VOTE YES: Proposal 5 makes lawmakers have broad consensus to raise taxes
By Michael Bouchard
Oakland County Sheriff
Michigan is my home. It’s where I was born, went to school, raised my family, and started my career in law enforcement. My love for our great state has been a cornerstone of my public service through the years, including when I served in the Michigan Senate for eight years and now, back in law enforcement for the last 13 years as Oakland County Sheriff.
I remain committed to leaving a better state to our next generation of Michiganders. I want my children to have the same opportunity — to spend their whole life right here in Michigan. This commitment has driven my positions on many issues through the years, including the issue of fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. The taxpayers of our state deserve fiscal responsibility from Lansing, which is why I am supporting the Michigan Alliance for Prosperity and their Two-Thirds Movement.
Finding ways to make government more efficient and effective should be the first order of the day for lawmakers — just as it is for those of us running households and businesses. It’s too easy to demand tax increases than to actually trim the fat out of the ever-growing state budget. Make no mistake — Michigan’s budget has never suffered the way taxpayers’ budgets have in the past few years.
Trimming the fat also doesn’t have to mean laying off personnel who provide critical services such as public safety. The Oakland County Sheriff’s Office has not been sheltered from the economic challenges of the past few years. In fact, I am proud to say that over the past several years we have found ways to cut our budget dramatically without sacrificing community safety.
We did it by identifying ways to be more efficient — to do more with less — by making choices like privatizing jail food services, which resulted in an annual savings of $1.6 million. Decisions to do things differently in order to do things better for the people who are paying the bills aren’t always easy, but it is the right thing to do.
I first introduced the idea of a two-thirds legislative requirement in the 1990s during my time in the Michigan Senate. Changing the requirement from 51 percent to two-thirds, means that lawmakers must have broad legislative and public consensus to raise taxes. This is consistent with other taxpayer protections in the Michigan Constitution such as Proposal A in 1994. It is also consistent with important legislative activities such as placing a bill on a Michigan ballot for a vote of the people or giving legislation immediate effect — both activities already require a two-thirds legislative majority. If those activities require two-thirds approval of the legislature, doesn’t it make sense that we would have the same requirement before we take more money from our citizens’ wallets? Government always says they raise taxes as a last resort, but it is the first resort they check into. Opponents say if this had been in place they could not have repealed the terrible Michigan Business Tax. This ignores the fact that had this been in place we never would have had the Michigan Business Tax in the first place.
I am proud to stand behind the Two Thirds Movement that is underway here in Michigan. It sends the right message to job seekers and job providers — that Michigan is leading the way in making important economic reforms to protect future generations. I hope you will stand with me and support this important effort.
—————
Michael Bouchard has been the Oakland County sheriff since 1999. Prior to that, he served in the Michigan State Senate from 1991-1998 and was elected to the State House of Representatives in 1990.
VOTE NO: Supermajority requirement would lock in special tax breaks
By Gilda Z. Jacobs
President and CEO,
Michigan League for Public Policy
There’s a lot of confusion surrounding the six proposals on the November 6 ballot but one thing is crystal clear: People who usually disagree with one another are coming together to oppose Proposal 5.
Proposal 5 is the so-called supermajority constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of the legislature to approve any tax increases. It would damage majority rule in our state, which has served us well for the past 175 years, and it would hurt our economy.
That’s why the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Business Leaders for Michigan, the Michigan Farm Bureau and other business-oriented groups have joined human and social services groups, such as the Michigan League for Public Policy, to oppose Proposal 5. Many of the business groups are legitimately concerned about damaging the state’s credit rating should such a strict limitation be approved. A lower credit rating would increase the costs of road construction and public services.
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is adamantly opposed, even joining with his 2010 opponent — Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, a Democrat — for a YouTube video in opposition to Proposal 5. Likewise, business and labor joined together in opposition as did the usually diametrically opposed editorial page editors of The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News.
Do not mistake this special interest ballot issue as a grassroots effort. The issue was placed on the ballot through the efforts of Detroit billionaire Matty Moroun, who also financed the collection of signatures to block a new bridge from Detroit to Canada that would compete with the Ambassador Bridge, owned by Moroun.
“Extreme.” “Unintended consequences.” “Dangerous.” These are the words to describe Proposal 5, which has been opposed by every single newspaper editorial board in the state that has weighed in on Proposal 5.
As a former lawmaker who spent a dozen years in the House and Senate, I know how hard it is to reach bipartisan agreement to improve our state. But these compromises are so essential to growth and progress and they allow us to respond as need arises. Would we want to tie the hands of our elected officials if a Hurricane
Sandy type of calamity were to hit our state?
With a supermajority, a handful of lawmakers — just 13 senators — could thwart the will of the other 135 elected officials. It would lock into place special tax breaks for corporations, no matter how successful.
We also know that a supermajority requirement (really a superminority requirement) is bad for the economy. The seven states with broad constitutional tax limitations fared worse in the most recent recession than states without them.
The supermajority requirement would allow a small minority to stifle necessary revenue increases supported by a majority. During an economic downturn, our elected legislators would be forced to reject a balanced approach that includes new revenue and instead make damaging cuts. That would mean recessions could be deeper and last longer.
It also locks in ineffective tax breaks for companies. It would take a simple majority to pass a tax break but a supermajority to end one. If a company is given a tax break to create jobs yet no jobs are produced, a small number of lawmakers could overrule the majority to keep that tax break.
In 2011, large, profitable Michigan businesses were given huge tax breaks without accountability and at the expense of individual taxpayers. With a supermajority requirement, it would be nearly impossible to reverse these tax breaks.
Michigan’s economy has already suffered from cuts to education, preventive health care and child abuse prevention. From 2002 to 2010, state investments in these areas were cut 25 percent. State revenue sharing, which funds local public safety and other community services, was cut by $4 billion from 2001 to 2011. The result is that more than 3,500 law enforcement jobs have been eliminated, despite increasing need since 9/11.
Majority rule is fundamental to Michigan’s democracy and economy. A supermajority requirement would undermine both, tying the hands of our elected officials far into the future.
With so many people speaking up against Proposal 5 the choice is clear: Vote NO on Proposal 5.
—————
Gilda Z. Jacobs became Michigan League for Public Policy president and CEO on Jan. 3, 2011. Prior to that, she was in the Michigan Legislature, serving eight years as a state senator and four years as a state representative from Huntington Woods. She made history as the first woman floor leader in either chamber of the Legislature.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
