On November 6, Michigan voters will decide six ballot proposals, while Troy voters have an additional one. My first article gave principles for evaluating proposals and more details on a Tax for Every Purpose (question 4), not be covered here. Here are the Five Questions again:

1. Does it favor direct democracy rather than representative democracy?

America’s representative democracy is superior to the parliamentary systems used elsewhere in the world. Direct democracy has its purposes, but at its worst it can be mob rule. Ballot proposals like these can leave decisions in the hands of people who are too busy or not well enough informed to make wise decisions, assuming they have chosen honest leaders.

2. Does it enlarge the size and scope of government instead of making it more efficient?

3. Does it overturn decisions made by previous elections or my elected representatives?

4. Does it make a special dedicated tax or even worse, a new tax with a government board to oversee its spending?

5. Does it make a constitutional amendment for an issue that is best debated in the legislature?

If any of the above questions can be answered yes, you should probably vote no, assuming that you favor efficient, responsive, representative government. Changes to the Constitution should be viewed with extreme caution.

Some suggestions:

Listen to TV and radio ads with a large grain of salt. Designed to appeal to emotions, they can leave you dazed as firefighters and school bus drivers plead both sides for Proposal 2.

Everything is about the kids. They are so biased they would be humorous if they didn’t involve serious issues regarding our country’s future.

Same goes for robo-calls if you can stand them. I usually hang up.

A more thoughtful approach starts with the unbiased information prepared by non-partisan staff of the state legislature and mailed to all voters by Bill Bullard, Oakland Country Clerk, and State Representative Marty Knollenberg. This summarizes the proposals and arguments for both sides. It is a useful starting point but highlights the power of incumbency since they’re mailed at our expense, not the office holder’s.

Ballot Proposals are not Bi-Partisan

Ballot proposals are worded exactly as the special interest group favoring them wishes.  They bypass the normal bipartisan discussion, much as Obamacare was rammed through Congress with no Republican input except for protests. No amendments for improvement are voted on.

A Proposal for a Future Amendment

It’s ironic that our constitution can be amended by a simple majority of the people. A friend proposed that conservatives should mount their own ballot proposal to change the process, requiring a two-thirds majority vote to amend the constitution. Recalls and overturning laws could remain a simple majority.

Follow the Money

Figure out who will gain from passing this proposal. Someone spent money to get it on the ballot. Do their interests line up with yours?

Check Endorsements

Find out what groups are supporting and opposing it before deciding. They spent more time studying it than the average voter.

Proposal 4 Content and Analysis

This would guarantee that the SEIU or another government union could lock a forced unionization of home-based caregivers into the constitution. It would also take ~$6 million in dues from the Medicaid checks of the disabled and elderly, many of whom are now cared for by family and friends.

Applying answers to the Five Questions,

1. Yes, it bypasses the state legislature with a direct ballot proposal.
2. Yes, it will likely cause more laws to regulate the now-unionized health care workers, with regulations to be written and interpreted by bureaucrats (unelected officials).
3. Not specifically, but this could never be enacted in the legislature.
4. Overall costs will rise, so probably taxes will have to go up to support the unionized workers mentioned above.
5. Yes

Vote No because of Yes answers to all five questions.

Check out the Money Trail and Endorsements

Favoring: Organized labor groups, the MEA, Clean Water Action. The main sponsor is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a public sector union.

Opposing: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Governor Snyder, Michigan Legislature, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, Lansing State Journal, The Detroit Free Press and No Troy Recall PAC all recommend a No vote.

Vote No!

Proposal 5 Content and Analysis

This proposal would require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass any law raising any tax, even if there was an overall net tax cut. Essentially it locks the current tax structure into the constitution unless there is a two-thirds vote in both houses, signed by the governor.

It needs a closer examination than the other proposals because pro-economic growth groups are advocating for both sides. The Yes proponents argue that raising taxes fuels the growth of government and forcing a super-majority to raise taxes will slow government growth and promote private sector growth.

Vote No proponents argue that the Michigan Business Tax would not have been eliminated because it involved raising other taxes elsewhere for a net tax cut. There are always winners and losers in any tax shift that benefits overall growth, and the losers could lobby hard to prevent their ox from being gored. Proposal A in the early 1980s probably would also never have happened.

This also is a constitutional change, which probably would be necessary since no legislature would ever vote to limit its flexibility.

Applying answers to the Five Questions,

1. Yes, it bypasses the state legislature with a direct ballot proposal.
2. Not clear if this will help or hurt.
3. Not specifically, but this would never be enacted by any legislature.
4. No.
5. Yes

Lean No because of Yes answers to three of the five questions.

Check out the Money Trail and Endorsements

Favoring: Americans for Prosperity, Michigan Alliance for Prosperity, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard and No Troy Recall PAC.

Might be interesting to see how long Americans for Prosperity and Michigan Alliance for Prosperity have been around and where their funding is coming from. Moroun’s company has a vested interest in preserving the status quo; if he has poured anywhere near as much money into this as Proposal 6, it’s a giant red flag.

Opposing: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Governor Snyder, Michigan Legislature, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Lansing State Journal, The Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, organized labor groups, the MEA, Sierra Club, and Clean Water Action all recommend a No vote.

Vote No!

Proposal 6 Content

This constitutional amendment would require approval by a majority of voters in a statewide referendum and in each city where “new international brides or tunnels for motor vehicles” (open to traffic after January 1, 2012) are to be located before the state can spend any money to buy land, design, or solicit bids for building, financing, or promoting them.

Proposal 6 Analysis

Ballot proposals like these concentrate power in the hands of those with large advertising budgets. Most people are busy with their lives and get overloaded by the advertising, and many are easily swayed by emotional arguments.

While Mr. Maroun can’t be blamed for taking advantage of every legal means he can to earn a profit in his businesses, his poorly regulated monopoly has not treated his customers and neighbors well, particularly in Canada. The bridge often has lanes closed with no construction work going on, land prices near the bridge have dropped, and the truck traffic causes vibration damage to the Windsor cathedral.

His sale of duty-free gasoline may be legal, but it unethically bypasses the gas taxes other gas station owners must pay and allows him to pocket the difference between the few cents under the taxed market rate he charges and the tax free wholesale price. Meanwhile none of his gasoline sales pay road use taxes. Reduced traffic on his bridge from competition will cut into tolls and duty-free gasoline sales, so he is spending over $30 million to block the new bridge that will take most of the truck traffic because of better connections to Canadian freeways.

Bridges and roads are infrastructure and should be owned by the people regardless of how they are financed. The People Should Decide mailings are filled with misrepresentations, nice slogans and smiling faces.

Follow the Money

The Detroit Free Press article tells where the money is coming from for the current ballot proposals and is worth reading. The previous record was $19.7M spent by one side on a 2004 casino proposal. No need to guess which side!

Thirty to one ($31M to $800K) to preserve Mr. Maroun’s bridge monopoly seems a bit lopsided.

Applying answers to the Five Questions,

1. Yes, it bypasses the state legislature and governor with a direct ballot proposal.
2. Not specifically, but it maintains an inefficient and expensive system. Tolls at the international crossings between New York and Ontario are much lower.
3. Yes.
4. No, but it maintains an inefficient and expensive system.
5. Yes, it is specifically designed to preserve a monopoly.

Vote No because of Yes answers to three of the five questions.

Check out the Endorsements

Favoring: Americans for Prosperity, Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun, and No Troy Recall PAC.

Opposing: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Governor Snyder, Michigan Chamber of Commerce and The Detroit Free Press all recommend a No vote.

Vote No!

Conclusion

I don’t agree with all of their reasoning, but the Detroit Free Press editors have come to the same conclusion as me: Yes on 1, No on the rest. I’m also voting no on Troy’s Proposal T, in agreement with the Detroit News and for reasons stated in earlier blog articles.

I’m voting No on Proposals 4, 5 and 6. Proposal 5 required a bit more thought, but I’ll side with the respected long-established private sector economic growth groups and avoid locking our current tax structure into the constitution; how about you?