Article published November 06, 2009
Electorate willing to foot tax hikes for specific causes
DETROIT - Throughout this year's budget battles in Lansing, Republican and Democratic lawmakers disagreed over how to balance the books. But they seemed to strongly agree on this:
Michigan voters would never approve any kind of open, across-the-board tax increase. That was seen as the kiss of political death. The governor talked of a need for "revenue enhancements," and Democrats tried to sneak by a tiny tax on physicians' fees, which was swiftly killed by the GOP-led state Senate.
So instead, lawmakers slashed revenue sharing to cities and made cuts in support to public schools. They cut Medicaid payments and went back on their promise to fund scholarships.
Some knew that this would harm the state's future. But most lawmakers apparently thought voters would rather endure cuts than pay for services they've been accustomed to.
Yet this week's election returns may indicate that the politicians are dead wrong. Detroit is perhaps the best example. The city is heavily impoverished, with an unemployment rate, 29 percent, at Great Depression era levels.
Nevertheless, Detroiters put a proposal on the ballot to raise half a billion dollars to build new schools. The city's main newspaper editorialized against the proposal on a number of grounds. However, people voted by nearly two-to-one to build the new schools, via a bond issue. They may be among Michigan's poorest residents, but they are willing to sacrifice to give their children a better future.Two miles north of Detroit, the city of Huntington Woods is in better shape financially. The 6,000 residents in the nearly all-white community of professionals, lawyers, and teachers occupy many of its mostly older homes. (Full disclosure: This columnist is a resident.) Yet unemployment is worse there than since the Depression, and dozens of homes are in foreclosure.
Many Huntington Woods roads are in need of repair, and curbs are cracked and crumbling. The city asked voters for more money to fix the streets. The result: Eighty-five percent voted to raise their taxes. Based on what my neighbors tell me, if Huntington Woods residents had been asked the generic question: Do you want higher taxes? The majority would have said no.
But when asked if they would pay taxes for something in their own best interest, these middle-class white voters overwhelmingly agreed, as did the poor black voters in Detroit.
There may even be a parallel in Toledo. In a close mayor's race, the candidates didn't disagree on much. Except Keith Wilkowski said he wouldn't raise taxes, no matter what. Mike Bell said he didn't want to, but would keep an open mind, and that it was conceivable that voters might want to raise taxes rather than give up services. He won.
For years, politicians have believed hinting at raising taxes is a prescription for political suicide. The famous example is Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee.
"I'll raise taxes," he said in his acceptance speech, seeking to win credibility through honesty. He added, "(President Reagan) will too. He won't tell you (that he will); I just did," Mr. Mondale said. He went on to lose in a historic landslide, and in the end, under Reagan naturally some taxes were raised.
Meanwhile, Detroit residents issued their mayor a winning mandate. Dave Bing romped to an easy primary victory over businessman Tom Barrow, last August, getting 74 percent to Mr. Barrow's 11 percent.
To his credit, the former pro basketball player then made a series of hard decisions that turned some supporters and the city's major unions against him. He announced that the city, which is facing a huge deficit, simply couldn't pay the kind of salaries it used to.
The city has fewer than half the residents it once did, and is top-heavy with bureaucracy. Mr. Bing asked the major municipal unions to take concessions or face major layoffs. The angry unions switched their endorsements to Mr. Barrow and poured money into his campaign. The result? The margin narrowed, but Mr. Bing won by a comfortable, 58 to 42 percent margin.
That's a clear mandate for his hard but necessary decisions, and what looks like an act of something like statesmanship.
Jack Lessenberry, a member of the journalism faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit and The Blade's ombudsman, writes on issues and people in Michigan.
Contact him at: omblade@aol.com
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
