The good news is that it doesn't look like we are going to have a knock-down, dragged-out, controversial fight over this year's state budget. But in a way, that's bad news too.
I'll explain in a minute. But first of all -- have you noticed a monotonous "hum" coming from Lansing? That sound is the legislature chewing on the budget Gov. Jennifer Granholm sent them a few weeks ago. It covers the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
That's a way off, true, but it would be nice for once not to have to put off finishing the budget until the last possible moment. Unlike the previous budgets the governor has sent to our divided legislature, this one was greeted by mild approval. Most experts praised it for avoiding partisan conflict by being "rational," and "structurally sound."
What the legislature's priorities are was best expressed by State Sen. Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee: "We like no new fees and no new taxes."
The total budget, including federal aid and non-discretionary spending, comes to $44.8 billion. That‘s up about $1.1 billion or 2.5 percent, from last year. It relies on $1.4 billion increased tax revenue, the product of the new Michigan Business Tax and income tax hikes that were passed last year after months of fierce partisan warfare.
That's how much money the system will produce, in theory, anyway. (If there is a shortfall, look for more cuts to come.) Budgets are much more than totting up expenses and income; they are statements of our government's priorities.
Ideally, these should arise from an overall vision of the future. And true enough, there are some things to like about Granholm's budget. But as a shaped and disciplined expression of a vision for Michigan's future, it falls sadly short.

Michiganders are increasingly realizing that much of our future depends on our willingness to invest in human capital, whether in our schools or our colleges and universities. The budget calls for increased spending on education, including a three percent increase in spending for higher education.
That's fine, as far as it goes.
But Michigan has been leading the nation in the dismal and counterproductive exercise of cutting support for higher education.
Even after the governor's proposed increases this year for our 15 public colleges and universities, we still are spending $120 million less than we did in 2001, the year before she was elected.
Her fiscal 2009 budget proposes a $50 million reduction in spending for state prisons, to be achieved by "reforms and efficiencies," though it isn't clear what those might be.
Corrections spending has gobbled up ever-increasing slices of state spending. This budget ought to focus our attention on one of our tragic disconnects in priorities: We are spending more these days on putting felons in the slam than on educating young minds.
Indeed, Michigan spends nearly 40 percent more on prisons than our neighboring states, even though our crime rate is just about the same. Isn't it time for a series of public hearings on corrections costs and results, complete with testimony from other states?
I'd bet we have a lot to learn.
Most of us who understand this state also believe strongly in the distinctive competitive advantages Michigan has. We are, in fact, the country's "North Coast", a place of wondrous natural resources and a magnificent (and affordable) quality of life.
For the first time in years, Granholm's budget proposes to increase funding for the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality. That's okay, especially given that the DEQ is virtually out of money, but it's hardly the compelling or bold step we need to assure our future.

But perhaps the worst consequence of this "non-controversial" budget is that it puts off serious action on the kinds of far-reaching structural reforms that were proposed by the Emergency Financial Advisory Panel the governor convened more than a year ago.
That panel included some of Michigan's most distinguished citizens, including two previous governors. Their report was among the best of its kind. It pointed to a long-term financial crisis facing state and local government. It called for reforms in the tax system, but concluded that we should not just tax our way to responsible state spending. It urged structural reforms in the ways government is organized. That included changes in the fringe benefits of public employees, and suggested benchmarking what we spend -- and what the state raises -- against what happens in other states.
This report was disgracefully ignored while the governor and legislature faced a budget crisis last fall. Serious reforms usually require a crisis to concentrate political will. We didn‘t have that will last year; in ducking the crisis then, our political leaders in Lansing missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity for big-time reform.
The Emergency Advisory panel's conclusions are still a valid recipe for financial survival: We need serious reforms in the ways we manage our state. Without these, we'll face a steady stream of enormous, long-term structural deficits.
Yet financial survival, important as it might be, is not enough. We still need a compelling common vision for Michigan's future that can shape and discipline the workings of our state. This year's budget may offer a few baby steps in the right direction.

But we need to see a big picture.
And this budget doesn't even pretend to offer that.

***

Editor's Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics, and a former president of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a centrist think-and-do tank. The opinions expressed here are Power's own and do not represent the official views of The Center. Power welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.