My op-ed on MLive explains what's wrong with Proposal 1 in 350 words:
You can read it on-line and share it at this link.
There are five weeks remaining before the May 5 election.
Thanks for all you do for prosperity in Michigan,
![]()
Rep. Tom McMillin
Proposal 1 would have voters condone and participate in the worst aspects of lawmaking they loathe in their politicians. It is a massive package of unrelated bills, cobbled together to get special interests on board. It is 46,000 words of details, few of which are noted on the ballot language, leaving voters to "pass it to find out what's in it." It was a hastily thrown-together package said to be needed to address an emergency, when the emergency was created in the first place by the politicians now pushing it.
Not to mention the substance of the proposal, which is so far outside the mainstream--massive tax increases for a glut of new spending--that we can only gape in awe at its audacity.
There are at least three ways to prove that Proposal 1's massive tax increases, about $200 per year for every man, woman, and child in Michigan, are unnecessary.
First, simply observe that Michigan's budget rose about $4.7 billion from fiscal year 2012 to FY 2015. The tax increases "only" raise about $2 billion annually. New taxes would only offset new spending, and obviously, this new spending hasn't gone to roads.
Second, consider that the state House passed a plan last year to fully fix and fund roads without any tax increases, by simply prioritizing new spending. This proposal was blocked by the governor last December, but will certainly get a new hearing if voters reject tax increases on May 5.
Finally, stop and notice that this situation is entirely ridiculous. Roads are an ordinary budget item in forty-nine states. They should be a mundane part of mundane budget discussions, not some political hostage brought before voters to demand higher taxes than ever before.
The governor essentially says, "pass these tax increases, or you may die on our roads," while he is the principal roadblock to legislation to fix our roads without tax increases.
If voters reject the proposal, the legislature will have a mandate to fix roads without massive tax increases. If they approve the proposal, expect more stunts like this in the future.
Not to mention the substance of the proposal, which is so far outside the mainstream--massive tax increases for a glut of new spending--that we can only gape in awe at its audacity.
There are at least three ways to prove that Proposal 1's massive tax increases, about $200 per year for every man, woman, and child in Michigan, are unnecessary.
First, simply observe that Michigan's budget rose about $4.7 billion from fiscal year 2012 to FY 2015. The tax increases "only" raise about $2 billion annually. New taxes would only offset new spending, and obviously, this new spending hasn't gone to roads.
Second, consider that the state House passed a plan last year to fully fix and fund roads without any tax increases, by simply prioritizing new spending. This proposal was blocked by the governor last December, but will certainly get a new hearing if voters reject tax increases on May 5.
Finally, stop and notice that this situation is entirely ridiculous. Roads are an ordinary budget item in forty-nine states. They should be a mundane part of mundane budget discussions, not some political hostage brought before voters to demand higher taxes than ever before.
The governor essentially says, "pass these tax increases, or you may die on our roads," while he is the principal roadblock to legislation to fix our roads without tax increases.
If voters reject the proposal, the legislature will have a mandate to fix roads without massive tax increases. If they approve the proposal, expect more stunts like this in the future.
You can read it on-line and share it at this link.
There are five weeks remaining before the May 5 election.
Thanks for all you do for prosperity in Michigan,
Rep. Tom McMillin
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.