Democracy in Action
So, with the election fast approaching, I'm doing my research on candidates and proposals. The proposals for Michigan this year have some pretty serious implications. Unfortunately, none of the proposals is perfect.
Proposal 06-1 is not a bad idea. It would require that user fees from parks, hunting permits, etc. would be used solely for conservation and recreational purposes. If this proposal passes, then the legislature can't implement a "stealth tax" for the general fund by raiding the accounts funded by recreational user fees. The primary downside to the proposal is that it is yet another ammendment to the Michigan constitution. Despite my dislike for padding our state constitution with lots of ammendments, I will probably vote "yes" for this proposal.
Proposal 06-2 seeks to ban affirmative action in state government entities. It would make Michigan a true "equal opportunity" state, at least as far as state government is concerned. However, among the criteria it uses to ban discrimination is gender. This would cause problems for gender-specific programs, such as initiatives to encourage more women to enter science and math fields. I also wonder what it would mean for things like the women's only dorms at the University of Michigan, since there are no men's equivalents. On the other hand, I have seen the negative effects of affirmative action at the state level, and I would love for it to be abolished. I still have to decide how I want to vote on this proposal.
Proposal 06-3 might be popular in rural areas of Michigan, but it's not going to affect me in the slightest. Anyone have an opinion on "mourning dove" hunting?
Proposal 06-4 seeks to ensure that what happened in the Kelo v. City of New London decision doesn't happen in Michigan. Unlike many ballot proposals for ammendments to the state constitution, I believe that this issue does belong in our constitution. The idea of the government taking property from one individual using eminent domain and giving it to another, for private use, is abhorent. Unfortunately, the proposal has one flaw that concerns me. It requires that an individual who loses his residence due to eminent domain be paid 125% of the "fair market value". This means significant additional expense for public projects. That isn't too bad, but the "fair market value" statement might provoke significant litigation, which does concern me.
Proposal 06-5 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It seeks to lock in inflation-adjusted increases for educational spending in Michigan. Sounds like a good idea, right? But the devil is in the details. First, it requires that the current funding be increased by $565 million. There are only 9.9 million people in the state, of which about 5.7 million (based on 2005 census numbers) are of a working age. Once you factor in unemployment and stay-at-home parents, let's assume that there are 5.4 million working people. $565 million over 5.4 million people is $104 per person. But if you account for tax brackets, it's likely that many middle class families will be paying a lot more than that. Worse, if mass layoffs in the auto industry reduce the state's tax revenues significantly, then every state service except education will be decimated.
But that's only the beginning. School districts with declining enrollments will be funded based on the average of the last three years, not what the current per-pupil funding would provide. This means that Detroit will continue to receive more money that it deserves for the forseeable future. The state would slowly take over the retirement burden from schools and colleges (contributions will be capped), even if the institution (like the University of Michigan) could afford it. Both of these are going to drive income taxes up, and the benefit will be marginal. Not all school systems in Michigan are spending their money wisely.
So, a "no" vote on Proposal 06-5 is pretty much a slam-dunk.
Anyways, that's it for now. I'll probably write about the City of Ann Arbor proposals later this week.
Proposal 06-1 is not a bad idea. It would require that user fees from parks, hunting permits, etc. would be used solely for conservation and recreational purposes. If this proposal passes, then the legislature can't implement a "stealth tax" for the general fund by raiding the accounts funded by recreational user fees. The primary downside to the proposal is that it is yet another ammendment to the Michigan constitution. Despite my dislike for padding our state constitution with lots of ammendments, I will probably vote "yes" for this proposal.
Proposal 06-2 seeks to ban affirmative action in state government entities. It would make Michigan a true "equal opportunity" state, at least as far as state government is concerned. However, among the criteria it uses to ban discrimination is gender. This would cause problems for gender-specific programs, such as initiatives to encourage more women to enter science and math fields. I also wonder what it would mean for things like the women's only dorms at the University of Michigan, since there are no men's equivalents. On the other hand, I have seen the negative effects of affirmative action at the state level, and I would love for it to be abolished. I still have to decide how I want to vote on this proposal.
Proposal 06-3 might be popular in rural areas of Michigan, but it's not going to affect me in the slightest. Anyone have an opinion on "mourning dove" hunting?
Proposal 06-4 seeks to ensure that what happened in the Kelo v. City of New London decision doesn't happen in Michigan. Unlike many ballot proposals for ammendments to the state constitution, I believe that this issue does belong in our constitution. The idea of the government taking property from one individual using eminent domain and giving it to another, for private use, is abhorent. Unfortunately, the proposal has one flaw that concerns me. It requires that an individual who loses his residence due to eminent domain be paid 125% of the "fair market value". This means significant additional expense for public projects. That isn't too bad, but the "fair market value" statement might provoke significant litigation, which does concern me.
Proposal 06-5 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It seeks to lock in inflation-adjusted increases for educational spending in Michigan. Sounds like a good idea, right? But the devil is in the details. First, it requires that the current funding be increased by $565 million. There are only 9.9 million people in the state, of which about 5.7 million (based on 2005 census numbers) are of a working age. Once you factor in unemployment and stay-at-home parents, let's assume that there are 5.4 million working people. $565 million over 5.4 million people is $104 per person. But if you account for tax brackets, it's likely that many middle class families will be paying a lot more than that. Worse, if mass layoffs in the auto industry reduce the state's tax revenues significantly, then every state service except education will be decimated.
But that's only the beginning. School districts with declining enrollments will be funded based on the average of the last three years, not what the current per-pupil funding would provide. This means that Detroit will continue to receive more money that it deserves for the forseeable future. The state would slowly take over the retirement burden from schools and colleges (contributions will be capped), even if the institution (like the University of Michigan) could afford it. Both of these are going to drive income taxes up, and the benefit will be marginal. Not all school systems in Michigan are spending their money wisely.
So, a "no" vote on Proposal 06-5 is pretty much a slam-dunk.
Anyways, that's it for now. I'll probably write about the City of Ann Arbor proposals later this week.
posted by David at 10/22/2006 10:58:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home