Comments on: Reform Summit: Lansing ignores viable options http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/reform-summit-lansing-ignores-viable-options/ A Forum for Our State's Future Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:42:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Robert http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/reform-summit-lansing-ignores-viable-options/comment-page-1/#comment-2266 Robert Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:21 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=1280#comment-2266 Leadership in Lansing needs to do the obvious,reduce it's size and pay. That would put all other entities and individuals on notice that real change for the beneifit of those(citizens) who fund everything comes first! Then priorities can be make and goals set that hold Lawmakers accountable for RESULTS. Leadership in Lansing needs to do the obvious,reduce it's size and pay. That would put all other entities and individuals on notice that real change for the beneifit of those(citizens) who fund everything comes first! Then priorities can be make and goals set that hold Lawmakers accountable for RESULTS.

]]> By: Neil Karl http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/reform-summit-lansing-ignores-viable-options/comment-page-1/#comment-2268 Neil Karl Fri, 15 May 2009 20:36:43 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=1280#comment-2268 The Urban Cooperation Act is legislation created by political compromise. It is designed so that any one person or entity can object and veto any merger or service sharing. This is designed so that any rapid progress is virtually impossible. All county, city, township, village charters are at the pleasure of the state government. If the state government could get its act together, much stronger legislation could be enacted. Only two options were considered: budget cuts or tax revenue increases by tax increases. The governor and legislature does have the option of legislation of maintaining or reducing some tax rates, but obtaining tax revenue increases by economic growth. But the governor has done everything possible in this regard for the past six years. They are wringing their hands, not knowing what further to do to get economic growth. Ohio took the road to economic growth in 2005. The Urban Cooperation Act is legislation created by political compromise. It is designed so that any one person or entity can object and veto any merger or service sharing. This is designed so that any rapid progress is virtually impossible. All county, city, township, village charters are at the pleasure of the state government. If the state government could get its act together, much stronger legislation could be enacted.

Only two options were considered: budget cuts or tax revenue increases by tax increases. The governor and legislature does have the option of legislation of maintaining or reducing some tax rates, but obtaining tax revenue increases by economic growth. But the governor has done everything possible in this regard for the past six years.

They are wringing their hands, not knowing what further to do to get economic growth. Ohio took the road to economic growth in 2005.

]]> By: susan http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/reform-summit-lansing-ignores-viable-options/comment-page-1/#comment-2271 susan Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:33 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=1280#comment-2271 The reform choices you listed are commendable, especially the collaboration between school districts. However, I noticed in the full report that "service sharing programs have produced mixed results according to the Am Assoc of School Administrators." Please Note: This is to be expected from administrators who are often times highly paid and are protective of their jobs. The state has dropped the ball on this also; there are White Papers from the 1990's which speak to the service sharing, yet nothing has ever been done. Kudos to your people if you actually accomplish this! The reform choices you listed are commendable, especially the collaboration between school districts. However, I noticed in the full report that "service sharing programs have produced mixed results according to the Am Assoc of School Administrators." Please Note: This is to be expected from administrators who are often times highly paid and are protective of their jobs.
The state has dropped the ball on this also; there are White Papers from the 1990's which speak to the service sharing, yet nothing has ever been done. Kudos to your people if you actually accomplish this!

]]> By: edward l http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/reform-summit-lansing-ignores-viable-options/comment-page-1/#comment-2270 edward l Thu, 14 May 2009 19:09:31 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=1280#comment-2270 I think the time for talking about "reforms" may be over. At the end of the day, you have to talk about "reductions." There's a reason that the Issue Guide for your suggested reforms references "possible savings" for each reform. The reforms may make sense from an efficiency/effectiveness/equity standpoint, but they don't necessarily generate short-term budget savings. (For example, the DB-to-DC switch actually creates short-term costs, with any savings materializing a couple decades from now.) Balancing the state budget requires reducing specific line items in the budget (or raising additional revenue). And, with the magnitude of the budget problem the state currently faces, that means eliminating services, not "reforming" them. What do the people of this state want their state government to do and what don't they want it to do? I think the time for talking about "reforms" may be over. At the end of the day, you have to talk about "reductions." There's a reason that the Issue Guide for your suggested reforms references "possible savings" for each reform. The reforms may make sense from an efficiency/effectiveness/equity standpoint, but they don't necessarily generate short-term budget savings. (For example, the DB-to-DC switch actually creates short-term costs, with any savings materializing a couple decades from now.)

Balancing the state budget requires reducing specific line items in the budget (or raising additional revenue). And, with the magnitude of the budget problem the state currently faces, that means eliminating services, not "reforming" them. What do the people of this state want their state government to do and what don't they want it to do?

]]>