State government is currently on course to run a huge deficit for the next fiscal year. State budget deficits are illegal, under Michigan’s Constitution. That budget has to be balanced by September 30.
Four months ago, we elected a ton of Republicans to the legislature who pledged they wouldn’t vote for any new taxes, no matter what. We elected a Republican governor who said he was going to deeply cut taxes on business, because he believed that was the only way to attract new jobs and industry to this state.
So we voted for no new taxes of any kind, less taxes on business, and we‘ve got a big budget deficit to start. And now we are shocked, shocked, that the governor is insisting on making huge cuts in state spending. Well, we shouldn‘t be.
We voted for this. And, we tolerated the last governor, and several different past legislatures, refusing to deal with our problems. We put things off till we couldn‘t do it any more.
And now, we have to fix it. What‘s worse, we have to do this when we are still mired in the effects of the worst recession since World War II. Yes, I know the recession is officially over.
The economists say so, anyway. But hard times are not even close to over in Michigan. The auto industry is never coming back the way it was, and we need a new economy.
That doesn‘t mean I approve of the governor‘s approach. But we voted for it, and now we are whining, Protestors are thronging the state capital every day protesting some cut or other.
They have a right to do that. But the first rule of Management 101 is that if you complain about a problem, you should have a proposed solution. Ask the people protesting the budget cuts what they would do instead, and you mainly get a blank stare.
That, or some other answer that betrays fundamental ignorance of fourth grade arithmetic. The governor’s most unpopular proposal is taxing pension income. The AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, is fighting this tooth and nail. They don’t think a retired teacher who gets combined social security and pension income of $90,000 a year should pay taxes on what she makes. However, they don’t have any problem with the single mother who works part -time in my local dry cleaners paying state taxes on her eight dollar an hour job.
Does that sound fair? Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville noted yesterday that if the proposal to tax pensions is defeated, they’ve got to come up with another nine hundred million more in budget cuts.
I could say show me the money, but there isn’t any, and that’s the problem. For the last decade, we’ve pretended that there was such a thing as a free lunch, and we could make it last forever.
Except that the bill is now due, and the policeman is on the next stool. Two plus two is still four. If you have a better way to add up the numbers, I‘m all ears.
I could agree with Lessenberry if he had not resorted to the constant rant of today -- pick on a public employee. The example could have used a GM worker or a Ford worker. The using of the teacher plays into the hands of those who bash public employees. I don't think public employees are worse than those who work for large corporations. So I cannot accept Lessenberry's assessment. Two plus two may not equal four.
Posted by: Rod Hill | March 08, 2011 at 06:49 PM
Come on, Jack! "We" didn't vote for this. I didn't vote for ANY of the republicans in State gov't.
For that matter, the republicans who claimed they wouldn't raise taxes, are now proposing a billion dollar tax increase on working people, and a 1.8 billion dollar cut on business.
don't include me in your "we" lecture.
Posted by: Scottythe1nonly | March 09, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Jack: In your essay you state that "They don't think a retired teacher who gets a combined income of $90,000 dollars a year should pay taxes..." This misinformation speaks to the anger many people have against the public employee pension system. I have been a teacher for over 31 years, recently retired, with a pension of only 30,000. When I am eligible for SS, my combined income may be closer to 50,000 before taxes. Most teachers can only count on a pension of roughly 35-40 percent of the avg of their last 5 years of contracted pay. You, as a legitimate journalist have a duty to get facts correct before you state them on the air and in writing. Your responsibility to get your facts correct before spouting off opinions is necessary this day as many in the private sector look to scape goat teachers, police, fireman, for what benefits they have sacrificed salary, working benefits and time for. By hyper inflating a figure to specifically make a point is irresponsible and not worthy of good journalism. You owe a clarification or retraction of your commentary.
Posted by: Brian Topolewski | March 10, 2011 at 10:44 AM
As for taxing the single mother making $8.00 per hour. If she is lucky enough to be a full time employee she will earn about $16,000 per year and with her deductions for her and one child she will have about $8200 of taxable income resulting in a tax liability of about $357. She will get a refundable credit from the state for 20% of her federal EIC ($3050), amounting to $620. So she will get a check from the State of Michigan for roughly $260. As for that $90,000 retirement income from teaching, I would like to steer my daughter who has been teaching for nearly 20 years and has no hope of ever making anything approaching that kind of pay, let alone having that kind of retirement.
Posted by: Michael Livingston | March 10, 2011 at 01:26 PM
This is Jack Lessenberry. That teacher really exists; I know her. Admittedly, she had a higher salary and pension than most, and is eligible for full social security (she is 70 with 45 years of teaching.) But I would feel the same way about a teacher getting $50,000; I think they should pay taxes on that income.
Posted by: Bucca | March 10, 2011 at 05:08 PM