Meg Continues To Be Political
After a brief hiatus in which I contracted either bronchittis and/or walking pneumonia (love those antibiootics and striods! REALLY love that good cold medicine with coedine in it--takes the edge of musical season right off. Don't worry, no power tools for me.), I'm back and firey (if still drugged out of my head).Here are your proposals Michigan. I think you’d probably better read them over. I heard a proposal 5 commercial last night that was so one-sided it wasn’t even a little persuasive. The actual language is below. You’ll find I’ve made my comments below them, including spiritual complications this time.
The pretty version is here.
September 20, 2006
STATE OF MICHIGAN
STATEWIDE BALLOT PROPOSAL STATUS
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 GENERAL ELECTION
I. STATEWIDE PROPOSALS QUALIFIED TO APPEAR ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
• HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION Z: Adopted by State House July 14, 2004; adopted by State Senate December 8, 2004; deposited with Secretary of State December 20, 2004.
BALLOT LANGUAGE: The following ballot language was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on August 25, 2006:
PROPOSAL 06-1 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
• Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
• Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
• Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.
Should this proposal be adopted? Yes No
Eh, why not? I am afraid of losing wetlands and parks to urban sprawl. But I haven't read much about this one. Perhaps it does things I don't know about. That could be bad.
• MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE PETITION: Signatures filed January 6, 2005; proposal ordered on ballot by Michigan Court of Appeals December 20, 2005.
BALLOT LANGUAGE: The following ballot language was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on January 20, 2006:
PROPOSAL 06-2 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
Should this proposal be adopted? Yes No
I'm not at all convinced the time for affirmative action is over. Statistically, by percentage, whites still go to college and complete college more than any other group in the US. U of M is not a great mesh of colors and cultures in the same way MSU is.
On the other hand, what's the chance my baby bro could have gotten in there if he hadn't been military? While it may not always feel like it, white priviledge still exists and I don't see it all equaling out anytime soon.
• DOVE HUNTING REFERENDUM: Referendum petition approved as to form August 11, 2004; signatures filed March 28, 2005; petition determined sufficient June 2, 2005.
BALLOT LANGUAGE: The following ballot language was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on August 25, 2006:
PROPOSAL 06-3 A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 – AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES
Public Act 160 of 2004 would:
• Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
• Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
• Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
• Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department’s annual hunting guide.
Should this law be approved? Yes No
Still, I think I'll vote for it. With the way things arDove is yummy, but it seems like this would probably be a recreational hunt for most. Small birds are hard to clean and eat. e going in this state, I may need to go hunt doves for dinner some night. It makes me think of the rabbit scenes in Roger & Me. And Lord knows, the wildlife folks need the revenue after budget cuts.
• SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION E: Adopted by the State Senate December 13, 2005; adopted by the State House December 13, 2005; deposited with the Secretary of State December 15, 2005.
BALLOT LANGUAGE: The following ballot language was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on August 25, 2006.
PROPOSAL 06-4 A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE PURPOSES The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
• Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
• Preserve existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted? Yes No
Methinks yes. Eminent domain has long sucked in my eyes. I wonder what rich guy they grabbed a house from to finally get this on the ballot.
• EDUCATIONAL FUNDING GUARANTEE: Initiative petition approved as to form December 7, 2005; signatures filed February 21, 2006; petition determined sufficient June 5, 2006; proposal presented to State Legislature for consideration June 5, 2006; no action taken by State Legislature during 40-day consideration period.
BALLOT LANGUAGE: The following ballot language was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on August 25, 2006:
PROPOSAL 06-5 A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS
The proposed law would:
• Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).
• Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.
• Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.
• Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.
• Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.
Should this proposed law be approved? Yes No
This one I'm fiery on. This needs to pass. With schools of choice and the charters going in and out of business, certain schools are losing pupils and funding for mulitple years and then having to reabsorb those pupils when the students come back without having the resources built up by having them there for years.
If you want me to photocopy the same amount of material year after year and keep increasing my paper costs, you need to increase my funding. No, the buzzwords "student achievement" aren't in here, but trust me, materials, a warm classroom, extra paper and a teacher who isn't working a second job to pay rent are linked to student success.
Next, retirement is indeed a crazy thing. Can I have my 401K now please? The current system of pensions is going to collapse without help (sort of the same way social security is supposed to). I'm not really interested in giving my employer my promised retirement package and knowing it's not solvent as I relinquish it.
And it's really the poorer districts which are hurt. Horrid inequalities. Unto the least of these, it's done unto Him.
II. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ENACTED BY STATE LEGISLATURE
A. REPEAL SBT: Initiative petition approved as to form April 11, 2006; signatures filed May 30, 2006; petition determined sufficient July 28, 2006; proposal presented to State Legislature for consideration July 28, 2006; enacted by State Legislature August 9, 2006 (proposal will not appear on ballot due to enactment). Purpose: Legislative initiative to repeal the Single Business Tax Act; provide for the collection of taxes due under current law on business activity through December 31, 2007; and encourage the legislature to adopt a tax that is “less burdensome and less costly to employers, and more conducive to job creation and investment.”
Ummm.... all that talk about the single business tax? It's already gone.
posted by Me @ 12:48
3 Comments:
Proposal 5.
Anyone in this country our age knows SS will be a joke once its our turn to draw. As you said the pension for teachers is in the same boat. Why would you think it is still going to be there? Why would you want the government in charge of it being there? Is it the taxpayers job to make sure you and I have insurance that they themselves don't, even when they themselves don't even have jobs right now?
I appreciate all of the perks for working in a school. But in no way do I support socialist agendas like living off of my neighbor like that.
With the majority of the money in this proposal going to our pensions and NOT going into the classroom I don't see the classroom statement as even relevant to this proposal. The proposal needed to say, lets set some funding for schools that will increase regularly so we stay an educated state...
I do not like this one... It is a wolf in sheep clothing.
Did you read it? The majority is NOT going to pensions (Though I've heard the commercials too. It's just not where the cash is going. I'm ready for a 401k. I even said that), it's going to balance the shifting student enrollment. When schools can't count on a budget from year to year (often because of student runoff into charter schools) and then are expected to reabsorb those numbers and "grow" again after three or four years of empty seats, there ARE NO RESOURCES available to heat, clean, supply text books, until the following year when the state pays out. This is saying that if a school has 110 students one year, 100 the next and then drops to 70, the years' funding must be averaged to the overall enrollment. It's a delay that may save a school from closing.
Imagine if that trend continued 70 the first year, 65 the next and then jusmped back up to 110 student bodies. 40 kids x $7,600 is a ton of cash to come up with all at once for any district. Asking the state rather than the local government to balance out a state issue is reasonable.
Meg,
I did read it. From what I read (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sick and my head is not feeling to connected to me at this moment), the verbage did not indicate a purpose for the money at all.
All the bill appeared to do would give schools money that is fixed to the consumer price index or rate of inflation. 1. The CPI is not a good tool by which to measure increased cost of living because it is only a broad based basket of goods people might use. 2. It mandates that any short falls be drawn from the State's General Fund. So now, we are running our schools based on statewide tax dollars instead of dollars levied by property taxes within the districts they serve.
That is not good governmental policy in my eyes. The State is having enough trouble running a good budget in the first place, now we would be forced to axe government agencies and raise taxes to support schools. Raising taxes in a State where you have the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the nation - without a legislated / mandated / in writing purpose? Bad idea.
Okland Intermediate School District, the biggest example for misused funds since the coin of the term, is perhaps the grossest example of what can happen even when the funds are given with a purpose. Now, give that kind of money to schools without telling them how it needs to be used... That scares me.
Am I off based? I mean I work in a school just like you do, I would benefit from this just as you would, but it scares me to high heaven.
Post a Comment
<< Home