By Phil Power - November 19, 2009
I have a vivid memory of my beautiful granddaughter, Lucy, standing in front of a mirror just after she turned two:
"No," she said. "No, no, no, no."
Pause.
Then, “no, no, no, no, no.”
“Just practicing for the terrible twos,” said my wife.
She was right, of course. If there’s something two year-olds are really good at, it’s saying “No” over and over and over again.
All this came to mind when I reflected on the continuing quarrel between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop over school funding. Alert readers will remember that in order to plug the state budget deficit — which was almost $3 billion — the legislature first cut school spending. Then the governor cut it some more, saying the money just wasn’t there.
The result was cuts amounting to between $292 and $600 per child in every school district in Michigan.
Senator Bishop claimed the governor was just trying to scare the legislature into increasing taxes. The school people went ballistic.
They held rallies on the Capitol steps and complaining that unforeseen cuts of this size (especially coming so late in their fiscal year) would devastate the schools. Governor Granholm has been urging people to beat on the Republican-controlled state senate to adopt “narrowly targeted” revenue increases.
And Senator Bishop has been busily saying “No, no, no, no.”
Until now, I’ve been content to watch as this spat played out. But when I was over in Utica the other day, local school people bent my ear about how you simply cannot manage a business – or a school district – when, nearly half way into the fiscal year, you have no idea how much money you’re going to have to work with.
They pointed out that if Michigan is going to compete in a global economy, the last place to balance the budget is on the backs of our young people, who need all the knowledge and skills they can get.
Now, there are two dimensions to this quarrel, the long and the short term. The long-term issue is that our schools, like most other elements of state and local government, are in dire need of a stiff dose of structural reform. Our teachers pay is near the top of the national charts, but our students rank in the middle. And teachers still get rich health and pension benefits that chew up nearly half of any funding increases for our schools. And there are all kinds of ways to share services between school districts that would save millions.
But nobody – including Senator Bishop, notably – appears prepared to talk seriously about long-term structural reforms.
The short-term issue involves the current, sudden big cuts to schools that everybody agrees would be chaotic and, maybe, inflict long-term damage on our kids and our state.
The governor has offered a bunch of ways to overcome the shortfall in school funding, but Bishop isn’t buying any of them … because he claims they are “tax increases.”
Well, I’m not so sure.
One proposal would put off scheduled reductions in the personal exemption on the state income tax. This would cost the average Michigan resident $4.35 a year, but it would add up to $55 million for schools. Is a delay in a scheduled tiny reduction of an existing levy a tax increase? I doubt it.
Another idea is to expand the sales tax on cigarettes to snuff and little cigars. That would yield an extra $21 million, according to the Michigan Department of Treasury. Sure, that’s a tax increase for people who use those products, but why did we exempt snuff and little cigars from tobacco taxes in the first place?
And there are the famous “tax expenditures,” special state tax loopholes given to one particular industry or other. These are complicated matters, ranging from severance taxes on oil produced from “stripper wells,” to subjecting international phone calls to the sales tax. But they could add up to many millions.
But to all of that, Senator Bishop keeps repeating, “No, no, no.”
Now I admire steadfast adherence to principle as much as the next guy. But this is the legislature, for heaven’s sake, where trade-offs and compromise are the stuff of political life!
There are also legitimate questions about Senator Bishop’s motives, which no doubt include his desire to get the GOP nomination for state attorney general next year. That’s a prize awarded by party activists at their convention, not the voters in a primary. He may be calculating that winning it requires him to bend his knee to the hard-line no-taxers in the Republican Party.
As Lucy, now four, has learned over the past couple of years, growing up in a family requires learning how to get from endless “No” to the occasional, negotiated “Yes.”
Maybe it’s time for Senator Bishop — and everybody else involved in this conflict — to look into their own personal mirrors.
8 Comments
I wonder why nobody is willing to look at, much less discuss the cozy deal the State has with the Lottery? About 86% of my property taxes are supposed to go to the general fund and then paid to the schools.
But every dollar the Lotto gives to the schools is a dollar the State does not have to give out of the money I pay in taxes to support schools! Where is the money I give to schools? Why doesn't the Lotto and Property Taxes together go to schools? Why is this not openly talked about? I welcome you to share any of this posting with anybody.
What reforms? From the K-12 Public School, system, I mean.
All I've heard is "give us the money." Sure we can talk about the tax system, but without reforms on the public school side, any additional tax revenue will drain out where the current money has gone: bargained away into labor costs and legacy overhead.
And while we're asking, what other reforms can our K-12 public schools offer? What innovations can they bring…not just nibbles or layoff/program cutting quality killers, but game changers?
Everybody else, cities, counties, law enforcement, roads, infrastructure, corrections, public health…has had to find efficiencies and become, in the words of a recent Pew Center report: "smaller, more efficient, and less expensive."
Show us some real K-12 reforms to go along with the tax revenue hikes, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
Your "no, no, no" granddaughter may have been irritating, but it beats being "A Girl Who Can't Say No."
I, too, have been wondering what is up with the lottery money? Back when Michigan citizens first voted to institute the lottery, it was "sold" to us as an additional source of revenue for the schools.
These days, the lottery seems to be doing just fine. Has everyone in the state legislature forgotten what the original intention was?
The points you made about salaries and benifits of teachers is interesting. This is part of the funding solution. There needs to be some cuts to some of the other non-essencial programs. If this happened I would gladly pay more taxes to help our children. The cut's in every other public sector agency has been done already.
I also find it hard to believe that there was not a plan for cuts in the schools budgets three yrs ago when this really started to happen. Sounds like no one had a financial forecast set. There is lot's of blame to go around, but it will take leaders to fix it.
The party of; "Just Say No" has killed our State long enough. Vote them out next year. A party that will not compromise just to stick to their warped sense of how things should be is not one that we need running this state. Bishop will never get an ounce of my support as he has already shown that he does not understand the word compromise.
Phil – you state "this is the legislature…where trade-offs and compromise are the stuff of political life!" True. SO WHERE IS THE TRADE-OFF AND COMPROMISE FROM THE OTHER SIDE? Kudos to Bishop for his steadfast adherence to principle. Giving in to any tax "additions" at this point does nothing for necessary structural reform.
I still do not understand why we do not simply begin taxing food- 6% like everything else. It is equitable- everyone eats, so everyone pays. Our lowest income citizens are getting food stamps, so would not be affected. Your income range determines the kinds of food you buy- macaroni and cheese costs less than filet mignon, so higher income folks will pay more. And it is easier on businesses, as they no longer have to separate non taxable and taxable items! Seems like a no brainer to me!
The lotery fiasco is nothing more than a shell game, yes the money goes to schools but what isn't stated is the money that was already going to schools is cut so the end game is no net gain. As stated most taxpayers would agree to more taxes if true reform was included. Presently, increases in foundation allowances for k-12 schools just gets eaten up by benefits,retirement,insurance and yearly step increases no increase into the actual classroom. Sad situation….
Post a Comment