LANSING -- Republicans on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees appeared angry that economists at the Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference on Friday were saying the economy is improving on both the state and the national level.
All the agencies at the conference - the Department of Treasury, the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency and the House Fiscal Agency, as well as the outside economists who testified at the conference - all agreed that the economy had improved and the national economy was slowly coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. But it will be a slow recovery, and Michigan has traditionally felt any recession first and is the last state to recover.
"We are in a self-sustaining recovery," said Lyle Gramley, an economist of the Potomac Research Group. " We will see much more handsome job increases, but we will have some assets idle for a while."
But Michigan will continue to have budget troubles for the next couple of years as the recovery from the Bush recession gets going. The general fund deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated at $340 million.
Treasurer Robert Kleine speaking at his last revenue estimating conference as Treasurer said corporate profits for the top corporations are up 56 percent, according to Standard & Poor's.
"Contrary to what you read in the newspapers, Michigan is participating in the economic recovery," he said. "The last time we had job growth like this was in 2000."
Obviously, Michigan is not out of the woods and happy days are not yet here, but this is the first good news at a Revenue Estimating Conference in some time. Kleine said much of the revenue shortfall, and all the economists agreed, that the decreased collections, along with substantially increased refunds from the Michigan Business Tax, were driving down the total of general fund revenues the state could collect for the current year. The state is struggling with a revenue problem, not a spending problem,
"What this means is people are paying less of their income to support state services," Kleine said. "What that means is we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem."
But he also said the Big 3 is showing the largest increase in sales since 1995, and the job growth the state has seen in the last several months has been quite dramatic. All that good news is bad news for Republicans for the November election, and they did their best to try to cast gloom and doom on the good news.
But all the economists present anticipated that Michigan will finally see job growth in 2011 after a full decade of job losses. In Michigan, after averages of 14.4 percent unemployment in 2009, the unemployment rate should drop to 13.8 percent on average in 2010 and to 12.9 percent in 2011, according to Fulton. The national unemployment rate, which stood at 9.9 percent in April and averaged more than 9 percent in 2009, will stay at roughly that level for 2010 and 2011.
"The economy has stabilized over the last couple of months," Fulton said. "Where we go from here depends on the strength of the U.S. recovery and the success of the Big 3.
It will come as no surprise to most people that the middle class in Michigan pays the most in federal and state taxes, and the richest 1 percent pays the least.
That was conformed by a recent report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy called "Who Pays? A distributional analysis of tax systems in all 50 states." The report says middle income families - those making $15,000 to $32,000 annual pay and on average $23,300 annually - pay 9.9 percent in taxes. The top 1 percent of earners - those earning above $365,000 a year - pay just 6.4 percent.
Even the poorest in the state - those making less than $15,000 annually and on average $8,700 a year - pay 8.9 percent in taxes. To illustrate how regressive and unfair the sales tax is in Michigan, the poorest in the state pay the highest percentage of taxes of any income bracket in sales tax, and that tax is the highest percentage of any tax at 7.2 parent.
The MLHS is also advocating a move to a graduated income tax to make the tax structure fairer. Michigan is only one of seven states with a flat income tax. The League is also advocating a review of Michigan's overly generous tax exempts for pensions and to close loopholes on tax expenditures that no longer serve a useful public purpose as a way to balance the state budget and make the tax structure fairer.
Be prepared to hear the words "Grand Bargain" over and over again this year as responsible people look to address the problems with our tax structure and make sure our state services such as education, public safety and health care are adequately funded. Slowly but surely, "business", in the form of a group called the "Business Leaders for Michigan" (a statewide version of the Detroit Renaissance that is starting to rival the MI Chamber of Commerce in media prominence) is waking up to the fact that you can't trash the place and expect people to still want to shop at your store. While they don't agree on all the details, the consensus seems to be that compromises must be made by everyone involved - from a review of tax credits and exemptions, to the still nebulous "reform" of spending on state employee salary and benefits, to lowering the sales tax and expanding it to the growing services sector - a sensible plan will have all parties involved willing to "give a little to get a little" to put our state's finances on solid ground, right?
In the face of $1.8 billion gaping hole in the next state budget, which essentially doubles down on the cuts we just made and that no one can really fathom doing again, even legislative Republicans are making noises that indicate they are willing to back off their stance on "no new revenue". The Freep has some interesting quotes:
Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that without tax reform, the next budget will be "making do with what we have."
But Sen. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, said he's not giving up on helping schools with new taxes. He represents six districts hard-hit by budget cuts.
"Schools cannot take a $500 per-pupil cut," he said.
"Without tax reform" being the key words from Jelinek there. House Minority Leader Kevin Elsenheimer commits teabagger blasphemy in this one:
"As Republicans, we don't oppose all taxation. What we're concerned about is that we have significant reforms in place."
House Republican reform always consists of "let's git the poor people", but it's nice to know that they won't cut all our revenue, because past statements made us wonder about that sometimes. It's Tim Skubick that brings us the real shocker though. It seems that even the head of the MI GOP Ron Weiser has signed on to some of the BLFM plan, which seems to leave only one obstacle standing between this state and the discussion on reform, and - surprise, surprise, surprise - once again that obstacle is Mike Bishop. Rehashing the old story of Anuzis weighing in on the budget battle in '07, this one has a different twist - the party kinda sorta siding with the governor (and Dillon too when it comes down to it), and leaving the cheese to stand alone with his extreme friends on the right.
Weiser notes that he has not endorsed the whole package put forth by the "Business Leaders for Michigan" which is a morphed reincarnation of the old Detroit Renaissance group. But he says some of the concepts are worth doing.
Through his mouth piece, Bishop basically tells Weiser what he told Anuzis: Stay out of my business. Warm letter to follow.
All of this is slowly reaching critical mass as the governor has hooked-up with the BLFM folks and is eager to forge a "Grand Bargain" in which everyone gives a little to get a little, as she puts it.
Her "little" to get is new revenue which Bishop is loathed to support and the specter of having the GOP chair on Granholm's side, even though Weiser has not embraced new money, is a P.R. problem for Mr. Bishop which forces him to explain why he and Weiser are not on the same page... again.
Bishop is embracing the teabagger crowd for his own political gain. That much has been made obvious. But as has been increasingly pointed out lately, that is presenting a problem for the Republican Party as a whole....
They want to harness the potential political energy and power of the "tea party" movement. But they are very wary of ceding their party to that movement. Thus, the often absurd dance of the Republican Party, which in one breath embraces the teabaggers while in the next breath endeavoring hard to keep them at arms length.
If Bishop insists on being unreasonable about this and drags his feet on addressing tax reform, it's going to be up to the Democrats to point out that his views do not coincide with some members of his own party as well as the majority of the citizens of Michigan. It remains to be seen whether or not the Democrats are up to that task, but since the GOP is more than willing to blame the fallout of the cuts on Governor Granholm and other Democrats (break the government and then complain that it's broken), they sure as hell better try and make it crystal clear where the problem really lies - or be prepared to face the consequences of an unmotivated "base" next November.
While Mike Bishop continues to prance around and brag about how he stood "firm" on taxes, local leaders across the state are struggling to find funding to provide police and firefighters to Michigan citizens - and now we can add Wyoming to the growing list of cities that will be forced to ask voters for a millage increase to avoid putting people's lives in danger.
A 2-mill property tax increase dedicated for police and fire services may come to voters next spring as part of a budget-balancing plan that includes a transition to a public safety department.
After debating an income tax and other fiscal options Thursday during a day-long retreat, Wyoming City Council appears poised next month to approve a five-year levy request for May's ballot.
Wyoming is a "red" city that borders Grand Rapids, and is not one to reach for a tax increase unless it is absolutely necessary. With the loss of GM, declining property values, and the cuts to state revenue sharing, they are at the point where they have to do something to raise around $4 million dollars. And if it doesn't pass? Better find a way to hook the garden hose to the nearest fire hydrant.
We can make it work (without the millage). The problem is you may not like the level of service you get," City Manager Curtis Holt said. The levy "is obviously money that's replacing revenue-sharing dollars that we're no longer getting" from the state.
The tax would restore six police jobs and five firefighter posts cut through attrition in the first half of the current fiscal year, as the city begins moving toward a public safety department with cross-trained officers.
A no-levy alternative reviewed Thursday would leave those jobs unfilled and cut five more police officers and 14 more firefighters.
They also are looking at cutting 12 other non-safety positions, as well as the local public access television station.
Lost jobs, the possibility of lost lives, and the burden of holding elections (and all that costs) in cities across our state next year; that is the legacy of the Bishop-Dillon budget agreement. You start to wonder what effect that will have on any kind of state-wide ballot proposal should the legislature choose to avoid a major overhaul of our revenue system next year. Instead of lawmakers stepping up to the plate, doing their job, and taking votes on revenues, the citizens will have to do it - and that has to be some kind of nightmare for local officials. You have to ask too many times, the voters will say "no" (or won't turn out at all), and the cuts will happen anyway. Now, go sell yourself to "business" as a city they should invest in. Good luck.
Remember that the next time Mike boasts in a campaign about how "strong" he is - all he did was pass the burden down to local leaders, force them to take the tough votes, and put their jobs on the line when they have to campaign next time around. Leadership? More like cowardice. But it is kind of nice to see Republicans eat their own for a change.
Hard to believe those city leaders will be jumping on the "Team Bishop" bandwagon anytime soon.
In today's column, Jack Lessenberry completely misses the point in faulting Governor Granholm for signing a bad budget to prevent a government shutdown. The only thing worse than a bad budget would be a complete shutdown of Michigan government.
Think of the consequences -- and imagine what people like Lessenberry would be saying had the Governor refused to sign a budget and let the state shut down, in the ultimate Halloween nightmare. No Medicaid reimbursement. No inspections of Michigan agriculture. No pay for tens of thousands of state employees, who count on a regular paycheck to take care of their bills and families. Doing more damage to Michigan's credit rating. Adding uncertainty for businesses looking to locate here or that do business with the state. Limited state police protection (just imagine if something awful were to happen as a result).
Does Lessenberry really think these were viable options for the Governor? There's wide-spread agreement that we need to make long-term changes to the way Michigan does business. Lessenberry inaccurately states that the Governor "didn't make the faintest effort to move this state to a graduated income tax." However, just this March the Governor floated a graduated income tax to replace the Senate Republican-designed MBT surcharge - an idea Lessenberry wrote about at the time and supported!
Lessenberry's missing the point. Andy Dillon and Mike Bishop spawned this terrible budget, and left the Governor and the people of Michigan with no options with their eleventh hour nonsense. Lessenberry quotes Dillon as calling this year's budget "child's play" - with the damage they've done to our state already, we can only be thankful for one sane leader in Lansing... Jennifer Granholm.
He is right about one thing, though. Citizens should get vocal about this year's budget, and should contact their legislators (particularly obstinate Senate Republicans) to demand a budget that protects Michigan's future.
It's far past time to stand up and fight - and to place the blame squarely where it belongs, on Bishop and Dillon's "deal".
"Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm remains optimistic that some Senate Republicans will support more money for schools, but GOP Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop said Tuesday he won't alter the Senate's only proposal for raising some extra cash.
"We sent revenues over to the House that we believe are far more palatable and far more sustainable than what she's proposed," Bishop told reporters. "If this governor wants revenue, she's going to have to take what she gets."
And just what is that proposal for raising cash? Delay tax credit increases for the poor.
The GOP-led Senate has passed a bill that would eliminate a scheduled increase in a tax credit for low-income workers and use the money saved to begin rolling back a business tax surcharge and add $100 million to the school aid budget.
Another wonderful example of compassionate conservatism: kick the working poor. That's Mike Bishop's way or no way.
I suppose one might say I've been living under a rock. Upon reflection, I can even agree with the accusation. In my defense, however, .... no, actually, there is no defending it. I have no real reason, beyond being caught up in the smaller realities occurring within the scope of my own world. Until today.
Listening to the radio this morning, I caught the news and was deeply saddened. As soon as I got home, I came straight to my computer to verify, hoping beyond hope I had misunderstood. I had not.
Governor Granholm and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop met today to discuss the budget, or lack thereof. Senator Bishop, in classic narcissistic style, said it was all a matter of trust between him and the Governor (Billy Joel, anyone?).
Which begs the question: what isn't to trust? Granholm flat out said she was going to line item veto aspects of the budget to protect her and Michigan's priorities.
She didn't just lie to you, she made you a promise.
See, Senator Bishop doesn't understand the concept of a promise, that's why he wants to cut them (re: Michigan Promise Grant).
Bishop's idea of a promise is to forego his constitutional duty to deliver a balanced budget to Governor Granholm while protecting the long and short term interests of Michigan and instead sit on his crap covered hands and say the sh*t on wall wasn't him.
If Senator Mike Bishop gets his way, we should ditch the "Pure Michigan" ads and replace them all with this:
Town hall meetings full of effigy-burning loudmouths. Budget deals full of razor blades cutting our state to the bone and beyond. The Detroit Lions.
Let's face it, it's tough being a Michigander right now. Some news organizations are ticking down the minutes to disaster on a clock straight out of "The Watchmen," but the closest thing we have to a radioactive blue superhero is...Andy Dillon.
Just thinking about it sets my jaw on edge.
But I have TMJ and I have to wear a mouthguard at night, and I need to find a way to lower my blood pressure.
So instead of blowing my lid like the little teapot (short and stout), I'm signing up for this. Not that I plan on waking up at 5am to read it, but when I get to work, there will be at least one laugh to be had.
House Speaker Andy Dillon has suspended his campaign for Governor of Michigan in order to devote his full time to solving Michigan's budget crisis, Bellringer News has learned.
"The unprecedented budget crisis facing Michigan is of the utmost importance, and requires us to have a Speaker of the House," said Wilbert Frankfurt, Dillon's campaign manager.
When pressed Mr. Frankfurt drew on the example of John McCain, suspending his presidential campaign to deal with a government financial crisis as providing a "teaching moment" for other ambitious pols.
"John McCain's mistake was that he suspended his campaign too early," said Frankfurt, adding that McCain should have waited until the crisis was nearly over in order to reap the maximum political benefits. "Look, it's almost a year later and we're still having federal budget and deficit problems. Speaker Dillon has waited until the very last minute to address the deficit, and we think it will pay off. Planning, let's face it, sucks as a fun activity and is not exciting like running for governor."
Dillon's move is already making waves among politicos, with many on the right hailing it as an act of selflessness and many on the left asking, "Can Speaker Dillon walk and comb his hair at the same time?"
This, you may recall, was the same question (eventual winner) Barack Obama posed to (the badly beaten) John McCain. Senator McCain later attempted the feat on "So You Think You Can Dance" only to find out that no, he couldn't.
While Lansing dithers around with the state budget, this is something for them to keep in mind.
Governments and schools across Michigan are bracing for the possible loss of millions of dollars in tax revenue as General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC argue that they should pay less in property taxes.
GM and Chrysler say their property taxes are inflated by more than 50 percent because local communities overestimate the value of their plants and buildings. If the automakers prevail before the Michigan Tax Tribunal, some of the hardest hit communities would be those in metro Detroit where GM and Chrysler are the biggest taxpayers. Those communities include Warren, Sterling Heights, Auburn Hills, Pontiac and Milford Township.
But the Detroit Free Press reports that the potential loss of $45 million in taxes would also affect school districts, community colleges, public transportation, libraries and the Detroit Zoo. Community leaders say they could be forced to lay off police and firefighters or cut services to seniors and lower-income families.
This loss of tax revenue would be above and beyond the $1.2 billion in cuts in the agreement between House Speaker Andy Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and the proposed cuts to revenue sharing they've also proposed.
Milford Township supervisor Don Green said about the lost property taxes, "This is the worst thing that has ever happened to us budget-wise." The township could lose 11 percent of its $950,000 budget. The City of Warren would lose even more - $7.3 million a year, or 7% of its $98-million budget. The situation in Warren would be so bad that Mayor Jim Fouts said, "Since 60% of our budget is public safety, we would have no choice but to lay off police and firefighters."
Commercial real estate appraisers say the automakers have a good case because their property taxes remained steady despite a dramatic downturn in the real estate market and closures of large sections of some plants.
Officials with the Michigan Tax Tribunal said they probably wouldn't issue a decision on property values for another year, but with commercial property values continuing to decline and experts predicting that recovery will continue to be slow, it's doubtful that assessments will go anywhere but down.
So while Bishop and Dillon take the easy way out and propose cuts in revenue sharing and key programs, our cities and townships are left holding the ball, and their officials will be the ones to do the dirty work of handing out pink slips or asking citizens to approve tax increases for valued services. And the pain won't be spread around evenly either. The more financially stable or affluent areas will be better able to maintain services and quality of life for their residents than the poorer areas.
It's too bad we don't have leadership in Lansing looking out for all of us.
EAST LANSING - Michigan State University College Democrats President Mitchell Rivard issued the following statement today responding to budget negotiations between Speaker of the House Andy Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop:
"It is despicable that Speaker Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Bishop have agreed to balance the budget on the backs of Michigan's students and future generations," said Rivard. "These cuts to higher education, including the elimination of the Michigan Promise Scholarship, will kill the hope of a college degree for students across the state. These cuts are delusional and will have disastrous effects on Michigan's future. We did not vote for the Democratic Party in a landslide in 2008 so they could turn around and cave in to the Republicans."
For over two decades, Michigan's budget has been a mess. The politicians in Lansing are still considering the Senate Republican budget, one which applies the same generic formula of cut, cut, cut. This hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work now. Over the last decade, state government has been cut to its smallest size since the 1970s, with billions being cut from state government. There's nothing left to cut, without damaging the future of our state and its children.
Michigan cannot balance today's budget on the back of tomorrow's children.
If children are the future, Michigan has apparently decided it doesn't want one. The talk of Lansing is still a Senate-passed budget whose virtues are that it was proposed early and that it is balanced. But the plan also devastates children, and on the way even threatens the ability of nursing homes to stay open and municipalities to stay solvent.
Michigan can do better.
While this seems obvious to most, a group of lawmakers in Lansing seem to think children are something we can sacrifice to the budget. While both Speaker Andy Dillon and Majority Leader Mike Bishop insist that progress is being made on budget negotiations, Michigan's future hangs precariously over the edge of a cliff. Do we want to cut that future and jeopardize Michigan families?
I've had enough of protecting CEO pocketbooks and corporate profits while balancing the budget on the back of families (after all, if these cuts come to pass, tuition will go up, property taxes will go up, etc. - it's not like costs won't be passed on down the line, just in a less fair, equitable way). I bet you have too. Visit http://www.abettermichiganfuture.org, and take action against these devastating cuts.
(Can't say enough about Mike Cox. Let's give him the spotlight he so deserves... - promoted by wizardkitten)
Michigan's persistent GOP is continuing its strident calls for more tax cuts (even in the face of their total fall from power nationally, and the complete collapse of the economic model they've campaigned for over the past three decades). Even I must admit that it takes moxie to be that wrong and stay the course.
The Republicans are right. We need to rip the "shroud of secrecy" off the stimulus spending, so, in the interest of transparency, here is the latest on what is happening with Michigan's portion of the stimulus. WXYZ, through the AP, features a story on the road funding, with the promise that both parties want to get that money "out the door". One caveat though; the West Michigan Republicans need to check it over to make sure it's "fair". And a big clue that this is indeed a political thing for the Republicans: Jud Gilbert tips his hand, and puts it in partisan terms.
"Some of the membership has been concerned that maybe some of the projects will flow more toward the Democratic-side districts than the Republican," said Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Jud Gilbert, R-Algonac.
Gilbert is Vice Chair of this new layer of government, the stimulus subcommittee that was set up by the Senate Republicans this week. By the way, they gave themselves a 5-3 majority for a program that they don't even believe in. The whole committee, courtesy of MIRS:
Appropriations Chair Ron JELINEK (R-Three Oaks) will serve as Chair and Sen. Jud GILBERT (R-Algonac) will be Vice Chair. Other members are Sen. John PAPPAGEORGE (R-Troy), Sen. Roger KAHN (R-Saginaw), Sen. Mark JANSEN (R-Gaines Twp.), Sen. Mickey SWITALSKI (D-Roseville), Sen. Deb CHERRY (D-Burton) and Sen. Irma CLARK-COLEMAN (D-Detroit).
There is your cast of characters. Switalski will stay on top of things, but will it get out that Republicans are doing what they can to delay this effort? Maybe. Coming to the surface in this AP story is the important fact that Mike Bishop, who at one time loudly proclaimed that we shouldn't use the stimulus money on the budget because it would delay making $1.6 billion in "necessary cuts", now wants to wait until May before we start putting the stimulus towards Michigan's recovery. Why? Well, not only do they have a two-week vacation in April, he wants to wait and see where the budget is at that time. Quite the about-face for a guy that wanted this separate from the budget in the first place, don't you think?
What this boils down to is: All you people looking for jobs are just going to have to wait.
But Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop says it may be better to wait until after state economists provide an updated report on Michigan's budget problems in May before more stimulus money is spent.
Democrats say existing appropriations committees can handle the recovery act spending bills. Sen. Michael Switalski, D-Roseville, says a special committee could "create more talking and less working" on stimulus bills, creating delays.
Bishop says his intent is not to delay stimulus spending but rather to make sure it's done wisely.
Yes, just as wisely as they did on the budget problem in '07, when they put the whole thing off until the very last minute and then drove the government right to a shutdown, and then took a couple more months creating the dreaded MBT surcharge that they now want to use the stimulus money to eliminate.
The track record of Senate "wisdom" speaks for itself. Other states are already putting people back to work, while our legislature will take their sweet time on Michigan's recovery.
That's 116,000 jobs your Republican members of Congress are trying to block.
I'm looking forward to the day when they are all unemployed. But, in the meantime, call their offices and remind them "they work for you" and you want this stimulus package passed. Now.
I'm continually amazed that Republicans still beat their drums for more tax cuts. After all, their tax cut strategy has been working so well. My favorite point of reference --- every time I dodge another pot hole, I say "hey, we must need another tax cut before they can fix it."
I even wonder if the pot holes are a secret plot to keep tire stores and repair shops in business. No, I made that last part up.
Paul Krugman devotes his column today to analyzing some of the GOP cheap shots and their efforts to derail an economic stimulus. He points out how some may seem plausible to those who are unfamiliar with economic concepts and policy. So, he debunks.
My favorite:
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it's always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Why? You ask.
Here's how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets - and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it's clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts - and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) - because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
Mike Bishop, are you listening? How about you, Thaddeus McCotter?
The voters told you and your colleagues that they want change on November 4. You're incapable of leading, but please have the common decency to step aside and stop obstructing that change.
Common decency. That's an oxymoron for Republicans, isn't it? It'll be a pleasure to tell even more of them that "stuff happens" next election.
UPDATED Great video of Krugman on this topic on the flip.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, and there are none so dangerous as those who insist on clinging to their failed partisan ideology in the face of the need for real, comprehensive reform in state policy. And just like the budget battle of 2007, Mike Bishop is setting the Republican Senate up to dig in their heels and ignore reality, common wisdom, and expert reports on reducing Michigan's prison costs, and instead is focusing on the Richard Shelby solution to all of life's problems; busting union contracts and cutting worker pay.
First we have to highlight this laughable and disingenuous statement. If Bishop doesn't really like "cuts", then why has it been his answer to every single problem that we face?
"I don't like to say we've got to cut, cut, cut. I never thought I'd be in government to say that. But it is the reality of our times. This is the discussion we have to have."
And why does Bishop think that the Senate should be in control of that discussion? Voters made their wishes clear this past November on which party they would like to see take the lead on policy, would have cleaned out the Senate if they could have, but Mike, in all his arrogance, dismisses the House as "rookies" who need his guidance.
Speaker Dillon, care to respond to this one while it is fresh in everyone's mind?
In 2009, he said, the budget will be the dominant topic of discussion. The Senate will have to take the lead, Bishop said, since one-third of House members will be new to the job due to term limits.
Bottom line is: If we want to see real government reform, the last person we should turn to for leadership is Mike Bishop, and his statements on the issue of cutting prison costs is just one example of why. He has a one-track mind, and that track is simply "cut".
Every single study so far has indicated that Michigan's problem is mainly our high rate of incarceration as compared to other states. From prison policy experts, to state budget analysis, the number of people we lock up and the length of time we lock them up for are seen to be the culprit for escalating costs. In the interest of brevity, let's look at the report on state budget priorities from Public Sector Consultants for the Detroit Renaissance group. Big names like Sikkema, Lannoye and Rustem wrote this up, so you can't really claim a liberal or union bias.
Changes to criminal statutes and sentencing guidelines are difficult political pills to swallow. Legislators tend to be wary of proposals that would reduce sentences and make them look "soft on crime"-a stance that is typically reinforced by the law enforcement community and victim's rights groups. However, Michigan's prison incarceration rate is 45 percent higher than the average of the Great Lakes states. In order to reduce spending now, as well as for the long term, changes must be made to the state's approach to dealing with criminal behavior. By resolving to reduce the prison population to meet the Great Lakes average, Michigan's legislators will demonstrate their commitment to appropriate fiscal practices and recognize cost avoidance annually, up to roughly $400 million per year.
An important consideration when cost savings are achieved by lowering the prison population or reducing the time that a prisoner stays in prison is the reinvestment cost of releasing prisoners back into society. Initiatives to reduce the prison population and control spending must be balanced with reinvestment dollars (such as the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative), which will improve the likelihood that prisoners who are released are not returned to the custody of the state system.
Basically, get them out, and have a support system in place so they stay out. That is where your biggest cost savings can be found - significant reform in the way we handle prisoners, both in sentencing, and reintegration with society. That is what the pros tell us to do. This report, and others like it, does take a look at state employee benefits as far as health care and pension concerns go, but you are hard-pressed to find examples where employee pay (except for overtime costs) are a major factor in reducing overall prison costs.
So, in the face of this evidence, why is Bishop insisting that employee pay is the problem?
Departments may have to close or merge and some of the state's 50,000 employees may have to take pay cuts, Bishop said. As an example, he points to the state's corrections budget, which amounts to more than is spent on education. Indiana, he said, pays its corrections workers half as much as Michigan.
"The solution is not just to close prisons and release prisoners. ... The solution is how we can afford our corrections employees," he said. "This isn't about hard-working people. This is about a system ... that isn't working."
And who does Bishop sound like when he lasers in on union employees, while conveniently ignoring the rest of "the system"?
It's the same message auto workers are hearing from Congress and many others in the private sector are facing.
And somewhere out there, with the dog-whistle that only the extremists on the right can hear, Betsy DeVos still whispers in the night, "Michigan workers make too much money".
We have a report coming by the end of the month from the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments that will show us the "series of steps to create a more effective and affordable crime fighting strategy for Michigan". Sensible reductions, such as overtime pay and restructuring of benefits will probably be included, and unions will probably be willing to take a look at any reasonable proposal put forth. After all, auto workers and other union members across the country have made concessions and demonstrated that they can be flexible given the current state of the national economy.
Question now is: Will Senate Republicans also demonstrate the willingness to compromise and apply some common sense when it comes to prison reform? Given Bishop's statements so far on the issue, it's not looking good for those who yearn for true leadership from the Senate. Bishop indicates that he thinks that the governor is looking to pass the solutions on to the next adminstation; it's too bad for us that his obstructionist and partisan behavior might be the reason why we end up having to do just that.
Today is the 63rd anniversary of the U.S. dropping a nuclear bomb on the residents of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later we dropped another on Nagasaki, Japan. Those two events are the only times nuclear weapons were used in military conflicts. And we used them on civilians.
The U.S. alone spends 17.6 billion dollars a year maintaining its nuclear arsenal and its associated delivery systems, which is the size of 150,000 Hiroshima sized bombs. There is more than enough capability to blow the entire planet up many times over.
For $17.6B we can rebuild our schools, fully fund head start, and provide health care for all kids. It sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think?
Here's a video from the TrueMajority.org illustrating the point.
.