In their own way, Michigan Republicans like Sen. Joe Hune and Rep. Bill Rogers seem to agree with GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum that people who go to college are "snobs."
In an article in the Livingston Press and Argus on Sunday (March 11, 2012), both Hune and Rogers came out against a Democratic plan to eliminate $1.8 billion in business tax credits and direct the money to lowering tuition costs at state universities.
Hune found it unacceptable. Why, the very idea that businesses should pay to help educate their future employees -- the engineers, accountants, computer programers, and others who will do the work that produces their profits -- was beyond Hune's comprehension. Somebody else should pay for that, apparently, so businesses can reap the benefit at no cost to themselves.
Rogers came across as clueless as to what has happened to higher education funding in Michigan in the last decade. Decrying tuition increases, Rogers demanded to know "where is that money going."
Sad to say Bill, but it has gone to replace the funds that state government used to provide -- like the more than $800 per student cut in higher education funding you approved last year.
Ir Rogers wants to know why college tuition is up to $400 per credit hour at Michigan State University, he should look in the mirror.
Showing posts with label State Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Budget. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Snyder and Republicans Micro-Managing Students' Degree Choices
Rick Snyder thinks he knows what your college major should be. He's so sure of that, that he's going to tie state aid to your university to how many Michigan students major in the areas he deems important.
That's one thing that's obvious from the 2012-2013 budget Snyder is unveiling Thursday (Feb. 9, 2012). According to the Detroit Free Press article in advance of the speech,, Snyder's proposed 3 percent increase in higher education funding will be tied to: "growth in the number of undergraduate degree completions, the number of undergraduate completions in critical skills areas, the number of undergraduate Pell Grant recipients, and compliance with tuition restraint."
It's the "number of undergraduate completions in critical skills areas" that is particularly offensive. Who will determine what a "critical skills area" is? And how are universities supposed to react if students decide they aren't much interested in Snyder's favorite "critical skills areas"? Not everyone is cut out to be an accountant or engineer or nurse, or whatever the favored occupations that Snyder will select, but students may find themselves pushed in those directions.
That's one thing that's obvious from the 2012-2013 budget Snyder is unveiling Thursday (Feb. 9, 2012). According to the Detroit Free Press article in advance of the speech,, Snyder's proposed 3 percent increase in higher education funding will be tied to: "growth in the number of undergraduate degree completions, the number of undergraduate completions in critical skills areas, the number of undergraduate Pell Grant recipients, and compliance with tuition restraint."
It's the "number of undergraduate completions in critical skills areas" that is particularly offensive. Who will determine what a "critical skills area" is? And how are universities supposed to react if students decide they aren't much interested in Snyder's favorite "critical skills areas"? Not everyone is cut out to be an accountant or engineer or nurse, or whatever the favored occupations that Snyder will select, but students may find themselves pushed in those directions.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Low Standards for Grading Snyder
Rick Snyder drew an easy grader when the Detroit Free Press recently decided to editorialize about his first year in office.
The newspaper graded Snyder in several categories regarding his performance, including "Jobs," "Kids," and "Leadership."
For some reason, the editorial writer thought Snyder deserved a "B" for his policies regarding the health and welfare of Michigan's children. That is hard to fathom when you look at the record.
The editorial has a vague reference to "strict new four-year limits on cash welfare." Translated, that means some 12,000 children in families who will lose cash assistance if a court challenge fails. That's a heartless decision that will have devastating consequences on the "health and welfare" of those children whose families suddenly will have no money for rent, few prospects for employment in a slowly-recovering economy, and few resources to fall back on.
For children in working families, Snyder slashed the Earned Income Tax Credit from 20 percent of the federal amount to 6 percent. Those dollars helped families get by when paychecks just won't stretch to cover everything and Snyder's action raised taxes by $330 million on nearly 800,000 working families, including many with children. The tax credit meant an average of $432 for working families who were on the edge of poverty even with a job. Without the tax credit, some 14,000 children may cross the line into poverty, despite having parents who are working. And businesses will lose customers, since ever $1 spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit generated $1.67 of economic activity in Michigan.
Snyder also tried to make it harder for people to qualify for food stamps by trying to force families to sell their cars. That counterproductive policy would have made it harder for people to get to work, look for work, or go to school so they can find a better job and not need food stamps.
And for this Snyder gets a "B." What does a guy have to do to earn a failing grade?
The newspaper graded Snyder in several categories regarding his performance, including "Jobs," "Kids," and "Leadership."
For some reason, the editorial writer thought Snyder deserved a "B" for his policies regarding the health and welfare of Michigan's children. That is hard to fathom when you look at the record.
The editorial has a vague reference to "strict new four-year limits on cash welfare." Translated, that means some 12,000 children in families who will lose cash assistance if a court challenge fails. That's a heartless decision that will have devastating consequences on the "health and welfare" of those children whose families suddenly will have no money for rent, few prospects for employment in a slowly-recovering economy, and few resources to fall back on.
For children in working families, Snyder slashed the Earned Income Tax Credit from 20 percent of the federal amount to 6 percent. Those dollars helped families get by when paychecks just won't stretch to cover everything and Snyder's action raised taxes by $330 million on nearly 800,000 working families, including many with children. The tax credit meant an average of $432 for working families who were on the edge of poverty even with a job. Without the tax credit, some 14,000 children may cross the line into poverty, despite having parents who are working. And businesses will lose customers, since ever $1 spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit generated $1.67 of economic activity in Michigan.
Snyder also tried to make it harder for people to qualify for food stamps by trying to force families to sell their cars. That counterproductive policy would have made it harder for people to get to work, look for work, or go to school so they can find a better job and not need food stamps.
And for this Snyder gets a "B." What does a guy have to do to earn a failing grade?
Monday, June 6, 2011
'Making the Pie Smaller' -- The Latest Installment
Michigan Republicans, who claim they know all there is to know about promoting business, have once again shown that they don't. Once again, they've shown that they only know how to make the economic pie smaller, not bigger.
The latest evidence comes in two news stories. The first is the news that Howell teachers have agreed to a new contract that freezes salaries, increaess their workload, and makes them pay more for for their health insurance. All that and it still doesn't take care of the hole in the district's budget due to Rick Snyder's $470 per pupil cut in state aid to local schools. What it does do is make sure that Howell teachers have less money to spend at restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations here in Livingston County. That's less business for those establishments, less profit, less need to hire more employees. By keeping a surplus in the state school aid fund and forcing districts to make cuts, Snyder and his Republican buddies are hurting local businesses.
They aren't done, of course. The Lansing State Journal reports that next on the agenda is forcing state employees to pay 20 percent toward their health insurance. The same thing will happen statewide. At a time when the state treasury is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in unexpected revenue, state workers will have less money left in their paychecks, less money to spend at businesses all across the state. The state constitution, however, hampers the Legislature's ability to do this unilaterally so Republicans are proposing an amendment to the state constitution to impose the requirement.
The justification for both these developments is that employees in the private sector always pay 20 percent of their health costs, so just because they're treated unfairly, public employees should be, too. In other words, let's spread the misery around instead of trying to make things better.
In the process, Michigan's economy will be made smaller than it otherwise would be.
The latest evidence comes in two news stories. The first is the news that Howell teachers have agreed to a new contract that freezes salaries, increaess their workload, and makes them pay more for for their health insurance. All that and it still doesn't take care of the hole in the district's budget due to Rick Snyder's $470 per pupil cut in state aid to local schools. What it does do is make sure that Howell teachers have less money to spend at restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations here in Livingston County. That's less business for those establishments, less profit, less need to hire more employees. By keeping a surplus in the state school aid fund and forcing districts to make cuts, Snyder and his Republican buddies are hurting local businesses.
They aren't done, of course. The Lansing State Journal reports that next on the agenda is forcing state employees to pay 20 percent toward their health insurance. The same thing will happen statewide. At a time when the state treasury is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in unexpected revenue, state workers will have less money left in their paychecks, less money to spend at businesses all across the state. The state constitution, however, hampers the Legislature's ability to do this unilaterally so Republicans are proposing an amendment to the state constitution to impose the requirement.
The justification for both these developments is that employees in the private sector always pay 20 percent of their health costs, so just because they're treated unfairly, public employees should be, too. In other words, let's spread the misery around instead of trying to make things better.
In the process, Michigan's economy will be made smaller than it otherwise would be.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Senate Dem Video Sums Up Snyder, Without Saying a Word
Tax overhauls can get pretty complicated. Dropping this tax credit, raising this rate, exempting people above a certain age. Look at what happened with Rick Snyder's pension tax, with its three-tiered approach to socking it to older people in Michigan.
Regardless of the details, the overall story can be pretty simple, as in Snyder's case -- take from the people and give it to business.
Senate Democrats devised a video that underscores the unfairness of Snyder's plan with stark simplicited. It is the most effective video I've ever seen from the Democratic legislative caucuses.
After watching the video, if you'd like to sign up to help recall Snyder, you can sign up through Daily Kos, as Michigan Liberal points out, or you can check out Recall Rick on Facebook.
Regardless of the details, the overall story can be pretty simple, as in Snyder's case -- take from the people and give it to business.
Senate Democrats devised a video that underscores the unfairness of Snyder's plan with stark simplicited. It is the most effective video I've ever seen from the Democratic legislative caucuses.
After watching the video, if you'd like to sign up to help recall Snyder, you can sign up through Daily Kos, as Michigan Liberal points out, or you can check out Recall Rick on Facebook.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
A LIttle Perspective on Snyder's 'Accomplishments'
It's time for a little perspective on Rick Snyder and what the Michigan news media is calling his amazing accomplishments since taking office in January.
The Republican governor has several major advantages compared to his predecessor, Democrat Jennifer Granholm that explain the ease with which the budget that was just adopted.
First, Snyder has the luxury of having his own party control both houses of the Legislature, no small advantage but one that the news media rarely bothers to point out. Legislative accomplishments are easier to rack up when you are playing with people who are all on the same team. Second, many of the House members are brand new lawmakers who are much more easily led than veterans who know their way around the Capitol.
Third, Snyder had the luxury of being able to ask Republicans to do things that they like to do anyway -- cut taxes for businesses, stick it to poor people, attack public schools by slashing their budgets. This is an agenda made in heaven for Republicans, and the fact that the news media is amazed that it got done is surprising. Snyder would have had a much harder time of it had he asked Republican lawmakers to provide more funding for schools, for example, so that we really could "reinvent" Michigan. Snyder did not have to go against the Republican grain.
Fourth, Snyder benefits from an economy that is now growing and producing far more revenue than forecasters predicted even a few months ago, thanks to President Obama's restructuring of the auto industry. More than likely, people won't have to go through budget slashing year after year the way Granholm did. Of course there is a new attitude in Michigan, but that has more to do with the fact that the auto industry is making money again than with anything Snyder has done.
The fact is, Snyder rode into town just as things were getting much better in Michigan and now he wants to grab all the credit.
The Republican governor has several major advantages compared to his predecessor, Democrat Jennifer Granholm that explain the ease with which the budget that was just adopted.
First, Snyder has the luxury of having his own party control both houses of the Legislature, no small advantage but one that the news media rarely bothers to point out. Legislative accomplishments are easier to rack up when you are playing with people who are all on the same team. Second, many of the House members are brand new lawmakers who are much more easily led than veterans who know their way around the Capitol.
Third, Snyder had the luxury of being able to ask Republicans to do things that they like to do anyway -- cut taxes for businesses, stick it to poor people, attack public schools by slashing their budgets. This is an agenda made in heaven for Republicans, and the fact that the news media is amazed that it got done is surprising. Snyder would have had a much harder time of it had he asked Republican lawmakers to provide more funding for schools, for example, so that we really could "reinvent" Michigan. Snyder did not have to go against the Republican grain.
Fourth, Snyder benefits from an economy that is now growing and producing far more revenue than forecasters predicted even a few months ago, thanks to President Obama's restructuring of the auto industry. More than likely, people won't have to go through budget slashing year after year the way Granholm did. Of course there is a new attitude in Michigan, but that has more to do with the fact that the auto industry is making money again than with anything Snyder has done.
The fact is, Snyder rode into town just as things were getting much better in Michigan and now he wants to grab all the credit.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Gardening Advice for Rick Snyder
"Plant your peas on St. Patrick's Day and you'll harvest them on Memorial Day," my grandmother told me once.
As a farm wife, Grandma knew a thing or two about making things grow. And she meant that advice literally. I did exactly what she said a couple years and did in fact have fresh peas in late May.
Of course, Grandma -- and I -- both knew that while you could plant peas on St. Patrick's Day, you wouldn't dare do that with tomatoes or sweet corn. Different crops, different planting schedule. There's no one-size fits all when it comes to growing things.
But when it comes to growing businesses, Rick Snyder seems to think one size does fit all. His approach -- no taxes for most businesses and hope they create jobs -- is far removed from what most states are doing and what Michigan has been doing -- targeting incentives to growth industries.
Snyder won't even promise that his approach will create jobs. Even if it were to create jobs, it will do nothing to diversify Michigan's economy by making it a center for a new industry, such as wind power or the film industry.
And Snyder does not seem to care. He is perfectly content to ride the resurgence of the auto industry back to prosperity and let it go at that. If a film studio happens to locate here, that's OK with him, but he's not going to do anything to make that happen.
Why would a film studio locate here now? Because of low taxes? Businesses thrive on synergy, on a community of like-minded people in the same field. Having a critical mass of people in the same field leads to professional organizations where ideas are shared, ties with colleges and universities that train the people you need to hire, a culture that values and promotes what you do. Kind of like Silicon Valley. In the computer software field. And aren't computers supposed to be what Snyder knows a lot about?
Michigan was well on its way to developing new industries like wind energy, film, and advanced batteries until Snyder's budget pulled the rug out from under them.
The state is now back to the equivalent of planting all the crops on St. Patrick's Day and hoping something besides peas survives by Memorial Day.
As a farm wife, Grandma knew a thing or two about making things grow. And she meant that advice literally. I did exactly what she said a couple years and did in fact have fresh peas in late May.
Of course, Grandma -- and I -- both knew that while you could plant peas on St. Patrick's Day, you wouldn't dare do that with tomatoes or sweet corn. Different crops, different planting schedule. There's no one-size fits all when it comes to growing things.
But when it comes to growing businesses, Rick Snyder seems to think one size does fit all. His approach -- no taxes for most businesses and hope they create jobs -- is far removed from what most states are doing and what Michigan has been doing -- targeting incentives to growth industries.
Snyder won't even promise that his approach will create jobs. Even if it were to create jobs, it will do nothing to diversify Michigan's economy by making it a center for a new industry, such as wind power or the film industry.
And Snyder does not seem to care. He is perfectly content to ride the resurgence of the auto industry back to prosperity and let it go at that. If a film studio happens to locate here, that's OK with him, but he's not going to do anything to make that happen.
Why would a film studio locate here now? Because of low taxes? Businesses thrive on synergy, on a community of like-minded people in the same field. Having a critical mass of people in the same field leads to professional organizations where ideas are shared, ties with colleges and universities that train the people you need to hire, a culture that values and promotes what you do. Kind of like Silicon Valley. In the computer software field. And aren't computers supposed to be what Snyder knows a lot about?
Michigan was well on its way to developing new industries like wind energy, film, and advanced batteries until Snyder's budget pulled the rug out from under them.
The state is now back to the equivalent of planting all the crops on St. Patrick's Day and hoping something besides peas survives by Memorial Day.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Extra Billion Dollars Threatens Snyder's Agenda
People are going to have a hard time understanding how the state of Michigan can take in $1 billion more than anybody thought they would over the next two years and still be so broke that we have to slash aid to schools, universities, and local governments.
But that's the scenario that is playing out for Rick Snyder.
We don't have the final official projetions yet. That will come Monday when officials of the House, Senate, and Treasury Department arrive at a consensus on how much money the state will take in the rest of this fiscal year and the year beginning Oct. 1. But based on estimates already released by the House and Senate fiscal agencies, we know it will be a big number.
The House Fiscal Agency is projecting $910.4 million in revenue over the next two years that it didn't expect. The Senate Fiscal Agency is projecting more than $1.2 billion.
So all that business about how we have to slash school funding doesn't seem quite so necessary. Snyder's demands for slashing university funding, cutting revenue sharing, closing prisons, and on and on is going to leave the public scratching its head.
Snyder has just raised taxes on senior citizens and the poor and the state has just found $1 billion, but we can't afford to run our schools and prisons, or fix our roads and bridges?
That is going to be a tough sell. The public will sacrifice when it has to, but only when the reason for it is clear. That's no longer the case.
But that's the scenario that is playing out for Rick Snyder.
We don't have the final official projetions yet. That will come Monday when officials of the House, Senate, and Treasury Department arrive at a consensus on how much money the state will take in the rest of this fiscal year and the year beginning Oct. 1. But based on estimates already released by the House and Senate fiscal agencies, we know it will be a big number.
The House Fiscal Agency is projecting $910.4 million in revenue over the next two years that it didn't expect. The Senate Fiscal Agency is projecting more than $1.2 billion.
So all that business about how we have to slash school funding doesn't seem quite so necessary. Snyder's demands for slashing university funding, cutting revenue sharing, closing prisons, and on and on is going to leave the public scratching its head.
Snyder has just raised taxes on senior citizens and the poor and the state has just found $1 billion, but we can't afford to run our schools and prisons, or fix our roads and bridges?
That is going to be a tough sell. The public will sacrifice when it has to, but only when the reason for it is clear. That's no longer the case.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Will Snyder's 'Shared Sacrifice' Soon Be Even Less Popular?
When your approval rating is 60 percent negative, you might think the only way to go is up. But in Rick Snyder's case, that may not be true. We may not have seen the bottom yet.
That's because Snyder is signalling that he wants to go ahead with slashing school and university funding and raising taxes on senior citizens and poor people, regardless of whether the state really needs to or not.
The news has received relatively little focus in the media, but Michigan officials will meet on Monday to issue an up-to-date estimate of the state's revenues for the year. Some lawmakers are suggesting the state could take in some $500 million more than expected just a few months ago.
Snyder's response? "I don't want to speculate on us having more dollars."
In other words, Snyder doesn't sound interested in backing off his "balance-the- budget-on-the-backs-of-kids-senior citizens-and-the-poor" orders to the Legislature.
According to the EPIC-MRA poll, 71 percent of likely voters in Michigan don't like Snyder's cuts to education and his pension tax.
Michigan voters are going to like those proposal a whole lot less if they find out the state has $500 million -- or even $250 million -- more than expected and that Snyder still wants to go ahead with the cuts and tax increases.
Some lawmakers who voted for the taxes this week may wish they hadn't done so, too. But it will be too late.
Snyder started the year selling "shared sacrifice" to Michigan voters, then pulled a bait and switch to "sacrifice for the poor, kids, and senior citizens." How will people react when they find out the state could be facing a surplus, on top of the $500 million surplus already in the school aid fund that Snyder won't spend on schools?
That's because Snyder is signalling that he wants to go ahead with slashing school and university funding and raising taxes on senior citizens and poor people, regardless of whether the state really needs to or not.
The news has received relatively little focus in the media, but Michigan officials will meet on Monday to issue an up-to-date estimate of the state's revenues for the year. Some lawmakers are suggesting the state could take in some $500 million more than expected just a few months ago.
Snyder's response? "I don't want to speculate on us having more dollars."
In other words, Snyder doesn't sound interested in backing off his "balance-the- budget-on-the-backs-of-kids-senior citizens-and-the-poor" orders to the Legislature.
According to the EPIC-MRA poll, 71 percent of likely voters in Michigan don't like Snyder's cuts to education and his pension tax.
Michigan voters are going to like those proposal a whole lot less if they find out the state has $500 million -- or even $250 million -- more than expected and that Snyder still wants to go ahead with the cuts and tax increases.
Some lawmakers who voted for the taxes this week may wish they hadn't done so, too. But it will be too late.
Snyder started the year selling "shared sacrifice" to Michigan voters, then pulled a bait and switch to "sacrifice for the poor, kids, and senior citizens." How will people react when they find out the state could be facing a surplus, on top of the $500 million surplus already in the school aid fund that Snyder won't spend on schools?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Why Not Keep People from Leaving in the First Place?
Rick Snyder has things bass-ackwards.
As Michigan young people leave the state and the state gets older on average, Rick Snyder thinks the state should encourage legal immigrants to come to the state.
And they should bring their advanced degrees with them.
Why? Because Michigan itself doesn't want to spend any money to help its current residents get college degrees, advanced or otherwise. It wants to cut -- no, slash -- spending on education at all levels in order to give a $1.8 billion tax cut to business.
By asking well-educated immigrants to come to Michigan, Snyder is conceding that education is good for business and job creation, but he is turning around and cutting it off at the knees here in Michigan with cuts in K-12 and higher education.
Like lots of business interests, Snyder wants the benefits of a highly educated citizenry, he just expects somebody else to pay the freight for producing a highly educated citizenry.
Snyder is sending a pretty clear message to young people that they should leave the state when he not only makes it prohibitively expensive for them to get an education in Michigan, but he does his best to eliminate one path to employment for them -- the film industry.
One $80 million film studio recently opened in Michigan only because tax credits for the project were approved by Gov. Jennifer Granholm before Snyder announced his plan to put a stop to them.
By cutting education and stifling a new industry Snyder is creating a vacuum to be backfilled by people educated elsewhere.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to educate our own people and keep them here?
As Michigan young people leave the state and the state gets older on average, Rick Snyder thinks the state should encourage legal immigrants to come to the state.
And they should bring their advanced degrees with them.
Why? Because Michigan itself doesn't want to spend any money to help its current residents get college degrees, advanced or otherwise. It wants to cut -- no, slash -- spending on education at all levels in order to give a $1.8 billion tax cut to business.
By asking well-educated immigrants to come to Michigan, Snyder is conceding that education is good for business and job creation, but he is turning around and cutting it off at the knees here in Michigan with cuts in K-12 and higher education.
Like lots of business interests, Snyder wants the benefits of a highly educated citizenry, he just expects somebody else to pay the freight for producing a highly educated citizenry.
Snyder is sending a pretty clear message to young people that they should leave the state when he not only makes it prohibitively expensive for them to get an education in Michigan, but he does his best to eliminate one path to employment for them -- the film industry.
One $80 million film studio recently opened in Michigan only because tax credits for the project were approved by Gov. Jennifer Granholm before Snyder announced his plan to put a stop to them.
By cutting education and stifling a new industry Snyder is creating a vacuum to be backfilled by people educated elsewhere.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to educate our own people and keep them here?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
To Sell Snyder's Tax Plan, Media Re-Defines 'Rich'
It's Rich Snyder's job to sell the regressive, punish-the-poor tax plan that he is foisting onto Michigan residents, but the media seems to think that has become its job.
Take Friday's editorial in the Detroit Free Press titled "The rich feel some tax pain, too, but not like the working poor."
According to the editorial, "the rich" are being forced to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden so Snyder's plan to tax senior citizens and take away the lifeline for the working poor known as the Earned Income Tax Credit is really a "progressive" tax plan. The elderly and poor just haven't noticed.
According to the editorial, tax breaks for single people with more than $75,000 a year will be eliminated that will raise $90 million a year. Personal exemptions and homestead property tax exemptions will be phased out for them. For example, according to the newspaper:
"Finally, the proposed tax regime dramatically scales back the homestead property tax credit, which is now available in full up to $73,650 in household income, phasing out at $82,650. Under the new plan, no household with an income above $50,000 would be eligible. And those whose home's taxable value exceeds $135,000 won't qualify for the credit no matter how little they earn."
So according to the Free Press, "the rich" includes people whose household income is $50,001 a year. Household income. That could be two people earning $25,000 a year, and those people are now considered "rich" by the Detroit Free Press. Now "rich" is relative. Certainly, those households making $50,000 a year are "richer" than those making $25,000 a year, but they are not rich. They are barely middle class.
What the Free Press has done is define everybody whose taxes are being raised as "rich" in order to make Snyder's scheme to end taxes for business look fair. Newspapers should let Snyder do his own dirty work.
Take Friday's editorial in the Detroit Free Press titled "The rich feel some tax pain, too, but not like the working poor."
According to the editorial, "the rich" are being forced to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden so Snyder's plan to tax senior citizens and take away the lifeline for the working poor known as the Earned Income Tax Credit is really a "progressive" tax plan. The elderly and poor just haven't noticed.
According to the editorial, tax breaks for single people with more than $75,000 a year will be eliminated that will raise $90 million a year. Personal exemptions and homestead property tax exemptions will be phased out for them. For example, according to the newspaper:
"Finally, the proposed tax regime dramatically scales back the homestead property tax credit, which is now available in full up to $73,650 in household income, phasing out at $82,650. Under the new plan, no household with an income above $50,000 would be eligible. And those whose home's taxable value exceeds $135,000 won't qualify for the credit no matter how little they earn."
So according to the Free Press, "the rich" includes people whose household income is $50,001 a year. Household income. That could be two people earning $25,000 a year, and those people are now considered "rich" by the Detroit Free Press. Now "rich" is relative. Certainly, those households making $50,000 a year are "richer" than those making $25,000 a year, but they are not rich. They are barely middle class.
What the Free Press has done is define everybody whose taxes are being raised as "rich" in order to make Snyder's scheme to end taxes for business look fair. Newspapers should let Snyder do his own dirty work.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Chrysler Profits Good News, But ...
The news that Chrysler Group LLC turned a $116 million profit in the last quarter, delighting employees along with many observers.
But it also exposes a flaw in Rick Snyder's plan to exempt most businesses from taxes.
Chrysler is an LLC and under Snyder's plan will not pay taxes on that profit.
All along, Rick Snyder has been telling people that the 95,000 businesses that won't pay taxes are "small businesses," implying they were Mom and Pop operations with a few employees. Chrysler hardly fits that image.
Snyder's boosters in the media have bought into that song and dance. The Detroit Free Press recently declared that it didn't matter because Chrysler didn't have any profits. Two weeks after that was written, Chrysler is projecting profits this year of $500 million. Time for a re-write, maybe?
Meanwhile, $500 million in tax-free profits for Chrysler is hardly a level playing field for the state's automakers since Ford and General Motors will both pay taxes on their profits.
The issue is not just Chrysler's unfair advantage over Ford and General Motors. If Chrysler is an LLC, what other large businesses are also LLCs, with millions in soon-to-be-untaxed profits, if Snyder has his way?
But it also exposes a flaw in Rick Snyder's plan to exempt most businesses from taxes.
Chrysler is an LLC and under Snyder's plan will not pay taxes on that profit.
All along, Rick Snyder has been telling people that the 95,000 businesses that won't pay taxes are "small businesses," implying they were Mom and Pop operations with a few employees. Chrysler hardly fits that image.
Snyder's boosters in the media have bought into that song and dance. The Detroit Free Press recently declared that it didn't matter because Chrysler didn't have any profits. Two weeks after that was written, Chrysler is projecting profits this year of $500 million. Time for a re-write, maybe?
Meanwhile, $500 million in tax-free profits for Chrysler is hardly a level playing field for the state's automakers since Ford and General Motors will both pay taxes on their profits.
The issue is not just Chrysler's unfair advantage over Ford and General Motors. If Chrysler is an LLC, what other large businesses are also LLCs, with millions in soon-to-be-untaxed profits, if Snyder has his way?
Monday, April 25, 2011
What Can A Parent Buy for Snyder's $25 Tax Credit?
Millionaire Rick Snyder has demonstrated once again how out of touch he is with the realities of working people in general, let alone working poor people.
His plan to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has helped keep people working instead of resorting to welfare, is foolish from an economic standpoint. It will take money out of the hands of people who are guaranteed to spend it at Michigan businesses such as gas stations and grocery stores, or use it to pay their rent or utility bills. From a human standpoint, it is mean.
So he has backed off that and decided, along with Republicans who lead the Legislature, to be magnanimous to the working poor. He will give them a $25 tax credit for each child.
So what can a working parent buy with $25 a year for a child?
Well, at Meijer's, you can buy a box of 96 Pampers diapers for $22.99. When you throw in the 6 percent sales tax, you have a a buck and change left over. Maybe you can get a bunch of bananas for a snack. Now, 96 Pampers will last a baby, at six a day, a little over two weeks.
But there's more. Republicans in the Legislature tried to require that even poorer parents shop only a thrift stores. The families only receive $80 a year for clothing and Sen. Bruce Caswell wanted to make sure they weren't spending it on, you know, designer hand-bags instead of shoes. So the state Senate decided to require parents to use their state allowance to first buy a gift card only usable for clothing before being able to spend their $80.
That's what passes for compassion in America these days. We used to be a nation that cared about families and nurtured them, especially when they were having hard times -- which can happen to anybody. Now, we give working families enough money for two weeks worth of diapers and tell them to sink or swim.
His plan to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has helped keep people working instead of resorting to welfare, is foolish from an economic standpoint. It will take money out of the hands of people who are guaranteed to spend it at Michigan businesses such as gas stations and grocery stores, or use it to pay their rent or utility bills. From a human standpoint, it is mean.
So he has backed off that and decided, along with Republicans who lead the Legislature, to be magnanimous to the working poor. He will give them a $25 tax credit for each child.
So what can a working parent buy with $25 a year for a child?
Well, at Meijer's, you can buy a box of 96 Pampers diapers for $22.99. When you throw in the 6 percent sales tax, you have a a buck and change left over. Maybe you can get a bunch of bananas for a snack. Now, 96 Pampers will last a baby, at six a day, a little over two weeks.
But there's more. Republicans in the Legislature tried to require that even poorer parents shop only a thrift stores. The families only receive $80 a year for clothing and Sen. Bruce Caswell wanted to make sure they weren't spending it on, you know, designer hand-bags instead of shoes. So the state Senate decided to require parents to use their state allowance to first buy a gift card only usable for clothing before being able to spend their $80.
That's what passes for compassion in America these days. We used to be a nation that cared about families and nurtured them, especially when they were having hard times -- which can happen to anybody. Now, we give working families enough money for two weeks worth of diapers and tell them to sink or swim.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Numbers Don't Lie, But ...
Scott Menzel, superintendent of the Livingston Educational Services Agency, has done public education a great service in their struggle to avoid Rick Snyder's draonian budget cuts.
To do it, he used a calculator and put Rick Snyder's own math to the test.
Snyder has decided to raid the $540 million surplus in the school aid fund in order to help pay for tax cuts for Michigan businesses. Never mind that Michigan voters who backed Proposal A thought they were guaranteeing school funding when they voted for higher sales taxes in the 1990s.
Snyder has insisted that the $470 per pupil state aid cut he is proposing is no big deal for schools. All they have to do is make teachers pay 20 percent of their health insurance premiums and privatize some services (union-bust) and that will make up the difference, no sweat.
Menzel, in a guest column in Sunday's Livingston Press and Argus, put Snyder's numbers to the test of real math. (Thanks to the Press and Argus for this series of guest columns.)
Snyder's budget cut, and the increase in retirement payments mandated by the Legislature, will cost Livingston County schools $20 million a year. The districts already have privatized services so there is little savings there, but coupling that with the 20 percent health insurance co-pay, saves the districts only $5.55 million. Some districts already have co-pays so the savings is not as great as Snyder anticipates.
That $5.55 million covers just 43 percent of the school aid cut and 31 percent of the total budget impact of Snyder's proposals and the retirement increase.
Even if all teachers took a 5 percent pay cut, that would generate another $6.9 million -- still just over half of the $20 million that needs to be made up. And the districts would have to lay of 188 teachers to make up the difference.
In other words, Snyder has been wrong when he has told reporters over and over again that all schools have to do to make up the difference is impose co-pays and privatize services. He is not even close to being accurate.
How could this happen? There are several possibilities. Maybe Snyder didn't run the numbers before making the proposal. Well, he's an accountant, so that's hard to believe. Maybe his calculator was broken and gave him the wrong answer.
Let's see, what else? Could it be maybe Snyder just decided not to tell the truth and thought no one would notice?
Whichever way it happened, Snyder is only telling 43 percent of the truth.
To do it, he used a calculator and put Rick Snyder's own math to the test.
Snyder has decided to raid the $540 million surplus in the school aid fund in order to help pay for tax cuts for Michigan businesses. Never mind that Michigan voters who backed Proposal A thought they were guaranteeing school funding when they voted for higher sales taxes in the 1990s.
Snyder has insisted that the $470 per pupil state aid cut he is proposing is no big deal for schools. All they have to do is make teachers pay 20 percent of their health insurance premiums and privatize some services (union-bust) and that will make up the difference, no sweat.
Menzel, in a guest column in Sunday's Livingston Press and Argus, put Snyder's numbers to the test of real math. (Thanks to the Press and Argus for this series of guest columns.)
Snyder's budget cut, and the increase in retirement payments mandated by the Legislature, will cost Livingston County schools $20 million a year. The districts already have privatized services so there is little savings there, but coupling that with the 20 percent health insurance co-pay, saves the districts only $5.55 million. Some districts already have co-pays so the savings is not as great as Snyder anticipates.
That $5.55 million covers just 43 percent of the school aid cut and 31 percent of the total budget impact of Snyder's proposals and the retirement increase.
Even if all teachers took a 5 percent pay cut, that would generate another $6.9 million -- still just over half of the $20 million that needs to be made up. And the districts would have to lay of 188 teachers to make up the difference.
In other words, Snyder has been wrong when he has told reporters over and over again that all schools have to do to make up the difference is impose co-pays and privatize services. He is not even close to being accurate.
How could this happen? There are several possibilities. Maybe Snyder didn't run the numbers before making the proposal. Well, he's an accountant, so that's hard to believe. Maybe his calculator was broken and gave him the wrong answer.
Let's see, what else? Could it be maybe Snyder just decided not to tell the truth and thought no one would notice?
Whichever way it happened, Snyder is only telling 43 percent of the truth.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
It Takes More than $25 to Raise a Child
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once wrote a book called, It Takes a Village, expressing her belief that raising a child is a team effort.
Even the best parents need the help of supportive communities that provide good schools, a healthy environment, public amenities such as parks and libraries, and so on. The title of Clinton's book comes from the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child."
How far Rick Snyder is from that vision of raising a child. He thinks it can be done for $25.
That's what he has agreed to give Michigan families who work hard but are still poor to help them raise their children -- $25. Snyder wants to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit that gives tax breaks to the working poor, a credit that helps people make ends meet when they are trying to live on low wages. Snyder thinks the money would be better spent by letting most businesses pay no taxes.
Even Republicans in the Legislature see the folly of Snyder's approach and have come up with a way to mitigate it. Give parents $25 a year for each child.
You can see what a pittance that amounts to by comparing its $100 million annual cost to the $374 million annual cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit Snyder wants to eliminate.
Michigan has a long history of caring for the neediest amongst us. Most Michigan residents recognize that bad things can happen to any of us, especially given the historically cyclical nature of Michigan's economy. And they recognize that real wages in the U.S. have been falling for decades.
Snyder's $25 is not an expression of that compassion. It is a slap in the face to families who try to contribute to the world by working hard to try to pay their bills and raise their families.
Even the best parents need the help of supportive communities that provide good schools, a healthy environment, public amenities such as parks and libraries, and so on. The title of Clinton's book comes from the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child."
How far Rick Snyder is from that vision of raising a child. He thinks it can be done for $25.
That's what he has agreed to give Michigan families who work hard but are still poor to help them raise their children -- $25. Snyder wants to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit that gives tax breaks to the working poor, a credit that helps people make ends meet when they are trying to live on low wages. Snyder thinks the money would be better spent by letting most businesses pay no taxes.
Even Republicans in the Legislature see the folly of Snyder's approach and have come up with a way to mitigate it. Give parents $25 a year for each child.
You can see what a pittance that amounts to by comparing its $100 million annual cost to the $374 million annual cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit Snyder wants to eliminate.
Michigan has a long history of caring for the neediest amongst us. Most Michigan residents recognize that bad things can happen to any of us, especially given the historically cyclical nature of Michigan's economy. And they recognize that real wages in the U.S. have been falling for decades.
Snyder's $25 is not an expression of that compassion. It is a slap in the face to families who try to contribute to the world by working hard to try to pay their bills and raise their families.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Snyder's Pension Tax Deal Isn't About Fairness
Did Rick Snyder finally find some compassion for Michigan senior citizens and decide to modify his cruel tax on pensions?
No, he didn't. Somebody just explained the politics of it to him.
Originally, Snyder wanted to tax all pensions in Michigan in order to fund the $1.8 billion tax cut to Michigan businesses. Michigan senior citizens let him know what they think of that, (hint, in case you haven't been paying attention: they hated it) and they probably let their state senators and state representatives know that, too.
So Republican legislative leaders came up with a compromise. People age 67 and over won't have their pensions taxed. People 60 to 66 will get a $20,000 a year exemption ($40,000 for a couple), and people under 60 will still be screwed.
So why is it fair that people under 60 will pay the full tax and the others will get full or partial exemptions? There is no explanation for that. People under 60 are likely to have hefty bills after being forced into early retirement, years before they expected to have to retire. They may even still have children at home or in college, mortgages and car payments they were expecting to pay off in their last years of working while they added to their nest eggs. Instead, they got shoved out the door early by their employer, who calculated that their pensions would be tax free in telling them what they would have to live on. Now Snyder has pulled the rug out from under them.
So why stick it to some retirees and not others? Let's see, what age group comprises the most reliable voters? Wouldn't that be senior citizens? Of those between 65 and 75 registered to vote, 78.1 percent voted in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. And 76.6 percent of those 75 and over. Of those 55 to 64. it was still 76.6 percent.
So my exempting entirely those 67 and over, Snyder is mollifying a big chunk of those most likely to vote. The exemption for the middle group amounts to throwing them a bone and assuming they won't get too upset because in a year or two they will be 67 and home free.
And the younger retirees, well, the divide and conquer calculation was that there weren't that many of them to worry about at the ballot box.
In other words, fairness had nothing to do with it. It was all political calculation.
.
No, he didn't. Somebody just explained the politics of it to him.
Originally, Snyder wanted to tax all pensions in Michigan in order to fund the $1.8 billion tax cut to Michigan businesses. Michigan senior citizens let him know what they think of that, (hint, in case you haven't been paying attention: they hated it) and they probably let their state senators and state representatives know that, too.
So Republican legislative leaders came up with a compromise. People age 67 and over won't have their pensions taxed. People 60 to 66 will get a $20,000 a year exemption ($40,000 for a couple), and people under 60 will still be screwed.
So why is it fair that people under 60 will pay the full tax and the others will get full or partial exemptions? There is no explanation for that. People under 60 are likely to have hefty bills after being forced into early retirement, years before they expected to have to retire. They may even still have children at home or in college, mortgages and car payments they were expecting to pay off in their last years of working while they added to their nest eggs. Instead, they got shoved out the door early by their employer, who calculated that their pensions would be tax free in telling them what they would have to live on. Now Snyder has pulled the rug out from under them.
So why stick it to some retirees and not others? Let's see, what age group comprises the most reliable voters? Wouldn't that be senior citizens? Of those between 65 and 75 registered to vote, 78.1 percent voted in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. And 76.6 percent of those 75 and over. Of those 55 to 64. it was still 76.6 percent.
So my exempting entirely those 67 and over, Snyder is mollifying a big chunk of those most likely to vote. The exemption for the middle group amounts to throwing them a bone and assuming they won't get too upset because in a year or two they will be 67 and home free.
And the younger retirees, well, the divide and conquer calculation was that there weren't that many of them to worry about at the ballot box.
In other words, fairness had nothing to do with it. It was all political calculation.
.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Yes, It Is Ideological
Rick Snyder is trying so hard to convince Michigan residents that he is planning to tax senior citizens and poor people in order to wipe out business taxes for almost all Michigan residents isn't "ideological."
According to the Detroit Free Press:
"He shows zero interest in picking ideological fights nor does he spend time pandering."
Huh?
You mean, Snyder doesn't believe it's better to tax old people and poor people than tax business? Of course he does. That's why he proposed it. If he believes it, that is his ideology. And taxing lower income people while letting rich people and businesses get all the breaks is classic Republican Party ideology these days.
What about his measure that lets farmers regulate their own pollution? Isn't being anti-environmental clean-up classic Republican Party ideology these days?
What about getting rid of the law that says businesses have to tell consumers what they are being charged for the items they buy, which Snyder repealed? Isn't getting rid of government regulation classic Republican Party ideology these days?
What about squeezing teachers and public employees through cuts in school aid and revenue sharing to local governments, running around the state telling all the fawning media that will listen that they don't pay their fair share for health insurance, that if our communities go broke it's going to be the unions fault? Isn't that classic Republican Party ideology these days?
Snyder doesn't like being compared to Republican thugs like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He hasn't called police "idiots" yet like Kasich did. Snyder has too much finesse for that. But he shares exactly the same ideology as they do -- despite the way the Free Press reporters portray him.
According to the Detroit Free Press:
"He shows zero interest in picking ideological fights nor does he spend time pandering."
Huh?
You mean, Snyder doesn't believe it's better to tax old people and poor people than tax business? Of course he does. That's why he proposed it. If he believes it, that is his ideology. And taxing lower income people while letting rich people and businesses get all the breaks is classic Republican Party ideology these days.
What about his measure that lets farmers regulate their own pollution? Isn't being anti-environmental clean-up classic Republican Party ideology these days?
What about getting rid of the law that says businesses have to tell consumers what they are being charged for the items they buy, which Snyder repealed? Isn't getting rid of government regulation classic Republican Party ideology these days?
What about squeezing teachers and public employees through cuts in school aid and revenue sharing to local governments, running around the state telling all the fawning media that will listen that they don't pay their fair share for health insurance, that if our communities go broke it's going to be the unions fault? Isn't that classic Republican Party ideology these days?
Snyder doesn't like being compared to Republican thugs like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He hasn't called police "idiots" yet like Kasich did. Snyder has too much finesse for that. But he shares exactly the same ideology as they do -- despite the way the Free Press reporters portray him.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Is Snyder Going to Let Business Have It Both Ways?
Everybody knows about Rick Snyder's plan to let most businesses get away with paying no taxes in Michigan while shoveling the burden onto poor people and retirees, with no guarantee that the state will get anything in return.
Snyder claims that businesses will automatically flock to the state and create thousands of jobs -- not that any of those jobs would help retirees, of course.
As part of that deal, Snyder was supposed to get rid of the incentives that required businesses to actually produce jobs in return for getting the credits.
Except now it looks like he's waffling on that. According to the Detroit Free Press, economic development groups are telling the Snyder administration that they can't compete with other states that offer incentives. So it looks like the Snyder administration will raise the $50 million limit it wants to put on incentives.
Which means businesses will get the benefit of low or no taxes, plus incentives. All paid for by somebody else.
Who said there's no such thing as a free lunch?
Snyder claims that businesses will automatically flock to the state and create thousands of jobs -- not that any of those jobs would help retirees, of course.
As part of that deal, Snyder was supposed to get rid of the incentives that required businesses to actually produce jobs in return for getting the credits.
Except now it looks like he's waffling on that. According to the Detroit Free Press, economic development groups are telling the Snyder administration that they can't compete with other states that offer incentives. So it looks like the Snyder administration will raise the $50 million limit it wants to put on incentives.
Which means businesses will get the benefit of low or no taxes, plus incentives. All paid for by somebody else.
Who said there's no such thing as a free lunch?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
GOP, Snyder Misdirection Hides Who REALLY Is Overpaid in This Economy
Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans have been so busy attacking public employees like police officers, firefighters, and teachers for making too much money and failing to make any sacrifices during the economic downtown that the public is missing the real scandal.
Let's look at some facts. The public sector -- that's government -- has been shedding jobs for months, even as the private sector has been adding them. Take a look at the most recent jobs report.
"Overall, the private sector added 230,000 jobs. But local governments continued to struggle, shedding 14,000 jobs in March. Still, that was a major improvement over the 46,000 government jobs lost in February."
So the Republicans are lying when they say government is growing and public employees are insulated from bad economic times. It's just not true.
Meanwhile, the state of Michigan is having to pay millions to a consulting firm because the salaries it pays computer specialists are too low -- $12,000 less than the jobs they can get in the private sector. The state doesn't even bother advertising for them anymore because the pay gap is so great.
This only makes sense in Rick Snyder's world, where Michigan wastes money by overpaying a private company rather than pay a competitive wage to state employees because state employees are "overpaid."
But by using false accusations to keep the focus on public employees, Snyder and Republicans divert attention from the people who are really being overpaid -- CEOs.
Just look at the 27 percent increase in CEO pay during 2010.
Those aren't the people being asked to share in any of the sacrifices Rick Snyder proposes.
Let's look at some facts. The public sector -- that's government -- has been shedding jobs for months, even as the private sector has been adding them. Take a look at the most recent jobs report.
"Overall, the private sector added 230,000 jobs. But local governments continued to struggle, shedding 14,000 jobs in March. Still, that was a major improvement over the 46,000 government jobs lost in February."
So the Republicans are lying when they say government is growing and public employees are insulated from bad economic times. It's just not true.
Meanwhile, the state of Michigan is having to pay millions to a consulting firm because the salaries it pays computer specialists are too low -- $12,000 less than the jobs they can get in the private sector. The state doesn't even bother advertising for them anymore because the pay gap is so great.
This only makes sense in Rick Snyder's world, where Michigan wastes money by overpaying a private company rather than pay a competitive wage to state employees because state employees are "overpaid."
But by using false accusations to keep the focus on public employees, Snyder and Republicans divert attention from the people who are really being overpaid -- CEOs.
Just look at the 27 percent increase in CEO pay during 2010.
Those aren't the people being asked to share in any of the sacrifices Rick Snyder proposes.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Spare Us the Platitudes, Snyder
Rick Snyder, who skated through a primary and general election campaign without ever having to say anything specific, is still spouting generalities and getting away with it.
Last week, he told business interests that the $1.8 billion tax cut he is giving them, paid for by senior citizens and poor people, is not about politics. "It's about doing the right thing," he said.
Spare us the platitudes, buddy. You are not the sole determiner of right and wrong for the entire state. Something isn't automatically "right" just because it's your policy.
Is it "right" to unilaterally break contracts between working people and local governments entered into freely by both sides, just because you want to? Why isn't the "right thing to do" to show working people some respect and renegotiate those contracts?
Is it "right" to rob $500 million from the school aid fund in order to force hundreds of school districts into such dire budgetary crises that they need to be taken over by someone you appoint?
Is it "right" to take away Michigan citizens' right to vote for local elected officials, virtually on a whim, so that you can rip up contracts you don't like?
Is it "right" to deny the unemployed in Michigan the same 26 weeks of unemployment benefits that other states give, when those extra six weeks contribute nothing to the state's budget problems yet pump millions into our state economy, helping keep families -- and local businesses -- afloat?
Is it "right" to tell teachers who were encouraged to take early retirement last year in order to save local districts money that, oh, yeah, now we're going to tax that pension we pushed you into taking early?
Is it "right" that most businesses in Michigan will pay no taxes on their profits -- ever -- no matter how many services they demand from our state government in the form of educated workers, public safety, and transportation?
Is it "right" to kill a new industry -- the film industry -- that is providing millions in new investment and thousands of new jobs, just because your predecessor started it?
None of these things is "right" just because you proposed them. But since you can't find any statistics to justify your policies, you played the platitude card. Better go back to the drawing board because the people aren't buying it.
Last week, he told business interests that the $1.8 billion tax cut he is giving them, paid for by senior citizens and poor people, is not about politics. "It's about doing the right thing," he said.
Spare us the platitudes, buddy. You are not the sole determiner of right and wrong for the entire state. Something isn't automatically "right" just because it's your policy.
Is it "right" to unilaterally break contracts between working people and local governments entered into freely by both sides, just because you want to? Why isn't the "right thing to do" to show working people some respect and renegotiate those contracts?
Is it "right" to rob $500 million from the school aid fund in order to force hundreds of school districts into such dire budgetary crises that they need to be taken over by someone you appoint?
Is it "right" to take away Michigan citizens' right to vote for local elected officials, virtually on a whim, so that you can rip up contracts you don't like?
Is it "right" to deny the unemployed in Michigan the same 26 weeks of unemployment benefits that other states give, when those extra six weeks contribute nothing to the state's budget problems yet pump millions into our state economy, helping keep families -- and local businesses -- afloat?
Is it "right" to tell teachers who were encouraged to take early retirement last year in order to save local districts money that, oh, yeah, now we're going to tax that pension we pushed you into taking early?
Is it "right" that most businesses in Michigan will pay no taxes on their profits -- ever -- no matter how many services they demand from our state government in the form of educated workers, public safety, and transportation?
Is it "right" to kill a new industry -- the film industry -- that is providing millions in new investment and thousands of new jobs, just because your predecessor started it?
None of these things is "right" just because you proposed them. But since you can't find any statistics to justify your policies, you played the platitude card. Better go back to the drawing board because the people aren't buying it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)