The present beer tax is 1.9 cents per 12 oz serving. This generates $45 million annually. Raise it to $.50 per serving and we'd get $1,814 billion, or for a quarter per glass we'd recieve over $600 million. And, of course, ear mark all of the tax for education. This would wipe out the $377 million shortfall, pay for the Governors Early Childhood project starting this year, and leave a little left over to sweeten the foundation grant.

Hope lots of people view it.

Reminded me of "Big Picture Small World" and some of their Web 'movies'

And health care must also be there. Now that we're proposing to save money by getting rid of health care as a future/retirement benefit where will this health care support come from? I think in recent years the Federal government has pulled back from a lot of its prior payments to states for part of this coverage, and the research aspects that lower the cost of future health care. The Federal government must resue a more proactive and financial role - so that we will stop being a Federal tax donor state. The Federal government needs to begin by covering catastrophic illness for all Americans -- perhaps covering everytihing over $100,000 a year. It would lower employer premiums since high risk would be assumed Federally. It would go some distance towards lowering manufacturing corporate and government legacy costs.

Consolidation is seen as a panacea. In reality even if all of the school districts and cities consolidated the saving woudl be fairly small in the overall budget shortfall. If you combined 500 school districts and the 500 smaller cities how much would you really save. Out of a $2.6 billion shortfall you might save 10% - assuming $260,000 in savings per unit of government -- in a perfect world. Not that much -- but the idea is good, and the Governor and Maxine Berman's incentives are a smart move to begin the process. I think a lot could be consolidated between cities and school districts and this doesn't seem to be on the table, as of yet. Most townships (except for the large urban townships) don't spend that much on providing services so that the savings wouldn't be that great for this large number of units of government.

The loss of the current SBT, and the half billion or more in cuts during the Engler administration must be replaced. The $2.1 billion or more must be made up somehow - and it shouldn't just be shifted to local taxpayers. People aren't leaving just because of high taxes. We have a lot of manufacturing leaving America. It's not just rust belt cars and large ticket items -- it's also fabrics and materials from the southern and New England states. And some of the manufacturing shifts, in some cases are proving to be unwise. Businesses must pay a fair share of the costs of government since they use our roads, water and sewer systems, and do require services. But yes, the SBT as currently constituted is unfair. I think though that businesses need to have some kind of share in the costs of running our government and it should be at least at the $2 - $2.5 billion level. But one way of dealing with some of this expense would be to revisit State Representative Andy Meisners list of "loopholes" in our state tax system and close most of those loopholes. If they're business related then reduce a new SBT by most of those loopholes. It could be that you could make a substantial cut in the business taxes per corporation, by closing most of those loop holes.

I like the idea of broadening the sales tax, as long as its done with fairness and logic. I too would like to see "educational" and "political campaigns" taxed during election season. It seems now that we are seeing an attempt at marketing to buy elected offices, above the State House level in Michigan. Private employers and lobby groups see that they can often buy the elected officials they want, by helping pay for most of the costs of marketing a candidate. There are lots of million dollar races in Michigan. Go above a certain threshhold in campaign spending on TV, media, direct mailings, phone banks, or education by non-profit or other groups during the 6 months before an election and tax a portion of those funds and make them give a share for -- pay to play. But I would consider redistributing these political related funds to some campaigns to get a better balanced approach.

Let's get out of the wharehousing of all criminals, and revisit our sentencing patterns. Perhaps this was best brought home with the recent release of Nathaniel Abraham. Keeping him in prison costs $40 - $50,000 a year. Educating him with room and board will cost half of that, and if it works he will be a tax payer, not a tax burden. 50 years in prison for a 21 year old at $50,0000 a year is $2.5 miliion dollars. And that's what we are doing to many inner city kids throughout the state. We think withholding quality education with small classrooms, and some meal support programs, and high pay for those central city schools is the correct logic. But all we are doing is creating long-term $2.5 million dollar burdens. We need to rethink prison vs. education. We let a prisoner out, especially those most likely to return, and we don't invest seriously in making sure they don't come back.

And I think we need to start examining our State Senate and find out why we have a team of "NO" players there but in the State House both parties can now work together? We can't afford another 10 years of NO players in the Legislature. We need to work across party lines, at least on 80 - 90% of the issues, to move Michigan forward to the head of the line.

I'm not leaving and I want honest solutions!

Dear Phil Power,

In your "Leaders need to communicate better on state's money crisis" article in the Thursday, February 15, 2007 Observer & Eccentric, you mentioned that "not many people understand or care about how bad a fix we're in". I'd like to comment on this.

Personally, I would answer in agreement to the speculation that I don't understand how bad a fix we're in, but also, I would have to disagree on the caring part. I docare about our State and I think the majority of people in the State of Michiganalso care. I think we can all see that every downward turn of events that affect Michiganbusinesses, schools and homeowners will ultimately lead to a diminishing quality of life for us Michiganders. Deep down, I believe that we all know this, and do care.

The reason that I may not understand how bad a fix we're in is mainly due to the fact that I am an average citizen, and am not well versed in the specifics of how the Michigan government is structured, how much money is spent on this or that, etc. Because I am just an ordinary citizen, living my life as a full-time mom with a part-time job, trying to keep up with my kids and life in general, I don't believe I could ever know the full scope of what the Michigangovernment could do to help. I frequently read news articles like yours to keep informed, but the more I learn about this issue, the more I realize I how complex it is, and how much I don't know about it. I walk away with a feeling of vulnerability as an uninformed citizen, depending on our lawmakers to do the right thing, because they do know all the facts, and they were put in office precisely for this reason - to take in all the facts that are not readily accessible to the public, and make decisions that are best for us. I would like to think of the legislative body as a mother that has the knowledge to make the right decisions for the welfare of her child. The Michiganlegislature is holding my hand and leading me, and I hope their mothering instincts are strong.

I always enjoy your column.

Thanks,

Mary Urso

Your piece today seems to want to shift the onus of decision-making from our elected officials to us mere citizens. And your quote from David Brooks appears to want us to feel sorry for the poor folk who are bombarded on all sides to make decisions for us. I quite understand the "go along to get along" philosophy that is prevalent in today's governing, but that does not mean that I agree with it or feel sorry for those who subscribe. And I don't believe for a second that they are as worried about their constituents' happiness as much as they are their "investors" interests. They vote the way they're told, usually without reading the bill beforehand (because they're too busy - talking, traveling, kissing up . . .). And they speak what they're told to speak (making for a very cohesive front, but without individual thought or conviction). I know that my voice should be heard, but when a decision is to be made I fear my voice is weak compared to dollars and perks. I look at Mike Rogers who changed his position on Choice (more money from Right to Life, I assume) and Mitt Romney (who has suddenly taken a dramatic Right turn on so many fronts since he decided to run for President - again, money talks loudly) and I fear their values are for sale to the highest bidder.

I agree that the electorate should be vigilant. But we also are bombarded with personal circumstances - family, friends, mortgages, illnesses, jobs, health insurance, etc. We elect these people because we cannot adequately oversee our school boards' business, our city or township's business, our state's business and our Federal government's business. If we could, we wouldn't need them. We trust them to make decisions in our best interests, not theirs or their party's.

I totally agree with you that our state is at a Mississippi/Simi Valley type crossroad and that leadership is desperately needed. We voted for term limitations in hopes that our elected officials could make rational decisions not based on obligation. That just hasn't worked out. We've instead lost experience and replaced it with people who have no long-term accountability and maybe no short-term accountability either. Not a good trade.

Which brings me to CE. I had heard nothing of it until just recently. CE is Clean Elections. It is, basically, elections that are publicly funded, or rather, candidates. It obligates the elected to no one except the public and opens the door to candidates who are either not wealthy enough to mount a campaign or who do not have the financial connections to mount one. It has been very successful in many states (Arizonacomes to mind) and on various levels of government, including State positions and Appeals Courtjudges. This, to me, is very appealing. It makes the elected accountable to us, not the deep pockets. And it frees them to make decisions based on their values and their constituency's best interests, for a change. Have you heard of this? It doesn't sound like the same thing we have here in Michigan.

I realize I may sound a bit long in the tooth, but I am not alone in feeling a major change is needed - maybe election law reforms, maybe a viable third party, maybe CE. I am tired of hearing how healthy our economy is when my husband is having the worst years in business (thanks to tariff changes and free trade agreements he cannot even purchase materials for what his customers can get the work done overseas or in Mexico). We are so thankful our economy is so strong. But if it gets any stronger, we may be moving in with our children! The talking heads can say what they want, but it doesn't change reality, and we the people are catching on.

"The din grows, the pressure rises. And our public officials are plunk in the middle of the pressure cooker." Horsefeathers!! It's only a pressure cooker if they choose it to be. Peel away all the monetary layers and the power for power's sake mentality and the decisions become clearer and easier. They just need to do the right thing - for the state, for it's people. The real question is: do they have the backbone and scruples to do it? My fear is they do not, and they will not short of some kind of revolution.

I commend you for your efforts, especially regarding The Center for Michigan. Your voice is sometimes the only sane voice I hear. Do know that you are not alone - you speak for many of us, even many that do not know you are speaking!

Thank you for plowing through this. I could probably rant on for pages more, but I need to put away my soap box now.

Keep up your valiant efforts - they are appreciated.

Sincerely,

Judy R. Nash

Posted By admin on 02/09/2007 10:56 AM
How do we best transform the size and role of government, and how best to pay for it?

Ya Know, I realy don't mind helping to pay for needed services, however just what is really needed?They want to increase sales tax across the board, that is fair, but they are also increasing my property taxes and my health insurance, dental insurance and we pay out of our pockets for eye glasses.Since 1999 my property taxes have increased every year. Our children are growen and have families of their own. This year it is proposed $3300.00 in assessed value, last year it was $26oo.oo, now my husband is retired and I would like to, but I guess I should stay working.

Thank you for your willingness to bring this question out in the open.

As a lifelong Michigan resident, past educator, and business person for the last 34 years, I would not favor the education system of our State being taken over by State governement. The question that seems to go begging is, "If we pursue this approach, where will accountability come from?" In an effort to save dollars, will we send our children into, what could arguably be, the largest and least controllable bureaucracy ever created in this State. I would think that we should think long and hard before going down the path of further turning the future of our children over to a bureaucracy that cannot, by its nature, be forced to be nearly accountable enough to the parents of this State. Who will stand accountable? Will the Govenor's office? Will the legislature? Will the State Board of Education? We can engage in all kinds of meaningless platitudes, about holding public officials accountable,but certainly, no longer will the parents have much say. I would propose that it will be controlled by a new pack of bureaucrates and bureaubrats (demagogues).

As a business person, our experiences, in dealing with State of Michigan bureaucracy, have been something far less than what any sane person could or would expect. What type of business, when faced with a precipitous drop in business, would triple fees to their Customers (The people of the State of Michigan) instead of reducing staff and expenses. Where would any business be today, if they refused to return phone calls and scolded the caller for calling too much? Welcome to the State of Michigan's existing bureaucracy today! A business that did this would be out of business which is where we seem to have gotten ourselves. And what business is foolish enough to want to relocate into that environment? This is the stuff that is not being discussed. Of course I am digressing off the topic at hand, however, what is there that differs, once you create the monster?I ask,"Wouldn"t this create new a monster"?

I believeIf you look at the definition of bureaucracy in Websters it says this. "A body of nonelectivegovernment officials characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority. A system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation." (underlining is mine) That is the reality of the State of Michigan today. That surely sounds like the type of system that I want my grandchildren exposed to! What would lead anyone to believe that turning over the future of our children to the State of Michigan would end up not being bureaucratic, at best? Do we want our children trapped in a system that will be self perpetuating? I fully realize that I am not offering any viable solution. Only reacting to what I percieve as a proposed solution that may be worse than the current problem.

Thank You