My very brief thoughts on Michigan’s ballot proposals

Local post! I write too many treatises, so I thought I’d keep this brief (but don’t complain too much that I’m not addressing every subtlety, ’cause that would require a treatise). If you have no idea what the six proposals are, CapCon has a great chart summarizing all of them. If you think I’m wrong about any choice, I’d be happy to be educated in the comments.

Prop 1: Voting “no” replaces the current “emergency managers” of insolvent cities/etc. with the “emergency financial managers” from older legislation. The main difference is that “emergency managers” can recommend that the state amend a local government’s collective bargaining agreements. So who wants you to vote no? Public-sector unions trying to maintain their inordinately lavish benefits and salaries at the public’s expense, of course. Vote yes.

Prop 2: This proposal would overturn 170 existing state laws governing public sector unions and, most distressingly, make passing a right-to-work law in Michigan legislatively impossible. Vote no.

Prop 3: A proposal mandating 25% of MI electricity come from renewables. The only possible argument you can make in favor of this proposal – it will help the environment – I hear almost nobody making. Instead I hear it being touted as a jobs program (how will raising the price of electricity help the economy?), or as a necessity because coal is becoming too expensive (in which case utilities would switch on their own, no new law necessary). J’aime beaucoup the free market, vote no.

Prop 4: The unionization of home healthcare providers. This proposal is nothing but an SEIU grab for more money and power. The Mackinac Center has done some great reporting about how people in Michigan who are doing nothing but caring for disabled family members are being required to pay money to the SEIU, (money they often really need). Vote no, please. Worst proposal on the ballot. You can vote opposite me on the other five, just vote no here.

Prop 5: This proposal would make it harder to pass new taxes. Members of both political parties oppose it. I think gridlock in government is (usually) good. Vote yes.

Prop 6: Seems kind of extreme to place a requirement for votes for new international bridges into the state constitution, but I do feel least-strongly about this proposal. Vote no.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s