No sale on the Genoa Township Road Millage

There's plenty of coverage on the millage in today's Argus over the Genoa Twp Millage. You can find in depth comments on this at the Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods blog. Here I'll comment on Mike Archinal's guest column. Needless to say, I disagree with it. On this blog, I'll speak for myself and not the group, so I'll be a little more blunt here.

On Nov. 5, Genoa Township residents will have a choice to make about the condition of roads in their community. They can vote yes on the Genoa Township road proposal to fund a 15-year, 1.5-mill increase to fund projects throughout the township or they can vote no. It’s that simple.
Anyone who drives in Livingston County — or in Michigan, for that matter — knows the condition of our roads is poor. That’s a hard fact to argue. Livingston County residents have been negatively impacted by a system that is tied to lane miles and vehicle-registration fees, making our county roads the lowest-funded in the state on a per-capita basis.
Without additional revenue, much-needed improvements will not occur. We, as Genoa Township residents, can fix our roads. We have control over what happens here.
That is why our Board of Trustees has decided to give residents a chance Nov. 5 to vote on a proposal to improve roads in our township.
The Genoa Township road proposal goes to voters Nov. 5. They will decide the fate of a 15-year, 1.5-mill increase to fund a number of road improvements throughout the township.
If the proposal is approved, a home with a market value of $200,000 and a state-equalized value (SEV) of $100,000 would pay $150 per year. The first bill would appear on the 2013 winter tax.
The proposed road projects affect all areas of the township and would be completed over the next three years beginning in 2014:

It's a $3000 tax for a $200,000 home as this is a 15 year millage. For many homes in the township, it would be closer to $6000 and in some cases like Pine Creek, $10000. Most I know would consider a millage, if it actually fixed the roads. As the PGTN postcard says - "Does not fix Brighton Rd, Grand River, and Chilson." It also doesn't fix other main roads like Hacker, most of Challis (the heavily traveled part), Coon Lake, Dorr, or the paved portion of Bauer.  Those are the main roads people expect to be fixed. If the millage passes, improvements on those roads will not occcur. This is wasting $22 million dollars if I trust the township's numbers regarding costs (I don't). In addition, how much will it cost to maintain these paved roads, as the paved roads right now aren't well maintained to begin with. This created more costs, with limited benefits (and in some cases detriments).

Some board members mention that Brighton Rd among others will receive federal funds for improvements. If so, why have the millage in the first place?

Archinal then describes the projects.

2014

• Crooked Lake Road would be paved from Chilson Road to the end of the pavement near Spring Hill Road. The paved roadway west of Lakewood Shores Drive will be crushed and shaped to provide a uniform, consistent cross-section.
• Latson Road from Aster Boulevard north past Conover Court will have a consistent three-lane cross-section with a center left-turn lane. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided for all of the residential developments within the project limits. This project will also include a traffic signal at the intersection of Latson and Hampton Ridge Boulevard.

 Latson I understand, but widening and paving this? 

2015

• The intersection of Challis and Bauer roads will be improved with the installation of a roundabout. Other road-alignment changes will include the abandonment of Bauer Road between the staggered legs of Challis and the connection to existing Challis to the west. Challis Road will be paved east toward the railroad tracks.
• Beck Road would be paved from Chilson to Nixon Road. (Nixon Road will become Latson Road after the interchange is opened).
• Conrad and Challis roads will be repaved from Dorr Road to Clifford. This project involves significant grade and right-of-way issues.

Beck Rd. Interestingly, Laurex Real Estate just had a development sale for duplexes off Beck Rd. What's Laurex? It's a company run by two of Genoa Township's board members including the supervisor.  Gary McCririe and Todd Smith.

Why Conrad? Is that so Gary McCririe can have a shortcut to Dorr Rd and not have his car dirty? That's not a repave, but widening and paving. Challis is dirt from Dorr to Conrad. That's not the part of Challis traveled heavily. As far as the roundabout goes, people love them or hate them. I think they are a waste of money.

 

2016

• Herbst Road will be improved along its entire length. On the western end, from Dorr Road to Acre Hill Street, the existing roadway will be crushed, shaped and repaved. On the eastern end, Acre Hill to Grand River Avenue, the gravel portion of the Herbst will be paved.
• Cunningham Lake and Bauer roads will be paved. Cunningham Lake will be improved from Sundance Trail to Bauer Road then north on Bauer Road from Cunningham Lake to the end of the pavement south of River Ridge. The existing paved portion of Bauer, from River Ridge to Brighton Road, will be crushed, shaped and repaved. Finally, the gravel portion of Bauer will be paved to the Township limit.
• Hughes Road will be repaved. The southern section from Grand River to Cherokee Bend will be milled and overlaid. The area north of Cherokee Bend to Golf Club Drive will be crushed shaped and paved.

For reference.

Hughes I support.  Herbst doesn't need to be widened and paved. Cunningham Lake residents made the opinions well known. Bauer doesn't need to be paved to the township line. There's only two homes on the Hamburg side. Do you think Hamburg's going to pave in the Brighton Recreational area along Ore Creek? I doubt it. 

 He closes to say:

If you have questions regarding the road projects, please attend our third Road Information Open House from 3-5 p.m. Tuesday at Township Hall, 2911 Dorr Road, Brighton.
I have given you the facts surrounding the Nov. 5 Genoa Township Road Proposal. It is now up to you — the residents — to decide. If you agree, vote yes. If you do not agree, vote no.
Whatever is decided, we will continue working to make Genoa Township the best place it can be for our residents.

I encourage all residents to attend the meeting. Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods didn't need to spin anything. If our residents know the facts, the results will be in our favor.  That said, this is an all or nothing proposal. That was made clear by the manager.  I'd support Hughes and Latson (near Grand River), but the other projects make this unworthy of support from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, as well as one from a protecting our rural character standpoint.

That's why we all encourage a no vote, so the township can come back with something reasonable.

No Free Pass for the Genoa Township so called road millage

When you want to raise property taxes $3000+ for something that doesn't fix the roads(Based on their own master plan) , but widens, paves, and cuts down property owners' trees on rural country roads like these, you ought to expect some big time resistance. 

In 20 days time, a grass roots campaign has sprouted from my old neighborhood to support property rights, rural character, and fiscal responsibility. Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods. Most of the people involved in the fight are regular people and not very political. They follow issues and vote, but when the election's over that's it until the next one. This one is a different story for several reasons.

• A $200,000 valued home will pay $3000 in taxes with this 15 year millage.
• $16 Million of the 22-23 Million goes to widening and paving rural country roads instead of fixing new roads. 
• Most of the main roads aren't going to be fixed from this millage. Brighton Rd, Grand River, Chilson, Door, most of Challis (outside of roundabout and the dirt area), the main portion of Bauer towards the ski area, Coon Lake. Those roads aren't covered by this millage

People who move to dirt roads do so for a reason. They like rural living. Many of the residents have lived here for 30 years. Now the township board with the exception of Jean Leford and Jim Mortensen want to raise taxes $3000+ to destroy the properties. That's not right.
 
Those who wish to fight this can send donations payable to
Protect Genoa Township Neighborhoods
PO Box 1182
Brighton, MI 48116.

There's been enough money raised to send one mailing already. Some of you may have received it. The group has another one planned if there is enough funding.

Please vote NO on November 5th, 2013.

Vote NO on Genoa Township Millage Nov 5th

Things like this make me wish I still had my voter registration in Genoa Township instead of Green Oak. I don't like what they plan to do to my old neighborhood.  My parents still live there and I still know most of the people there, many for 30+ years. This cuts across partisan lines here.

If you want to fix the roads with a millage, actually fix the roads. Don't add a bunch of new projects, especially those not wanted by the residents of the street who live there.

Genoa Township has a new projects road millage on the ballot November 5th. It raises taxes 1.5 mills for 15 years. There's some legitimate arguments both ways on a road millage IF (and that's a big if) it fixes existing main roads.You can argue jurisdictional issues, taxes, double taxation if Lansing interests get their gas tax or sales tax through, and cost/benefits there, but roads aren't in good shape. However, don't waste my parent's money and worse - don't wreck their neighborhood.

Information about the project can be found at Genoa Township's website. Proposed Road Master Plan

Not ALL of the projects are bad ideas (Hughes Road repave), but many are. However, this is an all or nothing thing as of now. If you don't want all of these projects or to pay for all of these projects, vote now, and tell them to come back with something reasonable.

I also don't see what's necessarily bad about gravel roads, especially in certain areas. The township manager was complaining about replacing "ball joints". I've done that twice in 19 years of driving on dirt roads, both on older vehicles. Every time I go to my parents house, go hunting, commuted to law school (shortcut),  or go up north, I take dirt roads. You can also get that in potholes too, which happen on paved roads as often as dirt roads, especially if they aren't maintained, and if there's a lot of construction traffic. 


The projects are as follows. Costs are estimated by the township (probably on low side).

Crooked Lake - New Paving. $2.8 Million probable cost. From Chilson Road to Lakewood Shores Dr. This is largely farmland here. Part of this is plans with the new I-96/Latson interchange and likely expectations for big developments.

Latson Rd - $1.85 Million. Widening and repave. Legitimate project. It's also one of the less expensive ones proposed.

Beck Rd - $2.95 Million. New Paving, Chilson to Nixon Rd (South end Latson). This is planning due to the Latson Rd interchange.

Conrad Rd (and far end of Challis) - $1.39 Million. New Paving. Clifford to Dorr Rd This one's a waste of money. This is so Oak Pointe (where the Twp Supervisor lives) can have another shortcut to Challis avoiding dirt roads instead of taking the main roads of Brighton or Chilson Rds. You have about two residents on Conrad which don't want the paving. There's no need to pave, widen, and carve up the farmland for the Supervisor's convenience. There's even less need to raise taxes to do so.

Challis/Bauer Rd Roundabout - $1.8-2.3 Million.  Much more expensive than a traffic light.

Herbst Rd - $3.9 Million. New Paving from Grand River to Sylvan Glen. I'm not that familiar with Herbst Road, but it goes in rural areas. It's paved currently from Dorr to Sylvan Glen. I don't see a reason to pave it from a tax standpoint.


Hughes Road - $2.55 Million - Repave. An actual legitimate project.


Bauer Road South - $1.25 Million - Bascially an extension of Cunningham Lake project. Paved from Cunningham Lake/Pine Creek to Hamburg Twp line. Besides taking away from the rural character - Why? There's two houses. Why pave to Hamburg Twp line? Waste of money.


Cunningham Lake and Bauer (North) - $3.65 Million - That's my old neighborhood. Residents have lived here a long time. I've known some of them my entire life. This is what Cunningham Lake Road looks like - same as it did in the 70's and 80's. That road looks in real bad shape, doesn't it. /sarcasm

Combining Bauer and Cunningham Lake's projects, the township wants almost $5 Million in tax money to pave areas that mostly look like this picture (outside of the wetland/swamp between Walnut Hills and Bauer). They want Bauer paved to the township line and Cunningham Lake Rd paved to Stonegate. Cunningham Lake Rd does not need to be widened and paved. Bauer does not need to be paved further.

 From the Bauer standpoint, Pine Creek already has paved access to two main roads and a side road (Bauer). You have few houses there covered with new paving.


Cunningham Lake is the township line past the one big curve. Stonegate is in Hamburg Township. They don't have to pay one red cent for this project if it passes. Walnut Hills, Mystic Hills, and Prairie View also already have paid access to Brighton Rd.

I measured the width of the road. Including the shoulder, it is about 19 1/2 ft. They are proposing two 11 ft lanes, and as far of a shoulder as their right of way allows (6ft each side for Bauer).  Picture that being widened another 10-15ft. Add a lot of concrete gutters and sewer pipes due to drainage issues (will that be followed by sewers and city water?) They also specifically recommended getting rid of the trees. This area recently lost a lot of trees in a tornado. I'm sure they want even more trees cut off their property for a paving project they don't even support. You don't even have to be a treehugger to have a problem with that.

There's also safety concerns. On this road, you have pedestrians (many from the subdivisions), dog walkers, cranes, deer, and hills. People drive fast enough on the dirt road. Many a time have I heard people slam on the brakes during a day to avoid hitting a crane or a deer. If this is paved, you'll see people doing 65 here on the straightaway and someone's going to get hurt, be it a pedestrian or a driver hitting a deer.

1.5 Mills for 15 years for all of this (About $22 Million in projects), most of which is not needed. About 20-25% of this is the Cunningham Lake and Bauer projects.  The only way this will get revised is for this to fail at the ballot box. These road projects are almost always an all or nothing deal. Take nothing for now, and have them come back later with something reasonable. Take out the new pavings and deal with the main roads that are needed to be fixed. Grand River, Chilson, Door, Brighton Rd, Challis, Coon Lake, Hughes, Latson. Not rural country roads. 

Vote NO on November 5th.


-------------------------------------------
Updated:

There's some movement growing to the opposition. Official Blog Site

 

The tax pledge isn't about Norquist. It's about us.

The Argus doesn't get it at all.

But the Washington, D.C., lobbyist has more control over U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, than do any of the 12-year congressman's constituents, including the 202,000 who voted for him this month.
Why? Because Norquist is the author of Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which commits signers to opposing any and all federal tax hikes. Most congressional Republicans have signed it under the threat that Norquist will wage war on them if they don't, or if they violate it.

Bullshit. They sign it because the voters will toss them out of office if they raise taxes. They sign it so primary voters can say that this person signed the pledge and is worthy of my vote. All Norquist is, is a messenger. In addition to Norquist today, you have the internet and lots of people with easy access to thomas.loc.gov, publishing, emails, and other things that can make a politician's life more difficult than it used to be.   

The bottom line is this. Government has not earned more revenue. Peter Principle in Chief Obama broke Bush's records on spending. Government has failed to properly manage the current trillions of dollars received. The deficit is over a trillion dollars per year. The national debt is over 16 Trillion dollars. Government screwed it up, and now wants us to bail them out so they can screw it up some more.

It's not Grover Norquist. It's the government SPENDING and the fact that voters, especially primary voters in conservative districts, don't want to see government bail itself out for piss poor decisions. Again.

Heads up this lame duck for gas tax increases and vehicle registration hikes

I'm hearing there is high potential of movement on this issue in the lame duck. Gas tax especially. This one pisses me off, and I'm not going to be very forgiving about it, at least on a professional and political basis. 

Once again. Don't blame me. I voted for Mike Cox. I voted for Prop 5. I'll vote for any reasonable or even semi-reasonable primary challenger to Snyder in a New York Minute especially if the democrat is beatable. One of the biggest reasons I voted for Proposal 5 is to put in the check the absolute cultist jihad among the Lansing elite in the dogmatic pursuit to raise the gas tax. This is shared by the tax raising Rick Snyder who is so brazen about this that he mentioned his support in September of this year soon before the election. It's not just Snyder either.

Of course there's no push to get rid of the sales tax on gasoline. This is another attempt by big government to be afraid of handling REAL budget issues and stop compartmentalizing different areas, and to instead ask - no demand - than we bail out the government's screw ups. This is all based on the false premis that the gas tax/registrations - and ONLY the gas tax/registrations can pay for roads. The transportation budget isn't just roads either, but WALLY trains.

From Bridge Magazine

Defeat of Proposal 5 means a simple legislative majority remains the threshold for statewide tax increases, perhaps opening the door to revision of the gas tax.

Did I call this or what.September - 41 cent gas tax isn't good enough for Rick Snyder

The bad news is that unless the 2/3 proposal passes, eventually this tax increase will pass, likely in a lame duck session. When I don't know, but there's too much of a sustained Lansing insider push from the government class. Click on the gas tax label on the blog and you'll see a ton of it, largely from termed out legislators, road lobbyists, and local governments. It's not just democrats either, but insider republicans (although definitely not a conservative) like Ken Sikkema who gave Granholm almost everything she wanted in her first term. Right now a lot of legislators are scared of this and rightly so, but this could kill us in a lame duck at some point, especially if the governor is also in lame duck.

This is a big reason why the 2/3rd amendment has to pass. It would have stopped the Blanchard, Granholm, and Snyder taxes that have been passed. It can also stop the gas tax increases whether it is pushed by Granholm, Snyder, or whoever is there in the future. The legislature does not always check and balance the governor who is mistakenly viewed as the leader of the party. Vote yes on Proposal 5.

Snyder wants this. Badly. Of course he can afford this unlike many of us. These high prices absolutely KILLED US (makes hammerfist and slams desk) in 2006 and most of 2008. We hit $4+ again this year. It's still over $3.50. At $4.10, 41 cents of every gallon goes to "With Republicans like him, who needs democrats" Rick Snyder. Right now it's about 37 cents.

As I explained about how bad this was with Snyder back in 2011.

There's three things wrong with the wholesale taxes.

1. Taxes go up even more when gas prices increase. That encourages higher gas prices to be even higher. We're almost $3.50 a gallon. That's damaging to any supposed recovery.

2. This does not address the 6% sales tax on gasoline - that does not go to roads. This will affect things more with a wholesale tax.

3. It continues the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, goes to fix the roads.

4. While the non-sales tax portion of the gas tax goes to transportation, that does not necessarily equal roads.

I've covered this issue more times than Matt Millen has lost games as a GM. This is the worst tax in the country, outside of possibly the self-employment tax.

Transportation doesn't necessarily equal roads either. Snyder also wants $120+ a year in registration fee increases as well to add insult to injury. He likes the WALLY type trains as well. You got to be shitting me.

Well if they vote for this, well, six months during the term for those who aren't lame duck, the recall option  - yes recall option - is open. 1984 style. Paul Scott  was recalled, and replaced by a Republican, so there is precedent of Republicans replacing Republicans in recalls if this is necessary, let alone the democrats. For those who are two year lame ducks and have higher office aspirations, they can get recalled and their push for higher office can be gone for good. Too bad Mark Schauer didn't get recalled as he was running against Walberg in 2008. That two years he was in Congress gave us Cap and Destroy and Obamacare.

Here's the statute.

168.951 Officers subject to recall; time for filing recall petition; performance of duties until result of recall election certified.
Sec. 951.
Every elective officer in the state, except a judicial officer, is subject to recall by the voters of the electoral district in which the officer is elected as provided in this chapter. A petition shall not be filed against an officer until the officer has actually performed the duties of the office to which elected for a period of 6 months during the current term of that office. A petition shall not be filed against an officer during the last 6 months of the officer's term of office. An officer sought to be recalled shall continue to perform duties of the office until the result of the recall election is certified.


This is also important to remember:
168.952 Recall petitions; requirements; submission to board of county election commissioners; determination; notice; meeting; presentation of arguments; appeal; validity of petition.
Sec. 952.
(1) A petition for the recall of an officer shall meet all of the following requirements:
(a) Comply with section 544c(1) and (2).
(b) Be printed.
(c) State clearly each reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall shall be based upon the officer's conduct during his or her current term of office. The reason for the recall may be typewritten.
(d) Contain a certificate of the circulator. The certificate of the circulator may be printed on the reverse side of the petition.
(e) Be in a form prescribed by the secretary of state.
(2) Before being circulated, a petition for the recall of an officer shall be submitted to the board of county election commissioners of the county in which the officer whose recall is sought resides.
(3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. Failure of the board of county election commissioners to comply with this subsection shall constitute a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.
(4) The board of county election commissioners, not later than 24 hours after receipt of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall notify the officer whose recall is sought of each reason stated in the petition and of the date of the meeting of the board of county election commissioners to consider the clarity of each reason.
(5) The officer whose recall is sought and the sponsors of the petition may appear at the meeting and present arguments on the clarity of each reason.
(6) The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal shall be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners.
(7) A petition that is determined to be of sufficient clarity under subsection (1) or, if the determination under subsection (1) is appealed pursuant to subsection (6), a petition that is determined by the circuit court to be of sufficient clarity is valid for 180 days following the last determination of sufficient clarity under this section. A recall petition that is filed under section 959 or 960 after the 180-day period described in this subsection is not valid and shall not be accepted pursuant to section 961. This subsection does not prohibit a person from resubmitting a recall petition for a determination of sufficient clarity under this section.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 66, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 456, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1982 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 45, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 137, Eff. Jan. 1, 1994
Popular Name: Election Code


If they vote for this, we can't use this as the "official" reason to recall someone - at least in the state house because it is in a different term of office. However, someone can be recalled for ANY reason as long as it is clear. Find a vote from the first six months in that current term, and use that as the "official" reason. The unoffical reason can be the vote to increase the gas taxes. There is nothing that stops those supporting the recall of State Rep John Doe from broadcasting his vote for the gas tax increases. Recall campaigns are campaigns like any other campaign. It is a check and balance on this lame duck and right after the election gamesmanship that politicians like to play because they can get away with it.

The House and Senate has a choice. They can LEAD, or they can be followers and yesmen because the Lansing culture pushes that. They were followers and yesmen over the pension tax and didn't do the right thing. They need to do the right thing this time and dictate to Snyder that he's the executive director of Michigan and not the boss.

On the same note, we need to remember those with courage to tell Snyder not to even think about this tax and vote against it if it gets to that point. I remember the votes of  Jack Brandenburg, Dave Hildenbrand, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, David Robertson, Tory Rocca, Anthony Forlini, Ken Goike, Pat Somerville, Rick Outman, Pete Lund, and Andrea LaFontaine when it came to the pension tax. They did the right thing and voted against it. We need more of that here with the gas tax.

While Clint Eastwood's RNC speech wasn't the best, one line was perfect. Politicians are our employees. It is best that they remember this. If not now, in the 2012 primaries or recalls if necessary. .

Obama pushes for tax increases to bailout his fubar fiscal policies

When it comes to budgets and spending, Peter Principle in Chief Obama hasn't earned the right to say anything. He hasn't shown the intelligence, ability, experience, trustworthiness, or record to say anything regarding spending. He broke Bush's records on spending, and now demands a tax increase to bail himself out.

From Yahoo

Claiming a mandate from his election romp over Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama announced on Friday that he had invited congressional leaders to the White House next week for talks on how to steer the battered economy away from a "fiscal cliff." Obama said he was open to compromise with Republicans—but that any final deal needed to raise taxes on the richest Americans.

"This was a central question during the election," the president said in brief remarks in the East Room of the White House. "It was debated over and over again, and on Tuesday night we found out that a majority of Americans agree with my approach.

"Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people," Obama said. "I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise. I'm open to new ideas. I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced."

Boehner needs to tell Obama to go perform an unatural act on himself. Obama hasn't signed any budgets in forever. Push your budget, and make Obama veto it.

I don't like this comment. 

Republican House Speaker John Boehner, speaking shortly before the president's appearance, said he was looking to Obama "to lead" and that he had a short, "cordial" conversation with the president earlier this week about ways to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

"We both understand that trying to find a way to avert the fiscal cliff is important for this country," Boehner said. "And I'm hopeful that productive conversations can begin soon so we can forge an agreement that can pass the Congress."

He's not my leader. He's not my boss. The problem is that people treat a glorified executive director as a king. That's how we get stuck with this American Idol 'rockstar' crap instead of actual competence for once.

Both political parties are unacceptable on spending. Boehner needs to push through a balanced budget, and dictate to the Peter Principle in Chief. It's Boehner's job to lead the house, not defer to the Peter Principle in Chief.

No tax increases.Spending cuts. Those two things need to be non negotiable. Don't raise the debt ceiling anymore either.

2/3 to raise taxes - Vote YES on proposition 5

The Argus has a story on Prop 5.

A two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes in the state Legislature isn't such a super idea, according to foes, which include the governor as well as major businesses and municipal groups.

Yet Proposal 5 backers said it's only common sense.

"People of all political backgrounds — Republicans, Democrats, Independents — have come to us and said this just makes sense," said Lana Theis of the Michigan Alliance For Prosperity, which placed the issue on the Nov. 6 election ballot.

Opponents, including the normally tax-averse Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said the measure would do more harm than good.

"We take pride in having a long history of advocating for tax relief, but this is simply the wrong proposal," said Jim Holcomb, the chamber's senior vice president of business advocacy.

Tax issues are always contentious, and most tax-relief and restructuring packages tend to pass by a simple majority vote in the Legislature, not the harder-to-come-by two-thirds margin, Holcomb said. "It ties the hands of the Legislature. If this were in place, you'd have never have gotten rid of the (Michigan Business Tax)."

Gov. Rick Snyder sounded a similar concern in statements and a video posted at michigan.gov/snyder.

I often agree with the Chamber, but I disagree with them here. I think of the reasons they oppose this is due to their support for the gas tax increase. Some of their members are the roadbuilders. The other thing is this. If 2/3 was enacted, the MBT could have very well be gone. It doesn't take 2/3 to pass a tax cut or decrease. However, that damn pension tax would not have been enacted, nor would the Granholm taxes. As far as Snyder goes, his opposition to this is another reason to support it. He just came out supporting the gas tax increase. Voting for prop 5 is a good way to tell him that we're in charge, and he's not.

"I think you could eliminate a tax rather easily. But the question becomes, what do you replace it with and would that qualify as a new tax?" Lupner asked.

Replace it with reduced spending. Government doesn't have our trust. It hasn't earned it. Vote yes on proposition five.

Rick Snyder wants a gas tax and registration increase

Just when I was about to ease up on Snyder after he signed the partial birth abortion ban, he goes leftist again. Apparently the new money from the income taxes and pension taxes are not enough for technocrat Rick Michigan.

From the Detroit news

Lansing— Michigan would fundamentally alter the way it raises money to pay for repairs to the state's roads and bridges under a sweeping proposal expected to be unveiled today by Gov. Rick Snyder.

He's expected to suggest getting rid of the 19-cent gas tax motorists pay at the pump in favor of a tax on the wholesale price of fuel — a move expected to bring in more funds to fix roads and bridges as inflation pushes up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

First off, we don't have a 19 cent gas tax. If you want to see me get red in the face, keep repeating that lie, damn lie, and statistic. I've covered it before, but here's how it works. Right now, the Michigan Gas Tax in Hamburg Township, Michigan is 37 cents. The final price when I was last at the gas station is $3.45. Of that $3.45 cents, 56 cents in gas taxes goes to the government. 37 cents goes to the State of Michigan. Multiply that by 20 gallons, and the state gets $7.40 cents every time I fill up. When gas prices are at $4.10, the Michigan gas tax is 41 cents.


There's three things wrong with the wholesale taxes.

1. Taxes go up even more when gas prices increase. That encourages higher gas prices to be even higher. We're almost $3.50 a gallon. That's damaging to any supposed recovery.

2. This does not address the 6% sales tax on gasoline - that does not go to roads. This will affect things more with a wholesale tax.

3. It continues the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, goes to fix the roads.

4. While the non-sales tax portion of the gas tax goes to transportation, that does not necessarily equal roads.

I've covered this issue more times than Matt Millen has lost games as a GM. This is the worst tax in the country, outside of possibly the self-employment tax.

There's more.

Also as part of his plan, the governor will ask the Legislature to allow counties and regional authorities to levy a vehicle registration fee to raise money for local road projects, sources close to the governor confirmed. The local levy would have to be approved by voters.

More millages. Regional authorities for those that don't know are when a group of municipal governments create a new quasi-governmental body around a governmental function. These can range from parking, fire, library, parks, and other things associated with municipalities.

The two proposals are expected to be part of Snyder's Special Message to the Legislature on Infrastructure at 3 p.m. at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield. The plan will lay out Snyder's vision for improving roads and bridges, regional transit, water and sewer lines and Internet access.

Regional transit. New taxes to pay for this..INSTEAD of the roads?

It gets worse. Today's Detroit News has this. This clown thinks I'm made of money

Southfield— Michigan needs another $1.4 billion for roads annually and Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday suggested hiking vehicle registration fees to help come up with the money.

In an address on infrastructure at Lawrence Technological University, the Republican governor said an extra $120 a year — $10 a month — on each registration would raise $1 billion a year. More money could be raised if voters approve allowing counties and regions to assess their own vehicle registration levies of up to $40 annually.

$10 a month. You make it sound like it's not a lot of money, and that pisses me off even more than the push for this. You big government folks are nickle and diming us. Between the pension taxes, this, and Obamacare and debt on the feds, we're getting our asses kicked. I can't afford a $240 annual tags bill - IN ADDITION to all this, and I drive a 10 year old vehicle. Hey, Rick. I don't have the millions you do. That's a lot of money to me.

Among his ideas:

Rapid transit that would connect Detroit with its suburbs, Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

I thought the ROADS were a problem. You want to RAISE TAXES for that?

A new fiber optic cable across the Mackinac Bridge to increase Internet access in the Upper Peninsula.

I thought the ROADS were a problem. You want to RAISE TAXES for that?

Competitively bidding out maintenance services, engineering or construction of roads.

I can agree with that.

Accessing federal money for dredging ports around the state.

More federal spending of our tax money we don't have.

Helping communities maintain or improve water quality.

That isn't done already?

Giving counties the option to take over their road commissions, or consolidating local commissions. Snyder noted Michigan has 617 independent road agencies and 79 independent transit agencies.

I agree with this.

Here's another danger, and Jace Bolger and Randy Richardville need to get the pressure on them for this in a BIG way. Snyder knows the taxes are unpopular. Just as the pension tax was unpopular. He also knows there are favorite projects of many reps who will pick that poison over the others. All the reps hated the MBT. Many who otherwise would not vote for the pension tax increase, voted for it because it was the price to get rid of the MBT. Few, like Joe Hune said the price wasn't worth it and thought the MBT should be gone period without a replacement. I agreed with Joe.

Snyder is going to want this to be an all or nothing package. However, Snyder can't do that on his own. Jace Bolger and Randy Richardville deserve just as much blame and scorn as Snyder for that pension tax monstrosity. We can not let them do the same thing again. Snyder is governor. He's not prime minister. Hell, I don't think he's even a republican. Why the Hell are you following this guy? His title? We need to make sure that transportation provisions are sent PIECEMEAL to the governor and not as an all or nothing type of scam as the pension tax was.

Worst of all, government hasn't earned the money. Government has shown it can not spend what it has properly. It wants us to bail them out. Again. It's like Granholm never left office.

No new gas taxes. Get rid of the sales tax on gasoline. No new registration fees. No transportation spending on anything but roads.

Don't blame me. I voted for Mike Cox.

Rick Snyder's tax increase passes. Poor politics. Worse policy.

First off, kudos to the following for still remembering what republicans are supposed to support and oppose. Lower taxes. Less spending.

Jack Brandenburg, Dave Hildenbrand, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, David Robertson, Tory Rocca, Anthony Forlini, Ken Goike, Pat Somerville, Rick Outman, Pete Lund, Andrea LaFontaine. These reps and senators voted the right way.

Those folks deserve our support, votes, and donations. They did the right thing. I'm glad to see my senator, Joe Hune, on that list. I won't have to run in a primary against him in 2014. He said he opposed the pension tax. When push got to shove, he voted against this because of the pension taxes. The MBT needed to go, but it did not have to be replaced by this crap. Joe Hune kept his word.

The rest of those not listed, including Pat Colbeck who deserves special mention for voting for it in committee before voting against it John Kerry style, should all be ashamed of themselves for supporting this gimmicky monstrosity. My rep, Bill Rogers I expected better from. He talks about being against gimmick budgets. This is a gimmick budget.

Former Congressman Dick Armey says it best. When we act like them (Democrats), we lose. When we act like us, we win. I'm quite embarrassed for my party right now. Too many of them followed a guy in Rick Snyder who frankly I don't think is even a Republican (I've never seen him at Republican events before he decided to run for governor). He's to the left of Andy Dillon, an elected democrat. At least Dillon's pro-life. I'm not surprised at Snyder. He's tight with Center for Michigan, which supports tax increases. He didn't promise anything about not raising taxes. As much as I beat up on Snyder on this blog, he is what I thought he is. I expect better from our reps. I expect them to be leaders, not follow those who lead into the ground.

I'm no Bill Milliken fan, but he said one thing that I agree with. Good policy is good politics. The inverse it also true. Bad policy is bad politics. It doesn't matter who proposes it. As the late Detroit Area talk radio legend, Mark Scott said. "A is A." Bad is bad. This is bad.

Why is it bad? Why is it gimmicky?

1. More money goes to government. Government hasn't earned it. We've had the fee increases. We've had "two penny Jenny" that was shot down eventually. We've had income tax increases, tax shifts, etc. Nothing changes. I'm not convinced this will either.

2. This budget only touched about 20%. About 9 Billion, give or take. 80% isn't touched. About 34 Billion. Over 80% of the spending. Until the 80% is addressed, any budget plan is unreasonable. We need to do things the hard way, amend the constitution to open up the entire budget, and go line by line through the whole thing to determine what is and is not needed.

3. The most derisive part of this is the pension tax. The big fight was over 300 Million dollars. That's a lot of money to most, but a drop in the bucket to government. Are you to tell me that we can't cut another 300 million? Even when limited to the so called discretionary fund budget of 9 Billion? Let alone the whole 43 Billion? Unbelievable. Bad politics, worse policy.

4. Snowbirds. Florida and Tennessee have no income tax. Guess where many retirees from Michigan move.

5. Income tax increases as well.

This isn't a tax cut. More money from individuals is being paid to government. That's a tax increase. While business taxes are being cut - which I support - the revenue did not have to be replaced by individuals, especially because it's going to a gimmick budget that covers 20%.

That's the policy, as to the politics of this, Rick Snyder and the house in about two months:

1. Make things easier for Obama to win. How many retirees are going to stay home or vote democrat due to the tax increase? Most seniors voted republican recently. They also voted for Bill Clinton and many democrats down ticket. They also are mostly independent. Look at the voting patterns in North Michigan and the thumb. They are highly erratic. In addition to the seniors, how many of their kids will be pissed off due to government going after those who busted their ass for 30+ years of hard work. Don't mess with my parents. I don't like that very much.

2. Gives the democrats a good chance at retaking the majority. In 2010, Republicans campaigned on less government and less taxes. The federal level has little progress. Little, but not none. My complaint there is "not good enough." Here, it's like Granholm never left. How are those swing districts in many of the rural areas going to go? The UP? The thumb? Northern lower Michigan? Between conservatives staying home ("Dimes worth of difference"), swing voter backlash, and the normal leftist vote, it's going to be tough going.

The first thing that needs to be done is a new bill stand alone killing the pension tax. Admit the screw up, and fix it. If that doesn't happen, it's time for some primaries in 2012. The Republican party needs to stand for less taxes, less government, and more freedom, and if the reps fail to live up to those principles, primary races need to occur so we have actual differences between them and the democrats.

Time to call the State Senate to stop the Snyder tax increases

I'm really disappointed in my party right now, including with many of those I know quite well and respect. I expect crap from Rick Snyder. I'm not disappointed with him. I had no expectations of him, and didn't even vote for him in neither the primary, nor the general election. It was the first race ever where I didn't vote for a Republican at the top of the ticket, going back to my days before I was a Republican and often split my ticket 60-40. I went 3rd party last November as a protest against Snyder's vagueness, refusal to declare stances, associations (which is how I suspected him to be liberal), and his support for anti-life proposition 2. The fact that I'm actually fed up to the point where I'm posting this publicly says a lot about my concerns. These Granholmesque policies are going to kill us as a state, not to mention the credibility of my party. If Granholm is the Matt Millen of Governors, Snyder's on his way of being the John L "The coaches are screwing it up" Smith.

While I expect liberal policies from Snyder, I don't expect blind following or at best a compromise-lite plan of his plan. Bad policy is bad politics. Doing something solely for the sake of doing something is bad policy. Government that put itself in a bad position and getting bailed out by taxpayers is bad policy. The legislature's job isn't to follow leaders. The legislature's job is to represent the districts and BE leaders for the district. That means telling Snyder "I'm in charge, not you" when his policy is bad, or "This is good policy, I'll support it." when it's good. Unfortunately, this policy absolutely sucks as bad as Granholm's tenure. Here's my question to the legislators. If Virg Bernero won and came up with this plan, would you vote for it? If Granholm pushed this, would you vote for it? I know that answer, and it would be the right one. Hell, no! That's the answer that should have been given to the supposed "republican," Rick Snyder. "Hell, No" followed by a push for an amendment to actually "reinvent Michigan" as Snyder says, and go after the 80% of the budget that isn't going to be touched with this plan.

From the Free Press

Gov. Rick Snyder, relying entirely on the votes of fellow Republicans, won narrow approval for his sweeping overhaul of Michigan's business and income taxes Thursday, setting the stage for a final, and possibly more difficult, battle in the Senate.

The Snyder proposal -- swapping out the current Michigan Business Tax for a much smaller corporate income tax and eliminating a host of tax exemptions and credits, including Michigan film incentives -- squeaked through the House, 56-53, the bare minimum needed. Six Republicans and every Democrat voted against it.

Backers of the package, which cuts net business taxes more than 80%, or $1.7 billion, said it would make Michigan a better place to do business and create jobs. Opponents decried the loss of income tax exemptions for most pension income and the elimination of most of a tax credit that provides extra income to people who are working but poor. They said it shifted the tax burden from business owners to poor and elderly people.

House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said the House's GOP majority -- the first since 2006 -- was "elected to make change. This is a turnaround moment for the state."
.....

The Snyder tax plan would result in a $350-million tax on currently exempt pension income in 2013 and delay for a year a scheduled income tax rate cut that would cost taxpayers $213 million. In total, income tax revenue would rise nearly $1.5 billion in 2013, nearly as much as business tax collections would decline.

You gotta be kidding me. I expect better from the state house. This is a gimmick tax and spend measure like what Granholm pushed. Approximately 80% of the budget isn't even touched. All these tax increases and shifts are over a 20% portion of the budget since the rest is not considered "discretionary" due to state constitutional or federal concerns. The state should tell the feds to screw off, and amend the state constitution so we can have real line-by-line expenditure reform to adjust to the recessions. Nobody is doing that. It's the same fight we've had every single year with tax increases, tax shifts, creative accounting, declining revenues and until the last two years or so, increased spending.

I'll be calling Joe Hune's office Monday. I suggest all those opposed to this do the same and call their state senator and have them shoot this down. This can give our friends in the house a chance to give themselves a mulligan. If you want reform, go after more than just the so called discretionary budget. No more tax increases. No more gimmicks.

-------------
I'd like to add my thanks to Reps. Anthony Forlini, Ken Goike, Pat Somerville, Rick Outman, Pete Lund, and Andrea LaFontaine for doing the right thing and voting no.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

I got an alarming excerpt from MIRS sent to my email today. While the GOP will have control in the next session, it doesn't mean we are safe from tax increases and anti-freedom measures. We need to still be vigilant.

Richardville-Whitmer On Same Page
The two new incoming Senate leaders are on the same page when it comes to considering a possible revenue increase next year to eradicate a $1.6 billion budget deficit.

"I don't think anything is off the table completely," incoming Senate Majority Leader Randy RICHARDVILLE (R-Monroe) told MIRS.

"Everything has got to be on the table," echoed incoming-Minority Leader Gretchen WHITMER (D-East Lansing).

Richardville made it clear that he is not endorsing the need for new revenue and he warned his caucus is "not going to lead" with the recommendation. Having said that, he talked candidly about the possibility.

Asked if he might have to look at "some new revenue piece" he said, "I think that's fair. Yeah. We have to look at everything."

For her part, Whitmer predicted the Republican Gov.-Elect Rick SNYDER could not get the votes to pass an all-cuts budget. Instead, he would solve the budget with a "mixture" cuts, reforms, and revenue, she said.

Whitmer is suggesting closing tax loopholes, which could raise millions of dollars. That dovetails into remarks made last week by House Fiscal Agency Mitch Bean, who suggested the option, too (See "Bean: Look At Tax Expenditures," 11/9/10).

Richardville said there is a way to reduce the deficit without new revenue by looking at "what government is supposed to be."

The new GOP leader has immediately established himself as not following in the footsteps of the current Majority Leader Mike BISHOP (R-Rochester), who was loathed to even use the words "revenue increase: during his tenure. Richardville began his first day on the job doing just that.

Whitmer is elated saying, "Randy will be more open" than Bishop and she said she looked forward to working with him.

Everything is on the table? No, it shouldn't be. Government needs to live within its means. If you want to see the GOP to lose Michigan statewide for most of the next 18 years, raise taxes and/or give us status quo government. We can not have democrat-lite budgets.

What we as citizens can do to make sure this doesn't happen is to keep the pressure on from go and stay involved. Richardville needs to know we are watching. Bolger in the house needs to know we are watching. Rick Snyder needs to know we are watching. So do all of our reps. Those that raise taxes need to be recalled or primaried out.

If tax increases are on the table, so are primary challenges and recalls. My tolerance for tax increases and Joe Schwarz and Bill Milliken style of Republicans are nill. They destroy the state as well as the party.

Damn it Bouchard. (Services Tax support)

Bouchard recently became my 2nd choice with Hoekstra's tax stance. Not anymore. I'm really getting dissolutioned with the gubernatorial candidates outside of Mike Cox. I like Bouchard and Hoekstra personally, and met Bouchard on several occasions. Honestly, I expected better from both.

This stance needs to be called out, and the self proclaimed "Business leaders for Michigan" need to get called out to the carpet as well for pushing this crap with the services tax. Business Leaders for Michigan is formerly "Detroit Renaissance" and it is extremely influential with the Lansing insiders. They need to feel the heat, and so to the reps.

Bouchard joined Hoekstra in support of the services tax.

From the Detroit News:

Bouchard: I'll back services tax if it's neutral

Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard told The Detroit News today he can support extending the sales tax to services -- as long as the net effect of reshaping the system is neutral or a tax cut.
Bouchard, a Republican candidate for governor, added the rationale for tax reform must be to make Michigan a better place to do business.
"We have to make ourselves more competitive with other states," Bouchard said in a wide-ranging interview with The News' editorial board. "That has to be the goal."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100617/POLITICS02/6170489/1361/Bouchard--I-ll-back-services-tax-if-it-s-neutral#ixzz0rVOzevyx

Revenue Neutral? BS. The last revenue neutral idea came from the Michigan Business Tax. That was more of a disaster than the SBT. This so called revenue neutral idea (Business leaders for Michigan plan) cuts the sales tax a measly 1/2 cent and puts a 5.5cent tax on every dollar of services. 

Bouchard's right about the jobs by small businesses, but this damn services tax will chase them all away. 

Let's contrast Bouchard and Hoekstra's statement on the services tax to the others. 

Tom George - "The door is open" 

Rick Snyder - Opposes. Even Rick Snyder opposes this. I have my problems with Rick Michigan's stances on other issues, but he gets this big one right, at least in talk.

Mike Cox made his stance on this loud and clear.

“We’re not going to put Michigan back to work by taxing working men and women who are getting haircuts or picking up their dry cleaning for job interviews.  Michigan job makers and families need a tax cut, not a massive new sales tax on services.
“An expansion of the sales tax to services would kill jobs, drive businesses out of the State and further encourage out-of-control government spending.  With the nation’s highest unemployment rate and the third worst business tax climate in the nation, that’s the last message Michigan can afford to send.

When the other candidates are mostly caving on this major issue, Mike Cox has not.  He made his stance on this a long time in the past, and it hasn't changed. No Granholm services tax.

Pete Hoekstra repeats his support for a tax increase

With the primary coming up, it helps to bring this back from the archives. Hoekstra came out for his tax increase around March 20th.

From the Observor and Eccentric in Royal Oak

The 57-year-old congressman from Holland told members of the Royal Oak Chamber of Commerce Wednesday that increased sales taxes would “totally eliminate some other taxes.” Specifically, he mentioned the small business and personal property taxes, both of which he said are hurting businesses in the state.
“My preference is to spread the sales tax over a broader base and to raise the rate,” Hoekstra said in response to a question. “There is no perfect tax system.”
Currently the state’s 6 percent sales tax does not apply to groceries and medication.

This isn't a secret. It's downplayed, but no secret, and it is probably a good reason that Hoekstra didn't get the Michigan Chamber endorsement. It's also a big reason why I'm supporting Mike Cox as the best alternative to the beltwayitis of Hoekstra.


I don't like the small business or personal property tax, but this small business owner is KILLED with a services tax.  Absolutely killed. Reduce the business taxes, yes, but don't KILL the services industry with a tax increase. Cut the damn spending.

I stand by what I wrote the 20th.

As I posted on March 20th:

We all know Andy Dillon supports higher taxes, but I'm a little disappointed in Hoekstra. He was until this my second choice for governor, and one where I wouldn't have to hold my nose in supporting outside of that one bailout vote that left me a bit sour. Well, now the bailout vote isn't the only thing that has me sour.

From the Detroit News

Beverly Hills -- Two early poll leaders in the Michigan governor's race -- Democrat Andy Dillon and Republican Pete Hoekstra -- found more common ground than differences Friday in a rare joint appearance at Detroit Country Day School.
They agreed term limits block political relationships in Lansing; it takes too long for businesses to get regulatory permits; right-to-work legislation would be too divisive; and the state needs to retool its tax system, including extending the sales tax to services.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100320/POLITICS02/3200331/1409/rss36#ixzz0ik1tJarD

Extending the sales tax to services is a tax increase. We pay more for goods. More money goes to government which has proven itself unable to live within its means. Just as Pete Hoekstra voted to bailout the banks which fubared, he now wants to bail out government by taxing others like a democrat.

There's more:

Hoekstra said Michigan has a "crazy" business climate that drives investors to other states. He called for elimination of the Michigan Business Tax, as well as the levies businesses pay on equipment, and lowering the state income tax and the property tax on second homes to spur more out-of-state people to buy here. He favors initially ratcheting down the sales tax and extending it to services, but then going to voters to ask for a sales tax boost to offset reductions in other taxes

It's easy to be against the MBT. It was a poorly thought out rush job of a replacement to the bad Single Business Tax. (Thanks to Joe Hune for opposing that piece of crap). I oppose that too, but we have a spending problem more than a revenue problem, and punishing the types of businesses that may be growing is a piss poor way to spur growth. I'm fairly certain though that Pete Hoekstra's plan is a duplicate of self proclaimed "Business Leaders for Michigan" and Granholm's plan of a measly 1/2 cent cut on sales tax only to tax services at that race. It's a tax increase. Period, and needs to be opposed 100%. It was wrong when Granholm wanted a two penny tax. It's worse with BLFM's 5.5 cent per dollar tax increase.

It was fiscal liberalism from Republicans that cost us both the state house and congress in 2006. We don't need more of the same. Pete Hoekstra unfortunately seems to have caught beltwayitis and is bringing it here. No thanks Pete, and I expected better from you.

This one pisses me off. It's personal.

Another push to increase Michigan's 34 cent gas tax

I normally agree with the Chamber and personally like a lot of the people there. I also know that many of their members are road builders, and that accounts for their view on this issue, the gas tax. I also disagree with them 100% on this gimmicky, left-wing so called solution to the roads.

From the Free Press

LANSING – Michigan’s crumbling roads and bridges cause traffic congestion that will cost the state 12,000 jobs, and cost $287 for every resident in lost time and wasted fuel, a new study concludes.

That’s about the same amount typical motorists would pay for doubling the state gas tax and vehicle registration fees – a $2.2-billion revenue increase that would pay for a vastly improved highway system, according to the report.

The study by Anderson Economic Group of Lansing was commissioned by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and shows the economic impact of good and bad roads. Chamber president Rich Studley said it’s long past time for state government to boost revenue for roads that are the lifeline of Michigan’s commerce, from manufacturing to tourism to agriculture.

Once again, this whole gas tax push is based on a false premise. The false premise is that only the gas tax can fund roads. Every single so called plan I have seen is based on that false premise. Every single advocacy for the tax is based on that. It's crap. I'm not going to rehash the arguments. I've done that about seven times already and nothing has changed. I last wrote about this in January when Rep. Dick Ball pushed for this

Here's the other write ups I've done on this topic, going back to 2007.

• Transportation tax passes committee - December 2009
• Ken Sikkema pushes for gas tax - August 2009
• Mike Crane pushes for gas tax - June 2009
• Flint Journal - May 2009
• Peter Luke's one of several articles advocating for the gas tax - April 2009
• November 2008 - Lansing insiders
• Granholm and Gilbert - January 2008
• October 2007

The media LIED here.

The study is the latest ammunition for proponents of a gas tax increase, who’ve argued for two years that the state is seriously underfunding its roads. The state for the first time will lose its full allocation of federal aid -- $475 million – because of an $84-million shortfall in its transportation fund, which is fed by the state’s 19-cent-per-gallon gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

The gas tax is NOT 19 cents a gallon. That is bullshit. When I go to the pump, I don't pay 19 cents to the state of Michigan.

Currently, the price is around $2.79 a gallon here. The Michigan taxes on gasoline amount to 34 cents a gallon, at this amount. No, not 19 cents, like the media likes to say. 34 cents. 34 cents of every gallon paid goes to the State of Michigan. That's the tax.

The tax pushers want us to pay 43 cents a gallon, plus more in registration fees. We need to make sure that this push is defeated, and we make proper budget restructuring to fix the roads instead of a BS gimmick based on the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, can pay for transportation.

Brighton again takes a stand against Big Government

I'm more of a pitchforks and torches kind of guy than I am a tea party guy, but this will have to do.I'd estimate about 750 there.

Once again, count on Brighton to take a stand against Big Government, much as we did last September. With the punk in chief railroading the debtor's prison health care deform billthrough Congress, now is the time to fight.

It was a good turnout for a weekday event that started right after the day shift ended. It wasn't like it was when national tea party express came through Brighton, but it was a good event anyway. Joe Hune spoke there and did a good job as usual. I saw Bill Rogers and Cindy Denby there in the background as well.

I could have done without seeing the Lyndon LaRouche booth and their violation of Godwin's Law, but at any event, there will be a few of those types showing up.

Overall, a message was sent. Less government and more freedom. Those that don't support that need to be fired.

Granholm pushes for a new tax increase

The Matt Millen of Governors is at it again with her push for tax increases. From the Detroit News.

ansing -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm defended her proposal to extend the sales tax to services on a cable TV news show this morning, saying Michigan "has to invest in education" to convert from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy.
The governor said on MSNBC that Michigan has "a big, hairy audacious goal of doubling our number of college graduates." In order to do that, she said the state has to stop cutting education spending, which it did this year by $165 per student.
Since public school aid is funded primarily with sales taxes, the state needs to update and stabilize its sales levy by expanding it to include most services, Granholm said. In the past century, about 60 percent of consumer purchases were made on goods and today about two-thirds is spent on services, she said.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100329/POLITICS02/3290392/1022/Granholm--Sales-tax-on-services-needed-to-bolster-education#ixzz0jaR7wdmG

This ain't new. Granholm pushed this in 2009

This is a big threat to occur however. It's not just Granholm pushing this. Pete Hoekstra has signed on board with this. Self proclaimed Business Leaders for Michigan is on board.

I don't see solutions, only gimmicks and demands that people bail out the government for their fiscal mismanagement. The problem is jobs. The sales tax revenues are down because people are spending less.

The big government health care reform (deform) bill passes - comply or spend five years in prison

Forget tea parties. I want a torches and pitchforks party. I'll bring the beer. We'll need lots of it with this piece of trash passed. This needs to be repealed immediately after Mr. Obama signs this - unless the courts strike this, or parts of this down. Here's the bill, all 2310 pages of it. It's a long read, nearly 1000 pages longer than War and Peace.

It was a party line vote in Michigan. All the dems voted for this. All the Republicans voted against this. It's no secret all the crap that from this senate bill which was moved to the house. There's still procedural battles and this will probably end up in the courts. Supposedly, Bart Stupak had an agreement with Obama about an executive order on abortion language. I'll believe it when I see it.

How bad is this bill?  I've decided to take another look at this 2310 page monstrosity. First rule of thumb, if a bill is 2310 pages, most reps have not read it, and it's bad news. War and Peace is 1440 pages. Atlas Shrugged is 1200 pages. This bill is nearly twice as big, and on much bigger pages, and the same small print. There's plenty of small print there. Page 119

SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) Establishment of Premiums-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN- In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.

(b) Account-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding under paragraph (2). Section 1854(g) of the Social Security Act shall apply to receipts described in the previous sentence in the same manner as such section applies to payments or premiums described in such section.

(2) START-UP FUNDING-

(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

This is Government here.Administrative costs are quadrupled. This is the home of the  $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat.

And page 126:

SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.

(b) Licensure or Certification- The Secretary shall not allow a health care provider to participate in the public health insurance option unless such provider is appropriately licensed, certified, or otherwise permitted to practice under State law.

(c) Payment Terms for Providers-

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS- The Secretary shall provide for the participation (on an annual or other basis specified by the Secretary) of health care providers (other than physicians) under the public health insurance option under which payment shall only be available if the provider agrees to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(d) Exclusion of Certain Providers- The Secretary shall exclude from participation under the public health insurance option a health care provider that is excluded from participation in a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act).

Conditions to participate. Here's a question. How many doctors are going to say screw this and not participate?


Page 149:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

(a) In General- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

(b) Reduction of Employee Premiums Through Minimum Employer Contribution-

(1) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- The minimum employer contribution described in this subsection for coverage of a full-time employee (and, if any, the employee's spouse and qualifying children (as defined in section 152(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) under a qualified health benefits plan (or current employment-based health plan) is equal to--

(A) in case of individual coverage, not less than 72.5 percent of the applicable premium (as defined in section 4980B(f)(4) of such Code, subject to paragraph (2)) of the lowest cost plan offered by the employer that is a qualified health benefits plan (or is such current employment-based health plan); and

(B) in the case of family coverage which includes coverage of such spouse and children, not less 65 percent of such applicable premium of such lowest cost plan.

(2) APPLICABLE PREMIUM FOR EXCHANGE COVERAGE- In this subtitle, the amount of the applicable premium of the lowest cost plan with respect to coverage of an employee under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is the reference premium amount under section 243(c) for individual coverage (or, if elected, family coverage) for the premium rating area in which the individual or family resides.

(3) MINIMUM EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- In the case of coverage for an employee who is not a full-time employee, the amount of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection shall be a proportion (as determined in accordance with rules of the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable) of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection with respect to a full-time employee that reflects the proportion of--

(A) the average weekly hours of employment of the employee by the employer, to

(B) the minimum weekly hours specified by the Commissioner for an employee to be a full-time employee.

(4) SALARY REDUCTIONS NOT TREATED AS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS- For purposes of this section, any contribution on behalf of an employee with respect to which there is a corresponding reduction in the compensation of the employee shall not be treated as an amount paid by the employer.

(c) Automatic Enrollment for Employer Sponsored Health Benefits-

(1) IN GENERAL- The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enrolls such employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.

(2) OPT-OUT- In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each employer described in paragraph (1) who automatically enrolls an employee into a plan as described in such paragraph shall provide the employees, within a reasonable period before the beginning of each plan year (or, in the case of new employees, within a reasonable period before the end of the enrollment period for such a new employee), written notice of the employees' rights and obligations relating to the automatic enrollment requirement under such paragraph. Such notice must be comprehensive and understood by the average employee to whom the automatic enrollment requirement applies.

(B) INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION- The written notice under subparagraph (A) must explain an employee's right to opt out of being automatically enrolled in a plan and in the case that more than one level of benefits or employee premium level is offered by the employer involved, the notice must explain which level of benefits and employee premium level the employee will be automatically enrolled in the absence of an affirmative election by the employee.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

(a) In General- A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution--

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

Basically, we have an 8 percent payroll tax.

Page 143...

SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

For an individual's responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this division).

And what does section 401 say? Page 167...

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

It's a 2.5% of your income that is fined. This is a penalty. This is a penalty fine disguised as a tax and should be challenged. The penalty for not paying the fine/tax is a trip to prison. I wrote about it here in November of 2009. Sections 7201 and 7203. They are already law, part of the Internal Revenue Code.

7201 - Attempt to Evade or Defeat tax. Felony. $100,000 fine. 5 years in prison.

7203 - Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax. Misdemeanor. $25,000 fine. 1 year in prison.

There's also a surcharge. Page 197.

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

I wonder how many sole proprietors, partnerships, and LLC's are going to be out of business with this. Those aren't corporations, but are a large number of businesses.

The Attorney General has more access. Eric Holder I don't want near medical records. I don't want John Ashcroft there either for that matter. Section 1651

SEC. 1651. ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

Section 1128G of the Social Security Act, as added by section 1631 and amended by sections 1632 and 1641, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(d) Access to Information Necessary To Identify Fraud, Waste, and Abuse- For purposes of law enforcement activity, and to the extent consistent with applicable disclosure, privacy, and security laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974, and subject to any information systems security requirements enacted by law or otherwise required by the Secretary, the Attorney General shall have access, facilitation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, to claims and payment data relating to titles XVIII and XIX, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the owner of such data.'.

I have to relook at the HIPPA laws, but things are in bills for a reason. My guard's up, and while I don't see a wolf yet, there's a potential one.

Here's a potential wolf.

SEC. 3121. NATIONAL PREVENTION AND WELLNESS STRATEGY.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall submit to the Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of this section, and at least every 2 years thereafter, a national strategy that is designed to improve the Nation's health through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities (in this section referred to as `prevention and wellness activities'), including core public health infrastructure improvement activities.

`(b) Contents- The strategy under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

`(1) Identification of specific national goals and objectives in prevention and wellness activities that take into account appropriate public health measures and standards, including departmental measures and standards (including Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards).

`(2) Establishment of national priorities for prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet prevention and wellness needs.

`(3) Establishment of national priorities for research on prevention and wellness, taking into account unanswered research questions on prevention and wellness.

`(4) Identification of health disparities in prevention and wellness.

`(5) A plan for addressing and implementing paragraphs (1) through (4).

`(c) Consultation- In developing or revising the strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the following:

`(1) The heads of appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health.

`(2) As appropriate, the heads of other Federal departments and agencies whose programs have a significant impact upon health (as determined by the Secretary).

You see, government has a major stake now in health care. Tax money in spades is going towards that. In addition, my experience in Lansing showed me that one of the biggest big government statist lobbies in the business is the public health lobby. It's like out of the movie Demolition Man. Anything that is in their opinion, bad for you, must be outlawed or taxed. We see what's happening with tobacco right now. They pushed to go against firearms in the 1990's with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero pushed for a "pop tax" while in the state senate. (soda's for you on the East Coast, Cokes for you in the South). Granholm had a "meatout" day proclaimed last Saturday. While I'm not to worried about the "meatout" day, since it was just a mouth running, I am concerned about a "meat tax" in the future. The argument will be "50% of our payments are going towards Obesity. Tax carbs and meat to pay for it."

This ain't over with Obama's signature. It's just getting started. I'm not referring to the torches and pitchforks party we need in Washington to repeal this. I'm referring to big government trying to take control of every aspect of our lives.

And howabout this to get Mary Landrieu's vote.

CHAPTER 2--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA

SEC. 321. PURPOSE.

Grants under this chapter shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on the need for such improvements or construction, to ensure that public school facilities are safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date.

What the hell does that even have to do with health care?

There's plenty more that's bad there. All 2300+ pages of this. This isn't Fox News reporting. This isn't Rush Limbaugh reporting. I don't watch TV News or listen to talk radio. All of this is straight from the bill itself. Primary sources.

This needs to be repealed at best, and modified at worst. We can start with stopping the bleeding with getting rid of the democrats, and then firing Obama's sorry ass in 2012.