Three different bullet points that are all related to Michigan's money woes. Someone please fix this so I can stop thinking about it. Here goes-
Well, it will be replaced or lawmakers will have to start closing prisons, or universities. Take your pick. A post-election K-12 budget shortfall that could more than wipe out the pre-election funding increase for schools has been greeted largely with silence. Some say transfer the money from somewhere else. From where? Who knows?
What kind of state decides to cut its education budgets when work-force development is widely seen as the most critical step to securing its economic future?
What kind of state, moreover, seeks to attract business when for more than a year, it hasn't been able to tell those businesses what their tax liability would be because the Legislature voted to eliminate the main business tax without identifying a replacement?
What kind of state can't find the will to raise a gasoline tax that is stagnating in the face of rising costs to rebuild decaying transportation infrastructure -- presumably an important economic development feature?
If you're scoring at home, the answer to all those questions is: Michigan. You get what you pay for.
I'm right there with ya, dude. I want to grab Lansing by the lapels and go, "What the hell is WRONG with you people?"
Yeah, patience, I know. I just see the knock-down, drag-out fight looming that will consume most of this year and I'm left feeling pissed off and, well, to be honest, kinda bored. But I can't seem to tear myself away, so-
Michigan government's problems are immediate. Though conservatives were quick to say the crisis is due to bloated government free-spending ways, the truth is exactly the opposite, according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Citizens Research Council.
The problem was "largely self-inflicted," said a CRC report. "Since the early 1990s, the state reduced tax rates, failed to offset negative effects on state revenues created by federal tax changes, and cut other state taxes," partly by expanding exemptions.
We have identified the problem and need to move on to the solution- and that solution is going to prove very tricky.
Figuring that out is a matter of simple mathematics. Figuring out how to get voters to support a tax increase when jobs are vanishing may take all the persuasive power the governor has - and then some. But she, and we, may have little choice.
This is exactly why I threw a fit over that end of the year press conference; I knew what she would be up against.
But, it's nice to know there are some columnists out there that are focusing on the issues before us instead of playing the "What Is Nancy Skinner Doing Today?" game. We are going to need them.
The Freep tell us that both the state and local governments are looking at selling "open spaces" (read: parks and land) to pay the bills.
The Commerce property is just one example in a growing number of proposed land deals in which governments -- be they state, county or local -- look at purging themselves of properties.
In some cases, like that of the state, the argument is the property isn't worth keeping. In many others, government agencies beset by financial troubles look at green spaces as sources of ready cash.
I believe the state has a deal where they are selling smaller parcels and are turning around and consolidating and replacing that land- this great story from the Michigan Land Use Institute points that out. But cities and towns might be drawn into making the sad mistake of selling their green spaces for quick cash today- and that is a scary prospect. Once it's gone, it's gone. Bad idea.
Another bad idea making the rounds is selling the lottery. Why do I think it's a bad idea? Because the Detroit News thinks it's a good one, citing both Wall Street and the Mackinac Center as licking their chops over the thought of all that easy money. Compare and contrast their story...
A high-stakes gamble that the sale of Michigan's 35-year-old lottery could provide the cash infusion the state badly needs to balance its budget is drawing a serious look in the state capital.
Privatizing the lottery is among options being considered as state officials struggle to find new revenues or cuts to erase an $820 million deficit.
While no one is setting odds on whether this will be part of the budget solution, word that Illinois and Indiana are taking steps to sell their lotteries to feed cash-starved budgets has prompted sudden interest in doing the same here.
"I'm encouraged by that idea. It's good that people around here are willing to offer such bold ideas," Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said Thursday.
... with the AP's story from Kathy Barks Hoffman.
The governors of Illinois and Indiana are considering privatizing their state lotteries, despite the idea's lukewarm reception in those states.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm may decide against such a move, in part because she'd rather find permanent solutions to the state's structural deficit. A constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2004 dealing with gambling could make it difficult to privatize the lottery because any changes would require a statewide referendum.
"We would never say never," Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Thursday of privatizing the lottery. "But while we're looking at everything, we're focused on the structural problem. It is a one-time fix. Generally you use one-time fixes for one-time problems."
Some Republicans also were leery of the move.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, said DeRoche would consider such a plan only if it's part of more fundamental budget reform.
Both stories are full of facts and figures, but they have wildly different tones. Read them both and you will see.
Generally, I would have to be against this unless we can find a way to make it keep paying. You don't sell the goose that lays the golden eggs. And if the News is happy, you know something is wrong.
That's it for now...