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...

[Willy]

I was in favor of the people voting on the bridge [Proposal 12-6]. What I didn't realize is that this vote is to amend the State Constitution. I thought the vote was for a one time ballot issue for this particular bridge. In my opinion the State Constitution is no place for this issue to be placed. I'm definitely voting no on this proposal. I am in fact voting no on all proposals except 12-5.

[XLFD]

Willy,

I hope you don't mind me throwing up some more to amend your thread head, I had one in the wings about the ballot proposals.  I won't make it a habit, honest.

[XLFD]

I am actually gravitating towards strong support for #6, and it's not because I like Matty Maroun or have been reprogrammed by the commercials on this.  It makes sense to have a 'take it slow approach' to such projects because 'international' bridges will by their very nature, be funded and receive revenue from Michigan and Canada/Ontario, whether that bridge is in Detroit, port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie, or any other place.  Typically, those agreements are vetted by committees out of the spotlight such as was done with the first proposal which failed to make the original bridge. 

With passage, all sides of the issue can be looked at by the folks, and even though the facts are often glossed over by both sides, I like popular control.  I think it is worthy of the MI Constitution since we are a border state that has a lot of potential international crossings that would need bridges. 

[Willy]

The last paragraph of proposal 6 has me concerned and confused and that's the problem with amending the Constitution. When we amend the Constitution the wording is extremely important and I'm guessing this last paragraph was intended for some special interest group or groups.

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."

[XLFD]

I see and agree with your concern, but I think it's necessarily added to avoid any confusion about what exactly is a "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles", not to cloud the issue for the benefit of someone. 

I'm sure if there wasn't so much bureaucracy and government obstacles, that you would have private investors willing to build another bridge if it looked like it could be done profitably eventually, and the law doesn't prohibit that.  Only when the State is involved.   This law could even allow wealthy cities to build new bridges, as long as they are not backed by State money.

[Willy]

X

Thanks for reposting the topic in full. I was thinking about doing that but got lazy.

[XLFD]

Very good points, Willy.  I think I will have to take a closer look at this proposal, as I had never considered some of the aspects you just brought up.

[Willy]

Proposal 1. I am apposed to taking away local power by the State. Let the people fix their own problems. If the proposal would allow the citizens of a municipality to vote whether they want a Emergency Manager or not then I would probably approve this. The power should remain local. 

[Willy]

Proposal 2

Absolutely not. And not only because this does not belong in our Constitution but just the fact that unions could hold the Government hostage because of the wording in this Proposal. For example this amendment would "Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements."

In essence unions could cancel laws that are on the books simply by verbage in their contracts. This is a bad Proposal.

[Willy]

Proposal 3

This is just bunch of garbage. And again I'm against this because it will be part of the Constitution and we will be hog tied to the renewable energy lobbyists. If you think your utility bills are high now, wait until this boondoggle passes. The greenys' want to hold us captive to the wind energy wizards. If this passes we will be forcing utilities to install millions of those monster towers everywhere, even in Lake Michigan. It will force existing power plants to close and we will be at the mercy of the wind. And not to mention the billions of dollars in tax subsidies and electrical power rates that will be going thru the roof. Another bad Proposal.

[Willy]

Proposal 4

Again this does not belong in our Constitution. Another proposal that forces unions on the people. People in the home care industry will be forced to participate and pay union dues and will be under the thumb of the newly created bureaucracy "Quality Home Care Council". As if there isn't enough Government interference.  What amazes me is all of these Constitution amendments coming during  Obama's reign. The progressives are going to have a field day at our expense. 

[Willy]

Proposal 5

This makes sense but I don't know if it needs to be in the Constitution. It's about time tho that the people have a vote on tax issues at the State level. I am voting yes unless someone can offer a convincing argument against it.