If you are willing to invest fifteen minutes to read the Center’s new issue guide on state taxes and spending, you will have fresh understanding of the public purse and Michigan’s future prospects for tax reform and delivery of such basic services as schools, police and fire protection, and the social safety net.
Even more importantly, you’ll be armed with substantive questions for the candidates who will soon come knocking in the 2010 election:
- How, exactly, do we spend the public purse and how have our spending priorities changed over time?
- Are current spending and investment patterns consistent with strategic priorities for Michigan’s future?
- What kind of tax reform would meet the intense needs for a more sustainable state revenue stream, transparency, business competitiveness, and fairness?
- How does Michigan’s tax burden rank nationally?
- Two types of programs — education and social services — account for more than 70 percent of state spending? Why are social services budgets growing so quickly?
- Why would knee-jerk solutions like cutting legislative pay have almost zero impact on the state budget?
- How is Michigan’s mix of tax revenues from business, sales, income and other taxes changing over time? Are you and your business paying more, less, or about the same?
- Michigan doles out more than $30 billion in annual tax breaks. Who gets those breaks and for what purposes?
Fifteen minutes with our issue guide and you’ll have a clear understanding of those and many other issues. And you’ll be ready to test next year’s candidates. Any prospective legislator or governor who comes knocking at your door or shakes your hand at a rally should have firm command of the taxing and spending issues raised in our guide. If they don’t you have to ask yourself whether they are qualified to lead.
More than 200 engaged citizens and diverse community leaders will discuss the issue guide next Tuesday at the Center for Michigan’s jam-packed ”Kitchen Table Talk About Michigan’s Public Purse.”
Very limited seating is still available. Email us today if you’d like to attend and watch for coverage of the event in publications like the Detroit Free Press and Crain’s Detroit Business — and in next week’s newsletter.
2 Comments
As an advocate of Michigan joining the 42 states which have a part-time (ie: “session limited”) legislature, I would like to respond to your question: “Why would knee-jerk solutions like cutting legislative pay have almost zero impact on the state budget?” Is some responsible group suggesting that? Energize Michigan, through a state constitutional convention, supports reorganizing the State Legislature in a manner similar to neighboring Ohio, which has one million more citizens than us but operates with one-half the budget for their legislature. Would an annual savings of $ 50 million have an impact on the state budget? Would a substantial cut in the staffs of the State Legislature improve the credibility of the Legislature seeking pay cuts from state employees and reductions in the size of some state agencies? Would those efforts, if successful have an impact on the state budget?
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org) a part-time legislature is defined not just by compensation but by time on the job and by the number of support staff. Measured by all three criteria, they conclude that Michigan is one of four states with the highest legislative costs. Unfortunately, performance does not follow expenses. In July, the State House of Representatives had two regular session days while the State Senate had one session day. How fortunate that Michigan was facing a mere $1.7 billion deficit. With a larger deficit, lawmakers might have been more inclined to meet and act quicker. In August, the State Reps again had two session days while the State Senate had five days.
Instead of cutting the compensation of our lawmakers, Energize Michigan has instead suggested reducing the number of legislators from 148 to 120, but for efficiency, not budget reasons. This is the same number as California, a state with almost four times our population and the only state which pays their lawmakers more than Michigan. We also propose increasing the term of the State Reps from two to four years and to have one-half of both the House and Senate be up for election every two years.
Many organizations throughout Michigan are recommending changes. The question is how are you going to implement these great ideas? Through the ultra-partisan Legislature? Through costly petition drives?Energize Michigan supports a Yes for Michigan vote on Proposal One in November, 2010 to call for a state constitutional convention. We see the con con as the best forum to discuss and propose to voters the changes that are needed in Michigan.
went to the education meeting this morning.
most stunning and impactful statement from president simon (and others) …
we need to first adjust to being in the middle, average state. the old economy was built on low skill/education and middle class wages and benefits. that economy no longer exists! we’re no longer a top 10 state. only when we internalize this, and adopt to it will we make the hard decisions necessary to ’survive’. when our economic situation improves 5-10 year from now ( i hope) if we do something today! we can move back up … invest again.