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!
