By Staff
Anti-tax activists Oct. 11 targeted five Republicans and five Democrats for recall from the 148-member Michigan Legislature who supported one or both tax increases agreed to by the Democratic-led House, GOP-controlled Senate and Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm.
Ten might not be nearly enough, not so much because of the state income tax hike and expansion of the 6-percent sales tax to business services starting Dec. 1 to erase a $1.75 billion deficit, but because lawmakers for eight months accomplished nothing.
Lawmakers on the chopping block include: House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford; House Democrats Steve Bieda of Warren, Marc Corriveau of Northville, Mary Valentine of Muskegon and Robert Dean of Grand Rapids; House Republicans Chris Ward of Brighton and Ed Gaffney of Grosse Pointe Farms; and Senate Republicans Wayne Kuipers of Holland, Gerald Van Woerkom of Norton Shores and Valde Garcia of Howell.
The more taxpayers learn about structural deficits Michigan faces which have not even been addressed by last-ditch, middle-of-the-night dealing to avert a partial government shutdown after four hours, the more irate they will be.
Dowagiac City Attorney Mark Westrate, who litigates big utility cases, was telling us about the potential "incredible mess" looming from property tax appeals.
In one appeal involving Detroit Edison, the state has $300 million at risk with no contingency fund.
"If we were to lose those appeals, with so many years at stake, the state is looking at writing whopping checks from funds it doesn't have," he said.
Former Dowagiac resident Ryan Latourette pointed out another underpublicized aspect to the argument that the Legislature should slash spending rather than increase taxes.
"Few understand that much of the budget is tied to federal matching dollars and that whatever cut Michigan makes reduces the federal matching dollars by the same amount," he wrote in an e-mail. "Thus, a single cut has twice the impact. The feds get to keep the money that isn't matched and the Michigan budget suffers even more."
In Lansing, legislators are under fire, since they took aim at teachers' benefits, for example, but sloughed off reducing their own generous benefits.
According to an Oct. 9 article in the State Journal, "Michigan lawmakers are hypocrites for cutting health care benefits for future school employees, but leaving their own more-generous benefits intact, a coalition of progressive, union and grassroots groups charged."
Cuts to school employees' retirement benefits were part of a reform package Republicans demanded in exchange for tax increases Democrats pushed.
The Progress Michigan coalition's campaign to pressure lawmakers to eliminate what it called lavish lifetime health care benefits for retired lawmakers and to cut their $79,650-a-year pay has a Web site (www.nolansingfreeride.com), including an online petition.
"We want this Legislature to lead by example," said Dan Farough, Progress Michigan executive director. "Legislators are not a class above, and they should sacrifice like everyone else is being asked to sacrifice."
Retiree health care benefits for lawmakers are superior to yours.
A lawmaker who serves six years gets lifetime benefits beginning at age 55 while paying just 10 percent of premiums.
School employees, by comparison, have been eligible for retiree health care benefits after working 30 years, or after 10 years if they work until age 60.
Legislative salaries are protected by being set by a State Officers Compensation Commission, which saw fit to reward them with whopping 36-percent raises in 2001.
This year, based on performance, they ought to be returning at least eight months pay.