People Finally Getting a Peek at Snyder

What does it mean that Rick Snyder's popularity is dropping like a rock?

That's what the polls say. Snyder's approval rating plunged from 59 percent in January to 44 percent in February. His disapproval rating went from 8 percent in January to 27 percent in February. In other words, his approval rating dropped by 25 percent and his disapproval rating went up 300 percent.

One possible reading is that Michigan voters don't like his interpretation of "shared sacrifice" in which the people do the sacrificing and businesses divy up the rewards. And the polls bear that out, with his big tax increases for poor and working people being extremely unpopular. People don't see fairness in what he is proposing.

They also don't see any long-term gain. People will sacrifice if it means better schools for their kids, better police and fire protection, and so on. But Snyder's tax increases won't give people that. Schools and local communities are getting millions less.

People will sacrifice if they think it will improve the economy. That's why people like the film incentives. A company gets an incentive, they show up in your community to make a movie and they hire people and spend money and you can see it. But Snyder can't demonstrate that forcing working people and poor people to pay more taxes will mean anything more than bigger profits for businesses. He can't offer a single estimate of the number of jobs that will be created because we know from decades of cutting taxes for business that there is no guarantee lower taxes will mean more jobs.

Furthermore, people don't like surprises, and most of Snyder's proposals amount to a big nasty surprise. During the campaign, Snyder never said he was going to raise taxes on working people and poor people and senior citizens. He said he was going to eliminate the Michigan Business Tax but he never was pressed to say how he would make up the revenue.

In fact, he was never pressed to say much of anything. He only did one debate during the general election campaign. Most of what people knew about him came from his own commercials. Even his State of the State message was mostly vague generalities. Snyder's budget message was the first chance people had to learn what Snyder believed in.

And they don't like it.

Snyder's Plan to Balance State Budget Unbalances Hundreds More

Rick Snyder supposedly has offered a plan to balance the state budget.

How much the budget was projected to be in deficit seems to be in dispute. Sometimes, news stories say the deficit is $1.8 billion. Other times, $1.4 billion or $1.6 billion.

Anyway, Snyder has a plan to get rid of the deficit -- by moving it to your local school district, university, city, or township. School districts will face state aid cuts of $470 per student, costing school districts millions of dollars even though the state school aid fund has a surplus. Universities are taking a 15 percent cut. Revenue sharing for cities and townships would be cut.

So by balancing one budget, Snyder has unbalanced hundreds more, leaving local officials with the chore of re-figuring their budgets while he can claim to have eliminated the state deficit, however much it is.

This is what passes for leadership in Michigan -- shifting the problem to someone else to solve.

Big Loophole in Snyder's Plan to End Taxes for Business

Rick Snyder's plan to load down poor people and senior citizens with higher income taxes so businesses won't pay any at all is supposed to create all kinds of jobs. Exactly how, is unclear, since jobs are created when there is a demand for what is being produced and sold. And if poor people and senior citizens have less money in their pockets, they will be able to demand and buy less.

But one thing it will create is a big giant loophole for business owners. And here's the reason. Profits in the business they own will be untaxed. Salary that they pay themselves will be taxed. So it will be even more to their advantage to claim as many business expenses as they possibly can, and reduce their salary and personal income taxes.

The car that most people pay for out of their salary? That's a business expense, along with the license plate fee, insurance, gas, and maintenance. Cell phones? Gotta have one for the business. Home computer? The business just needed a new one so the "old" one can come home. Country club membership and monthly dues? That's essential for networking so it's paid by the business rather than with salary. If the business is a restaurant, the owner can bring home a couple steaks bought wholesale instead of running to the grocery store. There will be all sorts of additional creative accounting to keep money inside the business and not paid out in salary to the owner.

That income will never be taxed, no matter how many demands the business makes on public services -- university graduates educated at public expense, clean water, law enforcement, and so on. Senior citizens receiving pensions, though, have paid income taxes their entire lives. They're getting a break at the end, not a permanent free ride with a big loophole.

Did Snyder Mislead on Film Credits?

One of the disturbing things about Rick Snyder's budget for Michigan is his decision to gut the incentives for the film industry, allowing just $25 million this year.

Chasing thousands of jobs out of the state and ending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of economic activity would be bad enough, but now it appears Snyder wasn't honest about it.

That would be bad enough but two separate individuals have now said publicly that Snyder told them in advance of the budget's release that he was not planning to drastically cut the program.

Jeff Daniels, the Chelsea-based actor, was the first to go public. The Detroit Free Press on Thursday (Feb.17, 2011) reported:

"'It's really disheartening,' Daniels said of Snyder's budget plan. 'It's not what he told me privately, so to be honest, I guess he's a politician after all. Say one thing, do another.'"

Then on Sunday, Free Press columnist Mitch Albom reported a similar conversation with Snyder. Albom wrote:

"As a person who helped create the film credits program, I asked for months to meet with Snyder to show they could be tightened but kept going. I finally was granted that meeting two weeks ago. Snyder told me, to my face, he planned to honor the commitments already made and allocate $100 million annually to the program -- a drop in the bucket of a $47-billion state budget. While this new cap represented a slowdown, I thought, in desperate times, it was almost enough to keep the new studios and work force going.

"Then, on Thursday, he announced his actual allocation to the film program: $25 million."

Albom also reported hearing from several others who were also told by Snyder that he did not intend to kill the program.

Albom and Daniels probably aren't lying. Two people who have separate conversations with Snyder and come away with the same impression amounts to pretty reliable evidence.

So we are left wondering what happened. Did Snyder intend to do what he told Daniels and Albom and then get talked out of by his recruits from the Gov. John Engler administration? If so, who's really in charge? Did he just make a mistake and have his figures wrong when he talked to Albom and Daniels? If so, he's not as great with numbers as he wants us to believe. Or did he hide the truth because he didn't want to have the uncomfortable task of admitting he was killing thousands of jobs? If so, he lacks the ourage of his convictions.

None of these scenarios -- and there probably are more -- is very comforting. Snyder needs to explain what happened if people are going to ever trust his word again.

Mr. Numbers Guy Needs to Re-check His Figures

A lot has been made about Rick Snyder being a CPA and how great that was to have a CPA in charge of Michigan's budget. But it seems like this CPA doesn't understand either basic arithmetic or human behavior.

One of his great ideas for shifting the tax burden in this state from business to working people was to really sock it to the poorest working people he could find by ending the Earned Income Tax Credit. The credit supplements a federal Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor designed to keep them working and off welfare. It was such a good idea that even Ronald Reagan supported it. And it packs a strong economic punch. For every $1 the state spends on it, it generates $1.67 in economic activity. Nearly every cent is spent right in the state of Michigan. And it keeps about 25,000 people off welfare.

But in an interview with the Detroit Free Press, multi-millionaire Rick Snyder says that money doesn't matter to the working poor.

"It is really a federal program. You get $1 from the federal program and you got 20 cents more from the state. You stop and ask from a policy perspective, was anyone joining the EITC program to get those extra 20 cents? No. They were making the decision to get the dollar."

That extra 20 cents doesn't help people, doesn't motivate people? Maybe to help multi-millionaire Rick understand how the little people think, we should put it into business terms. Let's say some company, maybe one selling computers, say a 20 percent decline in sales of one of its products, like computer keyboards, would
the company CEO react? Wouldn't he or she want to know why? Or what if someone came to this CEO and said, I know how to increase our revenue on this particular piece of our business by 20 percent, wouldn't the smart CEO want to know how that could be done? Especially if the market was really, really tight and extra sales were hard to come by and the company needed every dime it could scrounge up?

But when it comes to working poor people, Snyder wants us to believe they don't need that extra 20 percent on one piece of their income. Why, they won't even notice it. Balderdash.

Where Is Business' Share of the Sacrifice?

Zero taxes. That's what all but a handful of Michigan businesses will pay under Rick Snyder's revised Michigan Business Tax. They'll get the benefit of $1.8 billion in tax cuts, paid for by increases on senior citizens and the poorest working people in the state. And they'll sacrifice nothing.

That's because they're the "job providers." Except we don't know that they actually will provide any more jobs. Nationally, corporations have had record profits and yet aren't hiring people, preferring to sit on piles of cash.

So what are we really getting for our higher taxes? Not better schools that will help our future workers compete in the global marketplace. They are taking millions of dollars in cuts, even though the special fund set up for schools has hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus. Not better universities. Their budgets are being cut 15 percent, not counting the private donations that will be lost because the tax credits for donating to universities is being taken away. Better roads? Nope. Improved public safety? Not with cuts to local government. A wonderful natural environment? No, we're cutting those programs, too.

Jobs? Well, not if the behavior of companies nationally is any indication. What business would want to come to a state that is racing to the bottom in quality of life? We will pay more for fewer services, as local governments slash away.

Which is not exactly what Snyder's lieutenant governor promised. Brian Calley told a group in Holland that Snyder was going to balance the budget and cut taxes on business with an "all cuts" solution.

Didn't work out that way, did it?

Snyder's Budget Redistributes Wealth

Reading the Republican comments about anything President Obama ever says or does, I somehow got the impression that Republicans hated the idea of "redistribution of wealth." Remember Joe the Plumber and the firestorm that ensued?

So I was a little surprised at all the "redistribution of wealth" proposed in Rick Snyder's budget for the state of Michigan being released Thursday (Feb. 17, 2011).

The way I read the Free Press article, there's about $1.7 billion in redistribution of wealth going on in that budget as taxes are raised on individuals and eliminated on all except publicly traded corporations.

Nearly $1 billion of that comes from taxing people who live on fixed incomes -- people living on pensions that they earned over a lifetime of work.

Somehow, I think Republicans will decide this kind of redistribution of wealth is just fine with them.

Snyder's Tax on Grandma Shows How Moderate He Is

After winning the Republican nomination for governor and then the Michigan governorship without having to utter a peep about what he stands for, Rick Snyder finally has had to show his true colors with his state budget.

In a nutshell, Snyder thinks Michigan should raise taxes on senior citizens in order to give tax breaks to businesses. Snyder wants to tax Grandma.

The Detroit Free Press says Snyder will propose ending the state income tax break on retiree pensions and IRA withdrawals.

Snyder's administration says the $1 billion tax increase on senior citizens would offset the $1.5 billion hole in the budget left by eliminating the Michigan Business Tax. So Grandma and Grandpa will be paying the taxes that used to be paid by Walmart.

Apparently, Snyder thinks the way to attract business is to drive away people. Some of those senior citizens also have residences in Florida, which has no state income tax. Michigan's tax break for senior citizens leveled the playing field and encouraged many to keep a residence in Michigan. This could put some of them over the edge, encouraging them to give up their Michigan residency.

The news media has consistently referred to Snyder as a "moderate." Wonder if they'll keep it up now that "moderate" means taxing Grandma.

Do Conservatives Know 'First Responders' Are Really Public Employees?

These days, there is no one that conservatives love to hate more than public employees. Overpaid, underworked, sucking money out of the economy, blah, blah, blah. Michigan's Rick Snyder stoked the flames of this hatred with his recent phony report on how public sector pay is out of whack with private sector workers.

And, no, I don't think "hatred" is too strong a word. Just read the comments on the Livingston Press and Argus website and you'll see what I mean. Commentators are gleeful over the possibility of inflicting misery in the form of massive layoffs on public employees.

So why then is the local community holding an elegant affair honoring "first responders" who handled the Oct. 10 car accident on U.S. 23 that took 5 lives. It's a $35 per person event at Crystal Gardens no less, one of the county's most elegant venues. I certainly think it's well deserved and entirely appropriate.

But I hope all those conservatives who are so anxious to slash the pay of public employees know who these "first responders" are: members of the Green Oak Township Police, the Green Oak Township Fire Department, Livingston County Central Dispatch and Livingston County EMS. All public employees.

Of course, part of the reason conservative attacks on public workers are so effective is that conservatives demonize and dehumanize public employees to the point that they are not recognizable as people we know and rely on for services that we appreciate. It's always easier to attack nasty, made-up abstractions, and Republicans are good at setting them up and selling them to the public -- a public who thinks their house is never going to catch on fire, they will never be in a car accident, they will never need an ambulance ride to the hospital for chest pains. Until they do.

Hopeful Signs?

Is there reason to hope that Republicans in the Legislature are willing to play nice with Gov. Jennifer Granholm this legislative session?

Gongwer News Service reports Thursday (January 24, 2008) that Granholm plans to stress bipartisanship in her State of the State message January 29.

This follows a private dinner, reported recently by the Detroit Free Press, at which Granholm, House Speaker Andy Dillon, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop sat down with their spouses to get to know each other in a non-political setting.

Lack of trust has been cited as one of the factors in the inability to reach a budget deal during the 2007 legislative session without having to first briefly shut down the government.

Meanwhile, Gongwer News Service (a subscription-only service) also has a note about a House Appropriations Committee meeting in which Richard McLellan, special counsel to the committee, suggested the Legislature "reassert some of its power by initiating changes to what he described as a dysfunctional government."

One thing the House could do is adopt a set of joint rules with the Senate that require action on the budget to be completed by July 1 -- rules that would require a two-thirds vote to be suspended.

At the very least, it would cut down the amount of time for game-playing.

Latest Great GOP Idea -- Let's Dig Another Hole for State Budget

House Republican leaders, who were of absolutely no help in solving the state budget crisis last fall, are trying their hardest to dig another hole for state finances to fall into.

House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche of Novi and Rep. Kevin Eisenheimer of Bellaire want to refund the state's surprising $353 million budget surplus. And then they want to make sure the state never has another surplus by passing a constitutional amendment to require future state surpluses to be refunded to taxpayers, too.

Never mind the unmet needs in the state, like underfunded schools.

To show how far off these guys are, the Detroit Free Press reported Friday (January 11, 2008) that:

"DeRoche accused Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration of hiding or miscalculating state spending to make the case for a tax increase last fall."

Yeah, right. The governor thought raising taxes would be such fun, what with the Senate controlled by Republicans, that she decided to manufacture a budget crisis that would consume state government's time for weeks on end, lead to a brief government shutdown, and generally make everybody look bad.

The constitutional amendment is a real farce. Could the state never accumulate any funds to cushion future economic downturns? Is that really prudent?

What are those Republicans smoking when they come up with these ideas?

Doing the Right Thing

I just read Liberal Lucy's post over at MichiganLiberal -- early this morning, Rep. Chris Ward (R-Brighton) voted in favor of HB 5195, raising the state income tax from 3.9% to 4.6%.

We're in the middle of a constitutional crisis. We have to come together and make a compromise.

I'm going to pay a very heavy political price for doing this. But I feel some solace in knowing I'm doing the right thing.

[skip]

My public schools are feeling a terrible crunch. Cost of public education is sky-rocketing, as are retirement, health care costs, etc. Good public schools mean a lot to me.

I abhor taxes, but this is a fair way to do it with the least impact on state services. This is the first of many, many difficult votes necessary for this chamber to move on from this crisis.

Citing constituent opinion "3 to 1 against tax increase", Ward temporarily stepped aside from his leadership position within the House Republican Caucus because he joined ranks with Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) and Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit) in voting for this bill.

No one likes higher taxes, but I think people dislike our state's financial mess even more. Let Rep. Ward know you appreciate his vote -- email or call 517-373-1784.

Counter GOP's Dirty Tricks During Crucial House Session

As Democrats in the Michigan House struggle through a marathon session to deal with Michigan's budget crisis, the head of the Michigan Republican Party is doing his best to put up roadblocks, all in the name of partisan politics.

Even as the session dragged, Saul Anuzis, chair of the Michigan GOP, emailed Republicans throughout the state Sunday (Sept. 16, 2007) urging them to call or email GOP House members and tell them to sit on their hands instead of helping solve the state's budget problems.

In his email, Anuzis says Republicans are doing the "right thing" in opposing a tax increase (without bothering to propose a real alternative other than phony budget cuts), and that Democrats should come up with all the votes instead of asking for GOP help.

"They are playing politics and want Republicans to give them the votes the need," claimed Anuzis in the email.

But by insisting that a tax increase pass only with Democratic votes, it's Anuzis that's playing politics with our state's future.

The marathon session, which began Friday morning, could help avert a state government shutdown in the next few weeks.

Outwit Anuzis. Call or email the GOP legislators, just as he asked. But tell them you want them to join with Democrats in bipartisan support for a tax increase to save important government programs -- like schools and health care -- from draconian budget cuts.

Start with Chris Ward and Joe Hune.

Daniel Acciavatti (517) 373-8931 danielacciavatti@house.mi.gov
David Agema (517) 373-8900 daveagema@house.mi.gov
Fran Amos (517) 373-0615 franamos@house.mi.gov
Richard Ball (517) 373-0841 richardball@house.mi.gov
Darwin Booher (517) 373-1747 darwinbooher@house.mi.gov
Jack Brandenburg (517) 373-0113 jackbrandenburg@house.mi.gov
Brian Calley (517) 373-0842 briancalley@house.mi.gov
Tom Casperson (517) 373-0156 tomcasperson@house.mi.gov
Bruce Caswell (517) 373-1794 brucecaswell@house.mi.gov
Bill Caul (517) 373-1789 billcaul@house.mi.gov
Craig DeRoche (517) 373-0827 craigderoche@house.mi.gov
Kevin Elsenheimer (517) 373-0829 kevinelsenheimer@house.mi.gov
Judy Emmons (517) 373-0834 judyemmons@house.mi.gov
Edward Gaffney (517) 373-0154 edwardgaffney@house.mi.gov
John Garfield (517) 373-2277 kevingreen@house.mi.gov
Goeff Hansen (517) 373-7317 goeffhansen@house.mi.gov
Dave Hildenbrand (517) 373-0846 rephildenbrand@house.mi.gov
Jacob Hoogendyk (517) 373-1774 jackhoogendyk@house.mi.gov
Kenneth Horn (517) 373-0837 kennethhorn@house.mi.gov
Bill Huizenga (517) 373-0830 bullhuizenga@house.mi.gov
Joe Hune (517) 373-8835 joehune@house.mi.gov
Rick Jones (517) 373-0853 rickjones@house.mi.gov
Marty Knollenberg (517) 373-1783 martyknollenberg@house.mi.gov
Phillip LaJoy (517) 373-2575 phillajoy@house.mi.gov
David Law (517) 373-1799 davidlaw@house.mi.gov
Jim Marleau (517) 373-1798 jimmarleau@house.mi.gov
Arlan Meekhof (517) 373-0838 arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov
Kim Meltzer (517) 373-0820 kimmeltzer@house.mi.gov
John Moolenar (517) 373-1791 johnmoolenaar@house.mi.gov
Tim Moore (517) 373-8962 timmoore@house.mi.gov
Chuck Moss (517) 373-8670 chuckmoss@house.mi.gov
Neal Nitz (517) 373-1796 naealnitz@house.mi.gov
Mike Nofs (517) 373-0555 mikenofs@house.mi.gov
Brian Palmer (517) 373-0843 repbrianpalmer@house.mi.gov
David Palsrok (517) 373-0825 davidpalsrok@house.mi.gov
John Pastor (517) 373-3920 johnpastor@house.mi.gov
Phil Pavlov (517) 373-1790 phillippavlov@house.mi.gov
Tom Pearce (517) 373-0218 tompearce@house.mi.gov
John Proos (517) 373-1403 johnproos@house.mi.gov
David Robertson (517) 373-1780 davidrobertson@house.mi.gov
Tory Rocca (517) 373-7768 toryrocca@house.mi.gov
Tonya Schuitmaker (517) 373-0839 tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov
Rick Shaffer (517) 373-0832 rickshaffer@house.mi.gov
Fulton Sheen (517) 373-0836 fultonsheen@house.mi.gov
John Stahl (517) 373-1800 johnstahl@house.mi.gov
John Stakoe (517) 373-2616 johnstakoe@house.mi.gov
Glenn Steil Jr. (517) 373-0840 glennsteil@house.mi.gov
Howard Walker (517) 373-1766 howardwalker@house.mi.gov
Chris Ward (517) 373-1784 chrisward@house.mi.gov
Lorence Wenke (517) 373-1787 lorencewenke@house.mi.gov