Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    MI Property Tax Relief, the MEA, and Human Shields


    By Theblogprof, Section News
    Posted on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    Tags: liberal bias, MEA, media bias, Michigan, taxes, unions (all tags)

    cross-posted at theblogprof

    Yesterday, the Republican-controlled MI Senate fell short by 2 votes to push through a constitutional amendment, which would have to be voted on by Michigan residents in November, to prevent property taxes from increasing while home values are decreasing. Makes sense to me, but the Democrats sure don't like it. From the DetNews today: Mich. Senate comes up short in property tax relief vote. (The AP has a shorter report over at MLive)

    The vote was 23-11 in favor of the resolution with three Senate members absent. It takes approval by two-thirds of the members in each chamber of the Legislature to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, meaning 25 Senate votes would be needed to move the resolution over to the House for a vote.

    Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said there probably will be another vote on the resolution Wednesday.

    That's the good news. The bad news? It has to go through the MI House as well, controlled by Democrats. In the Senate, all 11 no votes came from Democrats. Why? Well, you can judge for yourselves, but here's something that comes up at the very end of the article:

    The proposal also is opposed by the Michigan Education Association -- the state's biggest teacher union -- and the Michigan League for Human Services, a nonprofit representing low-income and other "vulnerable" residents.

    They said the lost taxes would reduce money available for education and vital services such as police and fire protection. (emphasis mine)

    Ah yes - the MEA. And what do they trot out? Human shields. If we don't get a tax increase, your house will burn down! You won't be protected anymore! They never mention bloated pension benefits, bloated health benefits, bloated administrative costs, etc. Nope. We'll get rid of police officers and firefighters.

    Never mind the fact that this proposal would not decrease property taxes, only keep them from going up when home values are going down. In addition, the House and Senate cannot pass this amendment by themselves. It must be approved by the voters in November. So what the naysayers are saying is they don't want the voters to decide on this issue!

    Note also that these people consider the absence of a property tax increase as "lost taxes." Huh? Yep -the same logic (or lack thereof) that states that a decrease in the spending increase is tantamount to a cut in spending. Uh - no. No it is not. It is simply a smaller spending increase. Groan...

    Why doesn't the Detroit News call them out on the above points? The dishonest tactics? The false assertions? The human shields? It's almost as if there a liberal bias or something. Nah... Couldn't be...

    UPDATE: The measure passes the Senate 29-8!

    < When is flipping a Congressional District officially a mixed bag? | Suddenly that population decline makes a little more sense >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Actually... (none / 0) (#1)
    by thejmfc on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:48:09 AM EST
    I have to admit that I'm with the Democrats on this one.  Not for the same reasons though.

    The way things are set up now is fair.  The taxable values are only going up because they have been (artificially) held down below the assessed value for years.  Now that the market is in a slump, the taxable value continue to climb toward the assessed value until the two are the same.  The taxable value never exceeds the assessed value.  It's confusing and angering people, but it seems fair, no?

    The other side of this issue is that poor assumptions are being made about the effects of this legislation.  The assumption is that tax revenue for cities, townships, and counties will go down (and we'll all burn to death in our homes, our schools will suck (worse), our roads will suck (worse), etc.).  This fails to account for the fact that if revenues began to fall, the local governments would just be forced to raise tax rates to make up the difference.  The local governments may even overcompensate (intentionally or otherwise), resulting in a net loss for homeowners.  So while I suppose it's well-intended legislation, it seems somewhat useless to me.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search