So when one of the cities in your district receives $4.8 million for new streets, sewers, and water lines from a bill that you voted against, how should you react?
If you're Republican Mike Rogers, you say, "Streets, sewers, water lines? That's not what you need. You need tax cuts!"
That's more or less what Michigan's 8th District congressman did earlier this week when Gov. Jennifer Granholm came to Howell to tell its city officials that they were one of the first cities in Michigan to qualify for money from President Barack Obama's stimulus package.
In her appearance Tuesday, as covered by the Livingston Press and Argus, Granholm said funds were being distributed through existing channels to make sure the money goes to projects that local communities have identified as their priorities and to de-politicize the process. Remember, this is Livingston County, that bastion of red surrounded by a sea of blue, getting money that not one single Michigan Republican lawmaker voted for. That's pretty non-political.
Rogers, in his statement after the president's budget message, paid lip service to wanting to put people back to work, but then called for doing it by spending less to help cities like Howell, saying, "We can do that if we stop spending like it doesn't matter how far we run up the national debt and if we reward rather than punish small businesses for creating the jobs that are so crucial to our future economic health."
"Rewarding" small businesses is GOP code for tax cuts.
But Rogers doesn't explain how cutting taxes for small businesses will help the city of Howell fix its streets, install sewers and replace old water lines. Tax cuts don't do those things.
But as city officials know, the $4.8 million in stimulus money means that the city of Howell will have to borrow that much less money to carry out its $24 million improvement plan. So instead of having to increase property taxes 2 mills to get the job done, it may have to levy only an additional mill.
That's tax relief, but Mike Rogers can't take one iota of credit for it.
10 comments:
Our Governor governs for everyone, not just Democrats and does not play politcs with spending!
Mike Rogers has dropped the ball and is following Rush to nowhere.
Do nothing Mike has his office scrabbling to find something to do of relevance.
You do not know of what you speak.
First, anonymous, to say "our governor" does not play politics with spending is totally ridiculous.
When Engler left office, widening US-23 was a high priority. It dropped out of sight when Granholm became governor. Her "fix existing roads before improving new projects" directly benefitted Democratic districts at the expense of Republican districts. I'm not saying she was wrong, but she played to her constituencies every bit as much as Engler did to his. To say otherwise is to be either blissfully ignorant or to purposely distort.
And Hurray for Howell. But guess what? With any financial discipline, the city could have gone foward with its street program without the federal money and without a tax hike. But the city has chosen to spend money on pet projects. Despite the down economy, the current budget has two major line items that are up 15 percent or more. That includes a Main Street manager, even thought downtown vacancies increase the longer the manager is on the job.
There is also all the DDA spending for things like parking lots, which may be nice but aren't as important as basic street repair.
Then there are those cute (sarcastic) mini-roundabouts that don't do anything but irritate drivers.
Then there are the several (?) hundred thousands of dollars spent on a new-age planning guru-type company to tell the city that we needed more roundabouts and back-end angle parking on Grand River Avenue.
Maybe all these are wonderful expenditures...if you can afford them. But you can't afford them if you then have no money to do the essentials, such as street repair.
Government-types (not just Dems but a lot are Dems) love to focus in on a specific project and say, "But it's important and we need it." But they won't step back and see how better spending would have provided the money without a tax hike (or a government grant which is another form of tax hike.)
Example: Townships and cities often ask for tax hikes to pay for police and fire services under the pretense of public safety, but they always seem to have enough money to pay for new township halls or city halls.
A Republican isn't a bad person just because he wants the government to take better care of my dollars.
Equal time: Many Republicans screaming about the pork and deficit-building stimulus package were strangely silent over the previous 8 years when Bush and team were draining our surplus and creating a record deficit.
If local Republicans cared about streamlining local governments and saving taxpayers dollars they would have townships that consolidate services and offices. Why we have all these separate zoning and planning departments in each township!
There is very little building going on, we could consolidate!
Having a slightly larger county government and much smaller township governments would be so much more efficient!
Where is there some discussion on that?
Well, talk about red herrings. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but since you bring up a ridiculous assertions, I'll be happy to address it.
First, why is this a Republican issue? There are other places in the state where the townships are run by Democrats and -- guess what?- they don't consolidate either. So where is the discussion about that?
Second, you make no sense. Your argument implies that there is big spending going on and big dollars to be saved. But the fact is that most townships in the county only levy about one mill. (A few levy more when voters have approved a special tax for police or fire, for instance...but these are rare and the total tax levy is still low.) So you've got a township levying one mill ($100 a year on a $200,000 home) while the city levies about 16 mills. The school levies 6 mills state wide, another 18 on a business, cottage or rental property and then another 7 for debt retirement. The intermediate district levies another 3 or so. The county levies 4 or 5. And you want to townships to consolidate because of the big savings? Brilliant. How much can you save when you only levy one mill?
Third, and finally, the townships have consolidated services...sometimes in conjuction with cities. There are library districts, fire districts and recreation districts.
But the fact is, you could get rid of the township government altogether and hardly make a dent in your property tax bill. So how much really can be saved by so-called streamlining?
But you accomplished your goals....you found a way to mindlessly attact Republicans while failing to address the issues raised in the post.
Well, talk about red herrings. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but since you bring up a ridiculous assertions, I'll be happy to address it.
First, why is this a Republican issue? There are other places in the state where the townships are run by Democrats and -- guess what?- they don't consolidate either. So where is the discussion about that?
Second, you make no sense. Your argument implies that there is big spending going on and big dollars to be saved. But the fact is that most townships in the county only levy about one mill. (A few levy more when voters have approved a special tax for police or fire, for instance...but these are rare and the total tax levy is still low.) So you've got a township levying one mill ($100 a year on a $200,000 home) while the city levies about 16 mills. The school levies 6 mills state wide, another 18 on a business, cottage or rental property and then another 7 for debt retirement. The intermediate district levies another 3 or so. The county levies 4 or 5. And you want to townships to consolidate because of the big savings? Brilliant. How much can you save when you only levy one mill?
Third, and finally, the townships have consolidated services...sometimes in conjuction with cities. There are library districts, fire districts and recreation districts.
But the fact is, you could get rid of the township government altogether and hardly make a dent in your property tax bill. So how much really can be saved by so-called streamlining?
But you accomplished your goals....you found a way to mindlessly attact Republicans while failing to address the issues raised in the post.
Oops..sorry about publishing twice...and a long post at that. Don't know how that happened, but I didn't mean to be irritating.
One more thing...the original post called it tax relief because the tax hike for roads might be only one mill instead of two mills. Only people blinded by the light of government can consider a tax increase to be "tax relief."
They shouldn't have to raise the taxes at all. Howell, like other county municipalities, has enjoyed considerable increase in tax base over the past several decades. It's not like the roads have been hiding somewhere, so responsible management would have known that a regular maintenance fund was necessary. Instead of spending all their money on every wish list, a little restraint would have negated the need to ask for any tax hike. Municipal administrators don't like to think this way because they want accomplishments they can show on their resume for their next job. The deferred maintenance becomes someone else's issue who then asks for a tax hike "because there is no other way to fix our roads." There is another way. It's just not as much fun and it requires fiscal discipline.
Meanwhile, your definition of fiscal discipline is a tax hike ... and we should all be grateful that it's not twice as high.
I think you should take your right wimg rant to a republican blog.
Your rants are too long and have too much bologna to sift through.
Republican Michigander and rightmichigan would love to hear from you.
So you complain about length and not content. Understandable.
But why should I go to republican blog when it is you who are misinformed? Does that mean that you think your arguments make sense only to those who will not challenge them?
Short and sweet: Why raise taxes when the tax base has grown considerably over the last 2 decades and population (within city limits) has barely increased?
What? Is everyone anonymous here?
Post a Comment