Last Night's NO Vote on RTW



I’m sorry to be addressing this a day late. I got home very late yesterday, without telling you about yesterday’s vote on Right to Work legislation in the Michigan House. The bill passed, of course, 58-52!

After careful consideration and having heard from so many people in the 94th House District, I voted NO this legislation. It is very clear that this is an issue that drives a lot of passionate debate. I think I have a pretty good sense of the district after twenty years in elected office.

I have to tell you, this is the most highly disruptive vote that we could have tackled in Lansing. I’ve warned of this day, and have voted against RTW twice, when I was in the minority party.

I owned a business for 15 years and raised my family here in Saginaw County. I know that we’re different than other parts of the great State of Michigan. I recognize that many people will be upset with my position, but this was not a rash decision made in political haste.

For the record; I’ve butted heads with area unions many, many times over the years; both as a business owner and as an elected official; but, frankly, I don’t see them as an enemy.

In fact, from my perspective, new problems that will be created and unintended consequences may likely outweigh this one solution. Make no mistake; this is purely a philosophical argument that is taking place, which states that someone can opt out of paying dues when they work in a union shop. I’m deeply concerned that the dissension that we feel in Lansing may find its way to the shop floor, which is not productive for any Michigan manufacturer.

In addition, there are certain bargaining-unit exemptions; namely for police and fire unions. While I support the carve outs, I expect to see some federal district court take a hand in sorting out this legislation. The courts have already overturned two labor-related laws this year.

The bottom line is that this piece of legislation, while it might be part of an economic solution for Michigan, by itself, will not be the panacea to solve all of the economic failures that Michigan has experienced.

Saginaw’s labor history and its partnerships have been engrained into the Saginaw area culture for many decades. Today, the Great Lakes Bay Region enjoys a certain amount of solid economic growth, and solid capital investment. The summer of last year, Nexteer announced a $125 million dollar investment on the same day that G.M. Metal Casting announced $225 million. Both projects could have gone anywhere in the world, literally. They came here, in part, because of a solid partnership between the plants and its workers. And, there are plenty more great stories out there.

Believe it or not, the number one problem of the manufacturers, in this area, is finding skilled workers.

Back in Lansing, they still need to tackle many issues to truly keep Michigan moving forward. For instance, states that have no personal income tax have created almost 90% more jobs than states like Michigan. This term, we reviewed some 87,000 rules and regulations that guide and often suppress the economy of Michigan. Our energy rates are still the highest in the Midwest region, but we’re making progress. We’re trying to rebuild our roads and bridges.

We’re headed in the right direction in Michigan, but these are issues that we simply can’t solve without working together. Last night, after the vote on RTW, the City of Saginaw may have lost a chance at a $6.1 million dollar riverfront investment. Maybe it’s a just a small price to pay, in the big scheme of things, but a clear indication of a newly energized partisanship that worries me to no end. We now face the ugly sort of politics that the people of Michigan have already grown dreadfully tired of, and you deserve better.

I have consistently said that when we in Lansing fix all the structural problems of Michigan; such as taxes, regulations, energy, transportation, healthcare, pension legacy costs, public safety and education (all the things that we have control over), AND unions are still considered a problem to Michigan’s competitiveness, well... then I’d have to take a serious look at RTW, to overcome that roadblock.

As, I’ve said before: a 50% solution to the right problem is better than a 90% solution to the wrong problem. It’s been my goal to try to always fix the problem that’s right in front of me.

Having said all of that; our form of government is established to give the people of our community a voice in the House of Representatives and Senate. As I finish my final term in office and return to civilian life, I know that I will not always agree with my senators and representatives. As, most likely, neither do you. But... I must respect that democracy will succeed, even when I don’t agree with the result of any given vote.

 

 

 

Eerie Similarity Between Lansing and Washington DC

 

The 2006 Michigan elections saw a return to power by the Democrats in the Michigan State House of Representatives and the retention of Republican control over the Senate.

 

The 2012 national elections saw a return to power by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and the retention of Republican control over the House.

**********

Governor Jennifer Granholm heading into her second term, continues to blame her predecessor as she claims she was, "dealt a bad hand"

 

President Barack Obama, heading into his second term, continues blame his predecessor as he claims he was, "dealt a bad hand"

**********

The partisan division of power in Michigan's state government led to a showdown between Gov. Granholm and lawmakers over the FY 2008 state budget that resulted in a four-hour shutdown of nonessential state services in the early morning of October 1, 2007.

  

 

Will the partisan division of power in Washington will lead to another showdown between Pres. Obama and lawmakers, as we face the "fiscal cliff?" Will it lead to shutdown of nonessential federal services, in 2013?

**********

 

 

With the dust settled on the 2012 Presidential Election, it might be interesting to review Michigan's budget history.  

Having lived through the 2007 Lansing budget debacle, I think it's interesting to point out some similarities between what happened in Michigan and what we might see in Washington DC.

 

Promises to raise Michigan taxes in 2007 were backed up by veto threats. Compromise, or else, was the battle cry back then, as well. As state employees received gloomy email updates on the state budget, they were asked to contact their legislators. Emails cried out for bi-partisanship, "YOU ALL NEED TO COMPROMISE!!! I don't care how you do it... just work together to get the job done!!!"

 

 

This was a common theme to our offices. You're likely to hear those same pleas for Washington to "get the job done", though the pleas, without a doubt, will come with no specific instructions.

 

Lansing Budget 2007: It was said that Michigan's budget was cut to the bone. Those advocating for tax increases claimed that the governor already cut $3 billion from the budget. The problem, though, was that each year from 2006 to 2010 the budget increased by $1 billion. In 2007, as the governor insisted on nearly two billion dollars in tax increases, she also promised 17 new programs with a billion dollar price tag at the same time. From my perspective, I saw no attempt at compromise in that State of the State speech, nor through the remainder of the year.

 

It's just a matter of scale, I suppose, but the Governor sent layoff notices to 100 State Troopers, yet no other department was to face cutbacks. Current;y, in Washington, the Defense Budget is to be cut automatically as the result of a deal cut to avoid a fiscal crisis. Those military cuts are to happen within weeks, while promises of new "investments" in other programs continue to be made.

 

"Investment" in your own government was the buzzword of the day in 2007; a word meant to replace the term "spending". Investments into roads and bridges never actually happened as Stimulus Money was diverted to cover fiscal budget gaps. Investments into education never fully reached the classroom, and ultimately caused near panic in the education community when the magic pot of stimulus money ran dry. Investments into social welfare programs such as the Low Income Emergency Energy Fund (LIEEF) were tapped to pay for efficient street lights and "special projects", such as an experimental wind-study buoy in Lake Michigan, leaving vulnerable families a little short of cash.

 

 

New regulations were being written at an alarming rate. Businesses were choking on red tape, even as the promise was made to make Michigan more business friendly. The governor pushed for a 25% Renewable Energy Standard, but settled for 10% after much debate. Washington, with it's push for renewable energy and outrageously high gas mileage standards for Detroit automakers is not far behind us.

Green energy was to be the salvation of Michigan's manufacturing base. $2.6 billion dollars of Michigan Business Tax Credits were authorized, which I admittedly supported some of, and tens of millions of dollars for a "No Worker Left Behind" program, which I did not support at all. 

 

 

Washington caused it's Solyndra failures, but is further frightening off true capital investments in traditional manufacturing, with all of it's economic uncertainty; think Obamacare, EPA rules, labor rules, tax increases, etc...

 

 

In Lansing, clean coal power plants were denied permits (In Holland, Roger City and Essexville) as the Dept. of Environmental Quality plotted with the Public Service Commission staff to kill the projects.

 

In Washington, the president vowed to bankrupt the coal industry, even as it "necessarily increases the cost of electric energy." EPA Regulations are keeping the promise to put an end to coal energy, at the same time the administration is moving forward in green-energy "investments".

 

 

Taxing, spending and naively driving untested green-technologies with cash: we've learned a lot since then in Michigan. So the question begs to be asked: Will the 2nd term of President Obama reflect the 2nd term of Governor Jennifer Granholm?

 

 

 

 

 

"We cannot cut our way to prosperity," ~ Governor Jennifer Granholm (January 8, 2007)

 

 

 

 

"We can't just cut our way to prosperity” ~ President Barack Obama (November 9, 2012)

 
 
 
 
 
 
Here's a wrap up of the Governor Graholm's two terms, by Lansing journalist Peter Luke. Knowing what we know, today, you can judge the success of those eight years for yourself
 
By Peter Luke | Bridge Magazine MLive.com 
   on December 19

 

LANSING — As Jennifer Granholm concludes her eight years in the governor’s seat, the talk is that she was dealt a bad hand on the economy. The more relevant discussion is how she played that hand.

As she said in a summing-up speech on Mackinac Island in June, it would have been nice to be governor in the late ’90s, when budgets were flush and unemployment dipped below 4 percent.

But she wasn’t.

 

And so Granholm leaves office on the morning of Jan. 1 much as her three predecessors did, leaving to her successor, Rick Snyder, a troubled state whose prospects nonetheless show signs of improvement.

 

Probably no one could have held off the economic tide that began to turn in 2000 as the domestic auto industry was cresting at 2 million Michigan jobs. By the time Granholm took office in 2003, few figured the loss of 200,000 of those jobs was just the beginning.

 

In dealing with what followed, the Democratic governor and lawmakers in both parties seized some opportunities and forfeited others. Did they do all that could have been done to put Michigan in the best possible position? On that, the Granholm record is mixed. “She had the bad luck to be the governor of a state in which the major industry that has an overwhelming effect on the economy tanked,” said Timothy Bartik, an economist with the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

 

“She certainly took some very good positions on issues. She was able to do some things that didn’t require new money,” Bartik said. “What she was not able to do was get through enough significant revenue and spending reforms, or significant new investments.”

 

Net employment was to slide by 630,000 more jobs through Granholm’s two terms. And Michigan’s national ranking in per-capita income dropped from 18th to 37th. That follows, since Michigan was depending on wages from durable-goods manufacturing (read: auto-industry) for a fifth of the total.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Business Tax that Granholm signed into law in 2007 appears headed for repeal. And taxpayers haven’t been asked to pay more for roads and schools, putting both under enormous financial strain.

 

Speaking of education, it costs twice as much to go to state universities than eight years ago. Michigan now spends more money on prisons. But as Granholm departs, there are hopeful signs — even if her dismal approval ratings suggest few residents see it.

 

The reclamation of jobs appears to be under way. Unemployment is down 2 points from a year ago, to 12.4 percent. Private-sector payrolls are up, although just by a net 1,000. A University of Michigan forecast sees job growth of 87,000 through 2012.

 

Granholm and the Legislature did make massive investment in alternative energy technologies designed to preserve Michigan’s future in advanced manufacturing. And the departing governor spoke up last year for a federal rescue of the auto industry, with Ford selling for a buck a share and GM and Chrysler headed toward liquidation.

 

In her last month in office, GM is cranking out the first Chevy Volts, Chrysler (along with GM) is hiring thousands of engineers and Ford is retooling its Michigan Assembly Plant to produce electric and hybrid powertrains.Yet the story to which Granholm keeps returning is Greenville, rocked by the loss of 2,700 jobs during her first year in office when Electrolux decided to shut down the country’s largest refrigerator plant and move the work to Mexico — despite rich incentives from the state.

 

In an October speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Granholm said the same “is happening all over the country.", “The economy is just not going to come back the way it has before, so it means we’ve got to do things differently,” Granholm said. “I wish I could cut the ribbon on a new economy all over Michigan, but I’m not going to be able to.” So what was she able to do? And where did she succeed?

 

The budget

Keeping the state afloat wasn’t pretty, but it could have been a lot worse. Michigan spent about a billion dollars less in 2010 than it did in 2003. There are 7,415 fewer state employees. Revenue collections are more than $8 billion below the constitutional limit.

 

And spending has changed dramatically since 2003: $800 million more for Medicaid and prisons, versus $1.2 billion less in areas widely viewed as critical to the economy: higher education, city services and transportation infrastructure.

 

Granholm and lawmakers stumbled in several ways. They wiped out the $4,000 Michigan Promise college scholarship, did little to help struggling municipalities and failed to adequately fund transportation. The 2010 budget that ended Sept. 30 is $400 million to the good, Granholm says. That leaves, however, a new shortfall of more than $1 billion.

 

Taxes

Michigan collected less in taxes and fees this year than in Granholm’s first year, even counting the 2007 hike in income tax. Michigan now allows more in breaks, credits and exclusions than it annually collects. The tax code is a mess.

 

The sales tax on goods generates less every year as the service economy grows. Three times, Granholm tried to extend it to services. In 2007, she signed an unpopular, misshapen bill that targeted some services, but not others — ski tickets, yes; golf fees, no. It was quickly replaced with even higher taxes on employers. Her February proposal to finance business tax cuts and K-12 schools with a broad expansion never received a hearing.

 

Meanwhile, the tradeoff for her 2007 increase will further cut income-tax revenue beginning in 2012 when the rate begins to drop from 4.35 percent to 3.9 percent. That’s on top of generous new tax benefits for the working poor and exclusion of most retirement income for seniors. And back to our crumbling, crowded roads: Transportation taxes and fees have been in annual decline. Expert advice on ways to raise road money and create construction jobs — from a panel set up by the governor and lawmakers in 2007 — are sitting on the shelf.

 

Michigan’s old business tax, eliminated through a petition drive, was replaced by an even more unpopular system. Manufacturing is faring better, but the service sector is paying more. Snyder has vowed to get rid of it, and his party has the majorities to do so.

 

Economic development

For all the complaints that Granholm was ineffectual or Republicans obstructionist, there has been genuine bipartisan accomplishment. Seventeen advanced battery facilities are planned from Holland to Sterling Heights, with help from $288 million in state tax credits when they kick in in 2013 and $1.3 billion in federal stimulus cash. Total investment of $5.8 billion is estimated to eventually create 63,000 jobs.

 

Similar developments in alternative energy — solar and wind — are happening in mid-Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. A 2008 energy reform law requires 10 percent of the electricity generated in Michigan to come from renewable sources by 2015. The lame-duck Legislature even salvaged $10 million in ad buys for the national “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign.

 

Education

Closely tied to the economy is, of course, education. Granholm’s 2007 No Worker Left Behind program has provided free community college training for more than 147,000 unemployed or underemployed workers.

 

As for K-12 schools, Granholm, lawmakers and the State Board of Education approved tough curriculum standards and set up a framework for mandatory overhaul of failing schools. The reforms could allow more state oversight for the length of the school year and tie teacher evaluation more closely to student performance. As state education superintendent Michael Flanagan said last week: “Economic development in this state is dependent upon our students getting a lot smarter, quicker.”

 

 

Information on Proposal 3 Job Loss

 

SBAM study projects net job losses if Proposal 3 passes

               

                LANSING – Passage of Proposal 3, the 25 percent renewable energy mandate, will result in 1,600-1,700 fewer jobs in Michigan every year for 30 years, according to an Anderson Economic Group study commissioned by the Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM).

“Anderson’s impartial analysis of the impact and costs of Proposal 3 projects a loss of more than 50,000 Michigan jobs as a result of higher costs,” says Rob Fowler, SBAM president/CEO. “Michigan can’t afford to risk so many jobs.”

                The study considered Proposal 3’s effect on jobs in two ways. First, it considered the reduction in the number of jobs in Michigan that would result from the increase in electricity prices ($187 million in additional annual cost or $5.6 billion over 30 years), which would result in a decline in economic activity and employment. Second, although jobs would be lost due to the increased cost of electricity, some jobs would be created by electricity generators (an initial six-year period ) as electricity suppliers increase the proportion of their output that comes from renewable sources. But the net effect would be to create a few jobs and destroy many jobs. (see attached chart.)

                The study also finds fault with the energy restrictions that Proposal 3 would enshrine in the Michigan Constitution. It would define renewable energy sources as being wind, solar, biomass and hydropower only, thus diverting investment away from other renewable energy sources and away from investment in improving efficiency. Proposal 3 also restricts electricity suppliers from buying cheaper renewable sources outside the state.

                Finally, the study says it is not at all clear from the ballot wording whether the mandate requires price increases resulting from incremental renewal generation costs to be limited to one percent per year, or that price increases resulting from incremental renewable generation costs may not push price increases above one percent, or that the mandate limits price increases for any reason to one percent per year. If Proposal 3 passes, the uncertainty would be enshrined in the Constitution.

                “Michigan currently has a strong law ensuring that a significant portion of our state’s energy portfolio utilizes renewable sources of energy,” says Fowler. “We shouldn’t lock into the Constitution anyone’s preconceived ideas about the proper mix of our energy sources. Given the volatile nature of energy pricing and new technologies for extracting clean-burning energy, Michigan can’t afford to be inflexible about power sources. Approval of Proposal 3 would cement that inflexibility into our Constitution.”

                SBAM represents more than 17,000 small business owners in Michigan.  

 

Around the Horn - Michigan's Ballot Proposals

By State Representative Ken Horn

A lot of people are asking questions regarding Michigan’s six ballot proposals. We’re seeing an awful lot of money being spent, on both sides of the issue, to put attractive ads on TV and the radio. With this column, I hope to help sort through some of the clutter.

It is not my intent to tell readers how they should vote as I lay out the issues. However, it is my intent to let you know my position on each of the ballot proposals. The format for this column originates from a non-partisan piece that was written by both Republicans and Democrats.  While I add my thoughts, you should read it with an open mind and, of course, make your own choices.

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (Thomas Jefferson, 1939)

 

Proposal 1

 A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 - THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

 Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

• Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

• Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
• Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
• Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

People voting YES say:

• A “YES” vote upholds Public Act 4, the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act. This law allows the state to intervene in schools and local governments who are experiencing financial difficulty in order to attempt to avoid bankruptcy.

• Repealing the law puts the local elected officials back in charge who may repeat the same mistakes, putting Michigan taxpayers on the hook for the debt these officials pile up.
• Repeal would throw several Michigan cities and schools into financial chaos, threatening critical services because of a political decision.

People voting NO say:

• A “NO” vote repeals Public Act 4. This law undercuts local control by replacing democratically-elected representatives with an unelected manager overseen by the state, even if the financial difficulty resulted from causes beyond the control of local officials.

This law allows emergency managers to break and/or renegotiate contracts, including contracts with employees and private businesses, and to suspend collective bargaining.
• This law gives extensive power to an appointed emergency manager, with few checks and balances on his or her actions and behavior.

My opinion: This issue is a bit different than the other proposals, because it doesn’t try to amend the constitution. This is a referendum on an existing law. Michigan has had an Emergency Manager Law in place for many years. The problem with the previous law was that it had no real teeth; it didn’t allow managers to truly manage. The most important component of PA 4, 2011, is that it allows us to spot “financial stress” early, and prescribes remedies that actually prevent the need for an emergency manager.

Opponents say that PA 4 goes too far, when it allows managers to dissolve contracts, thereby having the ability to break collectively bargained contracts and suspend collective bargaining. What they won’t tell you is that if a city or school district goes into bankruptcy, a court-appointed manager has precisely those same powers. And, while you can take away the emergency manager, you can’t take away the emergency.

Opponents also contend that PA 4 “undercuts local control by replacing democratically-elected representatives with an unelected manager”. Yes, but so does bankruptcy! The real issue here is who ultimately pays for the mistakes of a local unit of government when its leaders make terrible choices.

Only a very small percentage of local governments are failing so terribly that they would require intervention, however, if they crash their local governments into the side of a tree, they have no right to complain about who is holding the Jaws of Life, as they are rescued. It’s your money on the line, if they make consistently bad decisions.

Because my 90,000 constituents have to foot the bills when, on rare occasion, a local government goes bad, I’m voting YES on Prop 1!

*******

Proposal 2

 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

• Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

• Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
• Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
• Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

People voting YES say:

• All workers need the right to organize to form, join or assist unions, and to bargain and negotiate in order to receive a fair contract and a living wage, to be guaranteed by the Constitution. Elected officials should not be able to interfere with that right.

• Workers deserve an opportunity to fairly negotiate with their employer.
• Collective bargaining protects workers from devastating cuts to their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Michigan’s citizens need protections in this uncertain economy.

People voting NO say:

• This amendment will repeal an unknown number of existing laws, including those that detail the hiring, firing and discipline process for police, fire fighters and teachers. No one knows how those critical services will be affected.

• This amendment would significantly limit the state government’s ability to regulate state workers and the labor activities of private employees.
• It would be unwise to lock this proposal in the Constitution as it would hinder lawmakers.

My Opinion: On the surface, this idea seems simple enough, but the devil is always in the details. This amendment would cripple Michigan’s ability to address any financial crisis, and take us back to the days of Lansing over-spending and the government shutdowns of previous years.

This amendment would override dozens of sensible, existing laws. It would make it nearly impossible to rid ourselves of chronic government incompetence and inefficiency. It would make it legal for public employees to strike, for instance; meaning this proposal would not be good for public school students, but it would be great for the Michigan teacher unions that threatened “work stoppages” in 2011.

Remember, you own this government! Michigan’s public employees are dedicated and hardworking, but it’s the public unions, which will always negotiate with you as the resident and taxpayer.

Prop 2 would lock a one-sided bargaining position into the constitution, as you get stuck paying the tab. Regardless of what happens to our economy or how much money we have in the bank, you’ll have to keep shelling out more cash. And, to pay for generational legacy costs, the state would have no choice but to cut services.

Because this amendment would have terrible unintended consequences by repealing dozens of existing laws, and because it dumps enormous future costs onto our children, I’m voting NO on Prop 2!

*******

Proposal 3

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

• Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.
• Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.
• Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.
• Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

People voting YES say:

• This proposal will require new investments in Michigan infrastructure, creating new Michigan jobs and helping to turn our economy around.

• The proposal in the long run could decrease energy prices.
• Switching to renewable energy sources protects our rivers, lakes, and air.

People voting NO say:

• Energy rates are too high in Michigan already and could be higher because of this amendment. Michigan already has a renewable target of 10% by 2015, and providers are making progress toward reaching this standard.

• Energy policy should not be included in the Constitution.
• A significant amount of the energy would come from wind. Installing the necessary wind turbines would alter the state’s landscape.

 My Opinion: As the Chairman of the House Energy and Technology Committee, I’ve spent a great deal of time crisscrossing the state of Michigan, talking on this particular ballot issue.

Folks… by the time we realize what 3,100 forty-story wind machines will do to Michigan’s shorelines and forest land; it will be too late to protect Pure Michigan. By the time we spend $12 billion dollars on this bad idea, it’ll be too late to protect your wallet (About $5,000 for a family of four.) By the time we realize what this does to our electric grid; it’ll be too late to protect Michigan from the next electric blackout. And, by the time Hollywood millionaires close their checkbooks to Michigan green-energy; it’ll be too late to vote no on this very bad idea.

This idea of 25% renewable energy was debated in 2008 and the idea was soundly rejected. This idea is so bad that no other state, NOT ONE, has introduced it into their constitution. Green energy jobs were the empty promise of the 2006 election, and it’s still an empty promise today. In these parts, when someone talks to you about a better “green” future, with lots of jobs; you just remind them of the failure of GlobalWatt in Saginaw.

To defend Michigan’s real manufacturing jobs, to save our fragile environment and to protect our children’s economic future here in Michigan, I’m voting NO on Prop 3!

*******

Proposal 4

TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CAREWORKERS

This proposal would:

• Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

• Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.
• Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
• Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of Employment

People voting YES say:

• The proposal creates a home care registry to connect seniors and people with disabilities to home care providers in their area, who are registered, have undergone screening and background checks, and have access to continual trainings.

• The proposal would strengthen the Council’s ability to increase current safety standards, provide training, and provide access to high-quality in-home care.
• This proposal would give a constitutional right to collective bargaining to home health care workers to allow them to fairly negotiate with their employers, a right that elected officials could not eliminate.

People voting NO say:

• This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues.

• In-home care workers are no longer considered public employees due to recent actions by Lansing politicians; however, this proposal would recognize them as such in order to unionize them.
• It would be unwise to lock this proposal in the Constitution as it would hinder lawmakers from altering the operation of the Council.

My Opinion: Some years ago, one of our state employee unions came up with a scheme to pretend that average people, caring for their own family members, were actually state employees. That let the union deduct dues from the checks that families receive from Medicaid. The union skimmed more than $30 million before we passed a law to put a stop to it.

They’re trying to overturn that law. This is a money grab, pure and simple.

Because no son or daughter, taking care of their parents, ought to be forced by some central-committee to license themselves, and because no grandparent should be forced into a union by their own government simply for watching their children’s kids, I’m voting NO on Prop 4!

***********

Proposal 5

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

• Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

• This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

People voting YES say:

• This proposal creates a high standard to make sure taxes are raised only when absolutely necessary and when a large majority of lawmakers agree on the need or when a statewide vote is held.

• The 2/3 requirement would make it more difficult to raise taxes.
• Michigan’s most recent tax hikes were passed by slim margins. This proposal would have prevented those increases and may prevent future increases.

People voting NO say:

• With the requirement of a 2/3 vote, the decision to make tax code improvements such as replacing an old or outdated tax with another form of revenue, even if no net increase, would fall to a small minority of legislators. The Michigan Business Tax would not have been repealed under these circumstances.

• The proposal would make the budget process more difficult for lawmakers and could result in new cuts to education and public safety. It would encourage the Legislature to raise or create fees forcing a smaller population to bear the costs.
• This proposal would prevent lawmakers from eliminating loopholes, thereby protecting special interests. Creating new special interest loopholes would still only require a simple majority of lawmakers.

My Opinion: I recognize the frustration of taxpayers who feel like they’ve lost control of their government. This 2/3 vote on taxes idea kind of floats in and out of the public discourse whenever the political winds blow just right. This proposal isn’t as onerous as others on the ballot, and while the intentions are noble, it will have consequences that will harm a very well-established representative form of government in Michigan.

Michigan just replaced a very complicated Michigan Business Tax and its 22% MBT surcharge with a simple, flat Corporate Income Tax. We went from the bottom of the feeding tank, to one of the best states in the nation to build a factory. We also saved main street businesses, all across the state, from going out of business. We could not have done this, in today’s political climate, if this proposal were in place.

Because this well-intentioned idea shackles our ability to solve both big and small problems for Michigan taxpayers, I’m voting NO on Prop 5!

**********

Proposal 6

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

• Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

• Create a definition of “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” that means, “any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.”

People voting YES say:

• International bridges and tunnels are special cases that involve ongoing taxpayer-funded expenses. The people should have a say in these important decisions, and this proposal would require a majority of Michigan voters to approve a new bridge or tunnel before being built.

• It is unclear if there is enough traffic between Southeast Michigan and Canada to necessitate a second bridge.
• State government should not use taxpayer dollars to compete directly with the existing, privately-owned bridge connecting Southeast Michigan and Canada.

People voting NO say:

• A second international bridge is needed to improve the movement of goods between Southeast Michigan and Canada, for economic development and job creation statewide, and enhanced homeland security.

• Michigan and Canada already have an agreement in place that ensures that no Michigan tax dollars will be used for construction of a new bridge.
• A statewide vote should not be required for the state to move forward with important crossings in the future, just as no votes were taken for the numerous existing bridge projects. The process for constructing a new bridge is not an issue that should be included in the Constitution.

My Opinion: Listen, I support the building of the second span of the Ambassador Bridge. I have no problem with a private Michigan company raising this span. Had it been left to me, I would have negotiated with the Canadian government to allow the permits that would have raised this bridge.

I also see the benefit of building the new bridge, as an international commerce issue. Farmers and manufacturers alike support the new span to speed up truck traffic between the Canadian 401 and I-75.

This amendment will not stop the bridge it intends to, but it would most assuredly put an end to any talk of expanding the train tunnel, which currently can’t handle today’s modern trains and double-stacked container cars. I also expect that lawsuits will challenge this proposal because it threatens both international and interstate federal commerce laws.

This is a bad amendment that is in place as a last ditch effort to overturn an International Treaty struck between the USA and Canada. Because of the tangled legal mess it will likely create, I’m voting NO on Prop 6!