely living in a place filled with movie theaters, shopping malls, nice parks, great hospitals and just about every creature comfort you could hope to purchase. Because of that, you might think you are immune from Detroit’s problems. But whether you realize it or not, you are missing something – a lot of things, in fact.

First, and most obviously, you are missing the economic impact that a vital, healthy city can provide even to suburban residents who never venture into it. Good cities are powerful economic engines. Some of the energy for that comes from tourism and entertainment. Some of it comes from cities’ ability to attract immigrants, who bring with them their cultures, their entrepreneurialism and a solid work ethic. More power is generated simply from the magic of urban density, which brings together people and ideas in unexpected ways.

The other things cities do for us can be intangible, but equally important. There’s just something about being in places with a connection to the past – historical buildings, neighborhoods once inhabited by the great people of the past, the sites of important, world-shaping events. Detroit has all of those – and some mighty nice restaurants as well.

Holding on to old resentments or minding our own little pots of tax revenue and power will not give the Detroit region a good bus system or light rail. It won’t fix our roads. It won’t make our municipalities more solvent. It won’t make our schools more competitive or make our kids more likely to stay put after college. Regional cooperation has the potential to do all of those things. So, let’s get going.

Let’s make Detroit the healthy center of a thriving region and state.