2012 Michigan ballot proposals

[Willy]

As a service to our members here is a brief synopsis of the six various statewide proposals coming up for vote this November.  You have probably caught a few commercials already for proposal six, regarding international bridges, but just wait; the other groups for and against the other proposals are just around the corner.  Here are the proposals as they appear on the ballot.  Which ones are you strongly for or against?  Please share your reasoning behind your viewpoint with the rest of us if you could.

PROPOSAL 12-1 A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

• Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

• Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

• Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

• Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this  law  be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-2 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING This proposal would:

• Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

• Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

• Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

• Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this  proposal  be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-3 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY This proposal would:

• Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

• Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

• Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

• Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this  proposal  be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-4 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS This proposal would:

• Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

• Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

• Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

• Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

Should this  proposal  be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-5 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT This proposal would: Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation. This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution. Should this proposal  be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-6

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS This proposal would:

• Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

• Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."

Should this proposal be approved?

Governor Rick Snyder has broadcasted how he feels about the various proposals, which ones should be passed and which shouldn't, see whether you can figure out how he stands on these proposals before you check it out  here.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120929/NEWS15/120929025/Michigan-201...

[XLFD]

You'll get no such argument here, though the COLDNews sure have come out strongly against proposal 5.  Not too hard to see who's buttering their bread when the taxes go up, as we saw here:  an-advertising-payment, and explains why they were well represented at that latest Neal-Wilson gala.

[Willy]

Proposal 6

The definition is stating a date of Jan 1, 2012 which makes this amendment retroactive. Why is that? The only reason I can think of is that they want any action taken by the State to promote and plan for the bridge so far to be dead in the water.
The way I read Proposal 6 is that even if most of the people in the State want a bridge, the city where it is located can vote it down and if a municipality wants a new bridge then the rest of the State can turn it down. I can see a grid lock if a bridge is truly needed. I also read into the Proposal that the State can not even promote a new bridge unless the people vote to approve the idea of it's promotion. This amendment hog ties the State but allows private companies to run free without public approval. I agree in principle about the people voting regarding our taxes paying for this new bridge but this does not belong in the Constitution because if this amendment turns out to be a problem it will be extremely difficult to work around it and we should be handling these types of situations on  a case by case basis and  not with a one size fits all amendment to our Constitution.

[Willy]

For those of you who are interested in a more in depth and detailed report and analysis of the upcoming Michigan ballot proposals I have included the link below.  It's for the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. When the site comes up on your computer, scroll down a half a page to get to the Proposals.

http://crcmich.org/

[Marty Redman]

Whoa, you have a lot of proposals out there this year in Michigan.  I agree with Will, prop 5 is the only one worth voting yes on, the others don;t belong on the MI Constitution.

[XLFD]

If you pass proposals 2 through 4 you must be a progressive unconcerned about Michigan's future, because they don't help get us out of the malaise we're in, just deeper into it. 

The other three I could vote yea for, but each has its own drawbacks.

[Willy]

In my opinion none of these proposals except 5 belongs in the Constitution because of that that fact alone they deserve a no vote. Taxation matters are already part of the Constitution so 5 is a natural fit. Prop 2, 3 ,4 and 6 are special interest proposals. 2 and 4 are for the special interest of the union lobbies and 4 is for the special interest of the wind energy lobby. 2, 3 and 4 are job killers and they  will take billions out of our pockets. Regarding prop. 6, all of the advertisements in opposition to Michigan and Canada building a new bridge comes from one source, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge. They want to have the sole right to build a bridge unencumbered by the peoples input. That alone would be a very good reason to turn this prop down. The People are being duped by the bridge owners, union lobbyists and the wind energy companies and their  lobbyists.