Prop 5-Freep and News say NO

[Pinefarm]

Here's the Freep editorial...

Editorials
Prop 06-5 would lock in bad policy; vote no

October 18, 2006
Proposal 06-5, the so-called K-16 initiative, started out as a slick political ploy that was never supposed to be on the Nov. 7 ballot. It should not become law.

Backed by the Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, the proposal would require the state to increase funding every year for public schools, community colleges and universities at the rate of inflation. Given the importance of education to Michigan's economic future, this would seem to make sense.

But in its first year, according to an anlysis by the repected Citizens Research Council of Michigan, the proposal would require an increase ranging from $565 million-$707 million in state school aid, which is now $13 billion, or more than a fifth of the state budget. The proposal also would cap the local share of school employee pensions and require the state to make up the balance.

Inflation does not determine the state of Michigan's economy, which generates tax revenue. There is no guarantee the money this initiative would require could be delivered without huge cuts elsewhere.

Education matters, but so does a government's ability to be flexible to meet needs.

The proposal also contains no assurance that any of the increased funds will translate into real classroom improvements. It just throws more money education's way.

Proposal 06-5 was conceived by the state's education lobby to get the Legislature's attention and force movement on a stalled effort to restructure school pension and health insurance plans. But by the time it became clear the Legislature would not be bullied, it was too late to take the proposal off the ballot.

The campaign for Proposal 06-5 hinges on the false notion that the only way Michigan can demonstrate commitment to education is by locking in guaranteed funding increases. In fact, the state already ranks ninth nationally in per-pupil funding and has recently installed dramatically tougher requirements for high school graduation.

There is always room to do more, and in better times, that has happened. Nobody wants to do less for schools. But Proposal 06-5 is not the way to do more, and no guarantee that things would be done better.

Pitting schools against other priorities is not a healthy thing for Michigan. This state has enough dividing lines. Proposal 06-5 is a bad idea. Vote NO on Proposal 06-5. That's the responsible thing to do.

[Pinefarm]

Here's the Detriot News editorial...

Prop 5 is a teacher money grab; voters should say No

School funding initiative wouldn't help students

The Detroit News

Michigan voters face a misleading, irresponsible proposal on next month's ballot that promises to increase funding for K-12 education and universities and colleges. But Proposal 5 will hurt schools and threatens to starve other programs and force the state to raise taxes.

Voters should see this deceptive fagade for what it truly is: teachers' unions protecting their own narrow self-interests.

Michigan is hungry for better schools, and rightly so. The initiative purports itself as the fulfillment of that desire: If passed, it would require the state to provide annual funding increases equal to the inflation rate for K-12 schools, state universities and community colleges.

But it isn't.

The problem with Michigan schools is not a revenue shortfall. It's the uncontrollable cost of employee pensions and health care.

Unions know this. They are pushing this initiative to make sure their health care and pensions are covered -- regardless of the harm it does to everyone else.

Under the proposal, the state would need an additional $708 million during the first year alone, triggering an immediate financial crisis, according to Gary Olson, director of the non-partisan Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency.

The state Legislature would be forced to cut other programs or raise taxes -- or both -- regardless of other needs or changing circumstances.

Funding to local communities, police and fire, even educational programs not covered by the proposal, such as the School Readiness pre-school program, would face the ax.

Colorado is a case in point: Its similar state education spending mandate experience suggests that both tax increases and cuts to other programs will occur.

"I tell school districts that they should beware: They may do better in funding short-term, but long-term, they'll probably do worse," says Olson.

History shows that: Michigan's K-12 funding has generally been higher than the inflation rate over the longterm, he says.

Proposal 5's power play would force the state to begin picking up 20 percent of contributions for the public school employees' retirement system.

Currently, local school districts pay for that cost out of the state-provided per pupil funding.

Skyrocketing health care and pension costs are eating up local districts' funds.

Rather than bargain to reduce these costs, the Michigan Education Association and its allies are trying to push the responsibility to taxpayers.

Thus, Proposal 5's additional state funding will be sucked up quickly by these rising costs -- rather than trickling down to the students.

Neither the local school districts nor the unions will have an incentive to solve the root problem.

Michigan's schools and colleges need many reforms -- reduced classroom size, better curriculum, more need-based financial aid for college students and lower university tuition rates.

Proposal 5 will not deliver any of these fixes.

Michigan voters want better schools, not higher taxes to fund teachers' already fat pensions.

Vote No on Proposal 5.

It's a fraud.

[Pinefarm]

Anyone feeling "blown away" by Granholms pork to her teachers union croanies? Is this what Granholm has planned to bring high paying, high skilled jobs to Michigan? A huge union suckup? My GOD we're in trouble if she wins! :sad:

[Due51]

Detroit Public Schools are amongst the nation's leaders in money spent per student. The problem is, DPS is also one of the nation's leaders in absenteeism and drop out rate. How, in God's name, is throwing MORE money at them going to increase attendance or graduation rates?

I agree with the statement that everybody wants to do as much as possible for education. But, when misapproprations, mismanagement, and lack of parental involvement are the core issues facing DPS, throwing more money in an already strapped state budget is NOT the answer.

[TimT]

Anyone feeling "blown away" by Granholms pork to her teachers union croanies? Is this what Granholm has planned to bring high paying, high skilled jobs to Michigan? A huge union suckup? My GOD we're in trouble if she wins! :sad:

She said in debate number 3 that she doesn't support this bill. "good intentions but.... something or other". Both candidates publicly state they do not support it.

[Pinefarm]

Ala John Kerry "she had her people help right the bill, before she opposed it". :lol:
Granholm was also beholden to the prison guard union when she closed up the non-union Baldwin facility.

"Recently Governor Granholm cut the funding - thereby closing - one of Michigan's prisons in Baldwin, MI (Lake County). Granholm lost Lake County in 2002 by a couple hundred votes.

Most speculation as centered around belief that Granholm has cut funding for this prison due to pressure from unions. Baldwin Youth Prison was privately - non-state - run, and its employees were not apart of the state's corrections union."

[eyecatcher]

Ala John Kerry "she had her people help right the bill, before she opposed it". :lol:
Granholm was also beholden to the prison guard union when she closed up the non-union Baldwin facility.

"Recently Governor Granholm cut the funding - thereby closing - one of Michigan's prisons in Baldwin, MI (Lake County). Granholm lost Lake County in 2002 by a couple hundred votes.

Most speculation as centered around belief that Granholm has cut funding for this prison due to pressure from unions. Baldwin Youth Prison was privately - non-state - run, and its employees were not apart of the state's corrections union."

Baldwin should have been closed. it was maybe the worst run prison in the state. an absolute disgrace to the state.
That was a gift to a big business by Engler. I often wonder how much he made on that deal?

I have voted republican more time then not, but Mr Engler was one of a long line of bad ideas for the state of Michigan, or maybe we are the idiots for allowing a A-hole like him and our present govenor to govern our state. we have a poor track record for pickng govenors and the selection keeps getting worse. we are faced with the evil of two lessers. not much choice in this election or on the national front that I can see.

[johnnysmallgame]

Gov. Grandplan is a politician, DeVos is not. Gov. Grandplan has given lots of reasons why she has NOT taken action (someone tagged something to a bill, or the bill had some downside). Yet we are to believe that the next 4 years will bring action. Both candidates have good intentions. But only 1 is vested in a political career, and the other is vested in taking on a challenge for Michigan. DeVos will not be perfect and his decisions will have some downside. But he will move us forward. We will be in no position to protect anything in Michigan if the slide continues. Time for a change.

All one needs to do is look at the city of Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids was Detroit in the 80's, dead. It is now a thriving community positioned to lead the biomedical research sciences into the future. The DeVos family did something more important that contribute money.......they created the dream. They believed in Grand Rapids as their home and were commited to it's revitalization. DeVos is now interested in doing the same for Michigan. We're fools not to give him a chance.