Jack Lessenberry Essays and Interviews

Essay: Sound Investment - 4.2.09

Michigan Radio’s Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry has been thinking about a new proposal to increase the state income tax…

Hear Audio Story   

Alma Wheeler Smith and Rebekah Warren have a proposal that, at first glance, sounds just plain nutty. We have a severe national recession that is worse in Michigan than anywhere else, and they want to increase the state income tax by more than one percent.

I know, what else would you expect from a couple Ann Arbor liberals, right? Well, Warren represents Ann Arbor in the state house, and Smith, who used to represent Ann Arbor in the Senate, now represents Salem Township in the house.

And if you don’t think that is incestuous enough, Representative Smith is Representative Warren’s mother-in-law.

But their tax-raising proposal makes more sense than anything I’ve seen out of Lansing in a long time. I think it would seriously help attract new high-tech jobs and businesses.

They are calling it MI FUTURE, for Michigan’s Future, and here’s how it would work. Our income tax would increase from the present 4.35 percent to 5.5 percent. But we’d get a lot for it.

That extra money, they calculate, would enable the state to provide free education for everyone who went through high school in Michigan at one of the state’s public universities.

It would also pay for universal preschool education for every four-year-old, something that might be just as crucial as a college education for some children.

I am assuming their calculations are correct. If they are, this sounds like the bargain of the century. The median family income in Michigan is just under $50,000 a year.

This tax increase would be, after deductions are figured in, a little less than $500 a year. Sounds steep, I agree.

However, let’s say they have just one child, born this year. By the time that child turns 18, that family would have paid an extra $9,432 in taxes, assuming their income stays the same. But now look at the cost of a college education.

The average tuition rate for a year of schooling at one of our four-year public universities was $8,753. If Junior completes his education, that family gets a huge bargain. If they have more than one child, that bargain is unbelievable.

Now, there would be a few strings attached. How much junior is eligible for would depend on how many years she or he had attended a Michigan high school. Families making $127,000 or more a year would not be eligible, though other financial aid programs might still be available to them.

Making this a state where everyone’s child could afford college seems to me a brilliant way of attracting young professionals. The sticking point, however, is likely to be the Republican-controlled state senate. Majority Leader Mike Bishop is adamantly against any tax increase, as are most of his GOP colleagues. However, there’s a way around that.

Smith and Warren only want the legislature to put this on the ballot and give voters the final choice on this idea.

That might be an easier vote for Republicans. It would seem to me that if you care about this state’s future, the MI-FUTURE proposal ought to be an easy choice for us all.

Essay: Stick it to the Union - 4.1.09

With so much of the attention focused on the auto companies, Michigan Radio's Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry has been thinking recently about the UAW.

Hear Audio Story

If you walk by a TV where Fox News is on, it doesn't take long to hear someone demanding United Auto Workers? Union President Ron Gettelfinger's head. "President Obama forced Rich Wagoner to resign," one caller said. "Why doesn't he fire the head of the union, too? They are the real reason the auto companies are in this mess."

The usual reply is that the unions own the Democratic Party, and the President would never have to guts to stand up to them. I have heard these myths stated so often that a little reality check is in order. First of all, here's the biggest single reason the President asked the head of GM to resign, and not the head of the UAW. This is a big secret, so, are you ready?

We the taxpayers just poured $13.4 billion into General Motors, and are about to pour in even more. We are now all part owners of this money-hemorrhaging turkey, and the President is the chairman of our board. You can disagree with his decision, and some intelligent people do. But he had the right to make it.

On the other hand, the taxpayers haven't given the UAW a cent. I am sure that in return for $13 billion, the union would let the government fire Ron Gettelfinger and paint Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, mandarin orange. Actually, the union hasn't asked for our money. What it wants is to survive. Recent years have been as hard on it as on the auto companies. Five years ago, there were more than 400,000 UAW employees at GM and Chrysler. That number has fallen to 141,000, according to the Wall Street Journal, and will shrink further still. The union has made massive and unprecedented concessions, givebacks that would have Walter Reuther spinning in his grave.

Worst of all from a union standpoint: A two-tier wage scale, under which new hires are paid far less than existing workers. Not that there are many new hires these days.

But what about firing Ron Gettelfinger? That wouldn't have much effect since he is retiring anyway. He turns 65 in August, and will step down, as is customary, next year. Harley Shaiken, the respected union expert at UCLA, said he has led the union well through its toughest times ever. Incidentally, in keeping with UAW tradition, Gettelfinger's salary is the lowest of any major union president -- $157,000 a year. That's less than many auto execs make a month. Strangely, there are those who seem to resent that the union has given millions of Americans decent lives and medical and pension benefits. Nobody is denying that there were abuses in the past. But that isn't why GM is in its current mess.

If you want a culprit, start with the late Roger Smith, the chairman who squandered tens of billions on ill-conceived diversification and automation schemes, while building shoddy cars.

Better yet, forget about fixing the blame till we fix the problem and save both the companies and the union. That is, if we still can.