But I agree with your premise that GOP votes for a tax increase damage their brand ID.  That's why it's important that we stay on the phones and stay on the email to tell our Reps and our Senators to vote NO on new taxes.

ANGRY WHITE MALE... have you called Senator Garcia's office?  The others you mentioned?  Have you called Representatives Gaffney, Ball, Booher, Nofs and Wenke?

No excuses.

I'm not buying into any spin here... RightMichigan was the only blog in the state to take GOP members to task this week over rumors they were getting squishy on the tax issue.  This is about issues, not about party affiliation.

But I am a realist.  You're always going to have to give something to get something.  Wish it weren't so but it is.  The Senate GOP avoided at tax hike and secured nearly a billion dollars in spending cuts and changes.  That doesn't come free.  They agreed to let their members VOTE on a tax hike in 2008.

Didn't agree to supply any votes.  Didn't agree to pass a tax hike.  Only that it could come to a vote.  

And yeah, it's up to members to do the right thing.  

But an income tax is a different kettle of fish. It's not just a dead rat head in a coke bottle politically, it's rat poison economically, and every person on this site except the Dem trolls know it. You know it, and so does Mike Bishop. So if he's not willing to "go to the mattresses" on this of all things, then he isn't worth your time and energy to spin over.

Well if it's not his, it's certainly not mine. If he can't stop them, it's silly to think any number of non-constit grass roots folks can. C'mon, Nick, and Saul, and everyone else - stop enabling, and start putting the heat on where it will do some good.

Just kidding.

Seriously, though.  I'm not dodging, I'm not spinning and Lord knows I'm not trying to defend an income tax increase.  You're 100% right about how damaging that would be.

My point is, there is no income tax increase at this point.  And the Senate GOP did not say they were going to vote for one.  They DID say they'd let the Dems vote YES if they want to.  

Frankly, I'd go further than you... I don't think those "other" taxes you described are any MORE palatable.  All of them would push this state further over the edge.  We needn't raise taxes $.01.  Period.

That's not spin.  That's one man's opinion based on an objective view of the state, the status quo and opportunities for reform.

But hey, you don't want them to even allow a vote I can appreciate that.  I don't want them to either.

I knew there was one other "OK" tax - the "amenities" tax. Throw that in and Bishop can allow up to $600 million in non-radioactive tax hikes.

You're wrong about those other taxes being equivalent to an income tax in their economic destructiveness. No investor, entrepreneur, rich person or wealthy retiree will leave the state because the cost of soda pop goes up three-cents a can, or movies go up a quarter. They will leave if the income tax goes up 15 percent. Not just a few, either - a lot of them will.

Using the "Well, if it's not Mike's job, then it's not mine" excuse is B-S.  The time you're spending on here, complaining to folks who can't affect it ... could better be spent complaining to Republicans who vote for that kind of thing.

Heck.  Call Bishop, and yell at him for his violation.  

I especially don't think pessimism solves much of anything.  If you really think the state was sold down river, that's fine.  You admit a tax increase was inevitable; so what's the problem allowing a vote on it?  Let's see what happens.

Calling Bishop is another matter. He too primarily cares about his own constits, but his leadership position does give him a duty to take heed of what others say also, and I believe he's a conscientious person and will do so.

I'm not pessimistic, I'm realistic: A big income tax hike is economic kool-aide for this state (Jonestown flavor.) It's a $1.8 billion tax hike, and it falls most heavily on those upon whom any potential turnaround depends. In contrast, the less-toxic consumption taxes I cited in the OP amount to only $600 million, and are more evenly distributed.

One really cannot overestimate just how toxic an income tax hike would be, both economically and politically. Frankly, it's a mystery to me that Bishop is prepared to go down this path in spite of that. It's out of character.

I know I watched Big-Time Washington politics all the time.  So I'm willing to concede this small-time, hometown game in Lansing might be different.  

In Washington, you keep things off the floor to avoid votes - and sink the bill.  But letting things to the floor doesn't guarantee their passage.  And in some cases, they would make agreements just to get a bill to the floor.

I think it's inferred by most readers here when you talk about a Michigan tax increase.  Billions or millions, or two pennies.

Imagine the political effects. Presumaby most Dems vote for the income tax - THEY drink the polical kool-aide. Sure, they'll snark that Repubs voted for tax increases also, but those lesser taxes don't have the political (or economic) mo-jo that an income tax hike does. The snarks won't resonate.

On their side, Repubs would look reasonable AND principled. There would be $600 million in revenue - sufficient to plug really gaping holes, but leaving enough of a gap that the other side would be forced to undertake some genuine reforms and restructuring. You give them an income tax and all your leverage on that disappears - reform's not needed anymore! Avoiding that is what all this tax push is really about.

Oh, and don't think that you can trade reforms for the income tax hike, either. Did you see what they did to the school pension double-dipping bill this week? Gutted it, and still it was reported as a "reform." It leaves 80 percent of those double-dipping teachers right where they were before the bill.

You really think he doesn't expect his caucus members to vote it down?