Friday, May 26, 2006

Granholm ready to replace doomed tax


And just think, it could have been over and done by now. Too bad a certain someone needed a campaign issue and is choosing to create economic chaos at a time when we can least afford it.



Gov. Jennifer Granholm conceded for the first time Thursday that she expects Michigan's much criticized Single Business Tax is history and said she wants to negotiate by year's end a new business tax to replace all $1.9 billion the SBT generates annually.



Republicans, who hold a majority in both houses of the Legislature, have said they want a replacement business tax that results in an overall tax cut.



Granholm's comments in a Free Press interview came on the same day that Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson said he will turn in 360,000 signatures on Tuesday to force the Legislature to vote on eliminating the SBT. That amount is 106,000 more than he needs.



If he has enough signatures from his petition drive, the Legislature -- which passed a bill to eliminate the SBT that Granholm rejected earlier this year -- can vote again to get rid of the tax, and this time it would be veto-proof.


Time to remind everyone she would have signed the original legislation had it been amended to protect Michigan from "massive cuts to education, health care, and public safety" and protect average citizens from a tax increase.



"I will not sign House Bill 5743 in its current form," Granholm wrote. "House Bill 5743 can be amended to guarantee Michigan families and citizens needed and effective protection. Amend the bill to include such safeguards, and I will sign the bill."



That was March 27th. The legislature could have been working on a replacement for the past two months. (actually they could have been working on a replacement for the past 15 years or so, but who's counting?) Instead they have been dragging their feet for political purposes, and, as I noted in a story below, it is starting to have consequences on new development.



Republicans like to say that this will "force a negotiation". What they neglect to tell you is that she has been willing to negotiate all along.



Ari Adler, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, said Granholm's willingness to negotiate is just what the campaign to eliminate the SBT intended -- force a discussion of a new business tax.



"The only way to start taking it seriously is to show the alternative, which is a $2-billion hole in the state budget," Adler said.


That line has to be the biggest crock that has come out of the legislature's mouth. Granholm takes this seriously, businesses that want to invest in Michigan certainly take it seriously, the citizens that will be affected take it seriously (and that would be ALL of us). Seems the only people who aren't taking it seriously are those in the legislature. Always ready with an excuse NOT to work on it. At first they didn't want to do it in "an election year". Now, here comes more foot-dragging from Adler-



He said it's premature for Granholm to restrict the debate by insisting that a new tax produce the same revenue as the SBT.



"There's a wide range of options that need to be explored," he said.


Such as? They won't say. They never say. Not before the election anyway. To tell the truth might hurt their chances in November.



"There's a reason talks are not going on, which is they want to have it as a campaign issue," Granholm said. "But the minute that campaign is over, I think we're going to see proposals from Republicans about what they will put in place.


Will we? Sometimes I'm not so sure. I don't think they have a clue.



Oddly enough, Republicans are running around talking about increasing spending on top of this tax cut. They want increased spending for education, increased revenue sharing for cities, "merit" raises for teachers and state employees. They are promising all kinds of goodies, and at the same time they are talking about gutting the revenue that provides said goodies.



They also won't mention the tax cuts that have already happened at both the state and national level. Wonder why.


"This election is going to be a choice between someone who believes you should have tax cuts for the wealthy or the big corporations and that trickle-down will work, and somebody who is going to invest in all of people," (Granholm) said. "I am all about putting people first and investing in us in order to grow."



She added: "We've already seen $1.7 billion in cuts for businesses, and it has not done the job. Enough. Let's invest in our workforce, in our education system."


Does that include the Fed cuts, Jennifer? I don't think it does. So far, "trickle down" has been a "trick". Corporate profits are at their highest level in 40 years, and that has not lead to increased wages or investment. They take the money and stuff it in their pocket, expecting us to keep believing that the pay-off is coming.



The choice is obvious- more tax cuts for the rich on top of more spending, because that sort of fiscal policy has worked so well in Washington (for the wealthy, anyway), or, fiscal responsibility and stability. You decide.



Just think, if you choose the former, you can wait for your "trickle down" once again. How is that working out for you?