The Bailey Blog

That’s what the state of Michigan will likely be asking taxpayers as the governor and Legislature struggle with the gap between expected revenues and actual revenues for this year.

Public relations and carefully communicating with the media always play a role in what politicians say. Sometimes, what people are not saying is just as important as what they are saying. No one in charge in Lansing is saying yes to taxes, but none of them are saying no either.

Consider the following comments from the Democratic and Republican leaders in Lansing:

Gov. Granholm says state government is actually facing a “$3 billion deficit” because she is including the elimination of the Single Business Tax, which doesn’t expire until a year from now.

The governor appointed an “Emergency Financial Advisory Panel” and gave them three weeks to solve a problem that she and the Legislature have known was coming for years. The panel is a who’s-who list of people on record supporting tax increases and the consensus around town is that it’s designed to provide the governor with political cover for tax increases.

The governor told MIRS recently that “how we solve the state’s fiscal crisis is a critical part of our ability to transform our economy,” thereby tying fixing the current deficit to something everyone supports: fixing the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester Hills, recently told MIRS that while he doesn’t see taxes as the answer, “In government you have to leave the door open to things.”

When asked whether he supported expanding the sales tax to services, State Sen. Ron Jelinek, the Republican in charge of the Senate’s budget committee, recently told the Detroit News, “Those who understand the revenue situation we’re in are showing some interest in this. We won’t be able to provide services a lot of people feel are essential if we don’t have a revenue stream for them.”

When dealing with a budget shortfall, the two options are to cut spending or increase revenues. The list of people saying no to taxes is dwindling, while the list of government programs those same people want to protect is growing. Reconciling the difference is likely to fall on the taxpayers’ shoulders – the question at this point is how much of the burden is about to be shifted your way.

This Bailey Blog post has been prepared to help you as you prepare to vote in the upcoming election on November 7. Our bipartisan team encourages you to take advantage of this right and let your voice be heard.

Please see the information below to gain a better understanding of the five ballot proposals.

Proposal 1 - Conservation Recreation Funding
Proposal 2 - Affirmative Action
Proposal 3 - Mourning Doves
Proposal 4 - Eminent Domain
Proposal 5 - K-16 Funding

——————————————————————————–

With the 2006 election right around the corner, are voters ready to make their selections this November 7? Out of the five candidates below, which do you know are running for governor?

Douglas Campbell
Jennifer Granholm
Bhagwan Dashairya
Dick DeVos
Gregory Creswell

If you chose numbers two and four, you’re not even half correct. All five individuals mentioned above are running for the office of governor. In fact, there are 774 candidates on the statewide Michigan ballot, not including local offices and boards.

But not to worry, your local ballot will only reflect those candidates that are running for office in your area. This means you will see, at minimum, 60 candidates, along with five ballot proposals. That’s a lot of homework to do if you’re just catching up on election details!

For a list of ALL candidates, visit the Secretary of State’s Web site. Here you will find a comprehensive list of all candidates for every position on the statewide ballot this year, not including various county, city, township or village offices or school district positions. If you know your district, you can locate those candidates that will appear on YOUR local ballot. If you are not sure in which district you reside, you may call your county or city clerk, or the Elections Bureau of the Michigan Department of State at 517-373-2540.

Offices that will appear on the ballot, along with the number of seats available and a list of candidates running, include:

Governor/Lt. Governor (1)

Democrat: Jennifer Granholm / John Cherry, Jr.
Republican: Dick DeVos / Ruth Johnson
Green: Douglas Campbell / David Skrbina
U.S. Taxpayers: Bhagwan Dashairya / Carl Oehling
Libertarian: Gregory Creswell / Scotty Boman

Secretary of State (1)

Republican: Terri Lynn Land
Democrat: Carmella Sabaugh
Green: Lynn Meadows

Attorney General (1)

Republican: Mike Cox
Democrat: Amos Williams
U.S. Taxpayers: Charles Conces
Libertarian: Bill Hall

U.S. Senator (1)

Democrat: Debbie Stabenow
Republican: Michael Bouchard
Green: David Sole
U.S. Taxpayers: W. Dennis FitzSimons
Libertarian: Leonard Schwartz

Additional offices that will appear on your ballot, along with the number of seats available, include:
- Your district U.S. Representative in Congress (1)
- Your district State Senator (1)
- Your district State Representative (1)
- State Board of Education member (2)
- University of Michigan Regents (2)
- Michigan State University Trustees (2)
- Wayne State University Governors (2)

Additional offices might include:
- Justice of the Supreme Court
- Judge of the Court of Appeals
- Judge of the Circuit Court
- Judge of the District Court
- Judge of Probate
- Specified County, City, Township or Village Offices
- Specified School District Positions

Please use your time well in discovering the issues and candidates that best fit your beliefs, values and goals, and take notes to prepare for the election, which is right around the corner. Along with the Internet, your local newspaper will generally have various columns and articles to use as a reference. If you have additional questions, you may contact your candidate directly. Remember, they are representing YOU. And it is your right to know and understand each candidate. Election day gives voters a chance to shape public policy and help determine the direction Michigan will head in the next few years. Don’t waste this opportunity and let your voice be heard.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 1

A proposed constitutional amendment to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for their intended purposes.

The proposed amendment would:

- Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the state Constitution and establish conservation and recreation accounts in the fund.

- Use current sources to fund the account, such as state park entrance fees, boating and snowmobile registration fees and fishing licenses.

- Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.

- Provide that money in the Fund can only be used for specific conservation and recreation purposes.

People voting YES on this amendment argue:

In the past, funds from licenses and creation-based fees are often raided to pay for other programs. This money must be protected constitutionally and not redirected for other purposes when the state budget gets tight.

People voting NO on this amendment argue:

This proposal ties the hands of our governor and Legislature to respond to budgetary troubles by further restricting how the money can be used. Uses of these funds in the past may have helped to stave off budget cuts and prevented tax and fee increases.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 2

A proposal to amend the state Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

People voting YES on this amendment argue that:

State institutions should not be allowed to apply different standards to individuals or groups based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission, hiring process and health screenings.

People voting NO on this amendment argue that:

State institutions should be allowed to use race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission, hiring processes and health screenings, because providing opportunities may necessitate consideration of gender and minority status when choosing between otherwise equally qualified candidates.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 3

A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004 – an act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.

Public Act 160 of 2004 would:

- Authorize the National Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.

- Require mourning dove hunters to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp, with revenue from the stamp split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.

People voting YES on this law argue that:

Hunting is part of Michigan’s outdoor heritage and should be preserved and expanded. Studies have shown that hunting mourning doves does not diminish their population. Forty other states allow mourning dove hunting and Michigan stands to lose revenue generated by hunters if the same opportunity is not presented here.

People voting NO on this law argue that:

Mourning doves have been protected in Michigan for 100 years. Hunting doves serves no wildlife management purpose, and doves are not a viable human food source. Mourning doves have a significant value as live songbirds.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 4

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.

The proposed amendment would:

- Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for economic development or tax revenue.

- If an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125 percent of its fair market value.

- Require government that takes private property to demonstrate that the taking is for public use.

People voting YES on this amendment argue that:

This will protect private property rights by prohibiting government from taking private property for purposes of transferring the property to another private individual to increase tax revenue. Some local governments are currently abusing their powers of eminent domain and this proposal is necessary to protect homeowners.

People voting NO on this amendment argue that:

This provides excessive compensation to owners of residential properties. Sometimes local units of government need to resell unused, condemned parcels of property for private development.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 5

A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.

The proposed law would:

- Increase education funding by approximately $565 million and require the state to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and higher education. The funding would come from the General Fund.

- Base funding on districts with declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment averages.

- Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities and shift the remaining funds to the state.

- Reduce the funding gap between school districts that receive basic per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving maximum foundation allowances.

People voting YES on this law argue that:

Education funding has not kept pace with inflation. Cuts or small increases have not been enough to keep pace with rising costs, forcing cuts and layoffs in many areas. Further cutbacks could result in a decrease of the quality of educational programs. The gap between the state’s highest and lowest funded districts will be narrowed and eventually eliminated.

People voting NO on this law argue that:

Michigan’s public education is very well funded and growing. Since Proposal A’s (1994) enactment, funding for public education has grown well beyond the rate of inflation and the gap between the highest and lowest funded districts has been narrowed. This proposal’s costs will likely result in tax increases or cuts to other essential state and local services.

While it may not be a presidential election year, the 2006 November ballot holds plenty of action. I’m not referring to the gubernatorial election, though the race for governor has continued to be a close race. I am talking about Proposal 2, known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which if passed would ban public agencies and universities from granting preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, awarding contracts or granting admissions.

Proposal 2 has been deemed the most controversial proposal on the ballot. The controversy began because the issue was not raised by a Michigan resident, but by a non-Michigan resident, Ward Connerly, from California. Then, there was cause for concern that Michigan residents were misled as they signed petitions in support of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. But there is no question now that the proposal is on the ballot, and all Michigan residents have a chance to have their voice heard on the issue this November 7.

Granted, if passed, this proposal will affect only public organizations, funded by taxpayer dollars, in their hiring, admissions or contracting efforts. But stop for a minute and think about how many public services you have used, or schools you have attended or corporations you have worked with that are funded by the public sector. How would your experience look if affirmative action based on sex and race were banned? Different? Or the same?

An interesting point that both sides of the proposal make is that affirmative action, especially based on race or sex, needs to end one day. Those for Proposal 2 believe that time is now. Those against Proposal 2 believe that time is further into the future.

Michigan voters, we need to ask ourselves: are we ready? Have we grown up? Or are we still in our teenage years as a state, willing to fiddle with independence and explore the outcome? Will passage of this proposal force more organizations to compete for the best workers? Will passage of this proposal force workers to truly be the best they can be? Or will it instead push us back 30 years?

While many believe that the government should set an example, should it lead in that example, or should it follow?

On November 7 – YOU decide.

Jennifer Granholm hasn’t done enough to save your job.

Dick DeVos has sent Michigan manufacturing jobs to China.

Turn on the television or radio, pick up a newspaper or log onto your favorite Web site and you are likely to get bombarded with either of these lines. Personally, I don’t think either is true.

Who do I think is to blame for Michigan’s economic woes?

Me…

And you…and your neighbor…and the couple down the street and the hundreds of thousands of others who thought the good times provided by the auto industry was somehow our God-given right. We are all accountable in one way or another for not preparing to compete in a global economy.

Where did I fall short? My college professors told me more than 20 years ago to learn a second language. The world is getting smaller. You will have to compete on a global stage, they said. Did I listen? Nope.

Who else is accountable? Let’s see…there are auto executives who made big bonuses and had huge stock gains in the ‘90s, but didn’t do enough to prepare for tough times ahead. There are factory workers who showed up every day, made a lot of money, but didn’t improve their skills to match the needs of a 21st Century work force.

There are parents who didn’t push their kids in math and science. There are schools that accepted mediocrity among our students. There are students who could have gone to college, but didn’t.

We have all fallen short in one way or another. So, when you pull that lever in November, don’t expect some type of magic solution from DeVos or Granholm.

Look yourself in the mirror and ask some difficult questions. What have I done to make myself more marketable? What have I done to help kids prepare for the future? What have I done to make my community a better place?

Michigan and Michiganders have a lot to offer the world. But, we all need to compete a lot harder if we are going to live up to our potential. Don’t wait for some politician to make it happen. Do it yourself.

Many Michigan residents are getting ready to vote in the forthcoming November election, but unfortunately not every resident. Voting is one of the most effective ways to make your voice and opinion heard on a variety of vital topics.

In the age of term limits, it’s more important than ever to select candidates who agree with your political positions. These candidates are the ones who will represent you and help make decisions for Michigan. Many of the proposals listed on the ballot can drastically impact your life and deserve your attention.

Voting is not only your right, but also your responsibility as a Michigan resident. It has only been 86 years since the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. African American men were given the right to vote by the fifteenth amendment in 1869, but many states found ways to prohibit minority voting participation with tests and other qualifiers. This was a normal thing of life until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 authorized the federal government to assume control of the voter registration process in any state or voting district that in 1964 had employed a literacy or other qualifying test and in which fewer than half of voting age residents had either registered or voted.

Why give up that right because of apathy or laziness?

Voting is a privilege that many people fought hard for and too many take for granted. The next time you choose not to vote, ask yourself how you would feel if you didn’t have a choice. What if you didn’t have a choice to decide who governs you, who represents you in the government? What if you had no voice in legislative decisions that affect your life?

So when November 7 rolls around, you know what you need to do – go to the polls and vote! If you aren’t registered, please visit this site and register. You need to do so before October 10 if you want to vote this year.

I love movies — going to the theatre, renting DVDs and especially catching old classics late at night on TV. Unfortunately, we have a growing American population that mistakenly takes information portrayed in movies as reality.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and a recent poll showed that 75 percent of Americans get their information about mental illness from the movies. Scary thought.

It’s not hard to list a famous movie that involved a mental illness angle — One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Prince of Tides, What About Bob?, Beautiful Mind and the countless horror films that depict people with mental illness as crazy, delirious serial killers.

Most movies do not paint a realistic picture of what having a mental illness is like or the treatment associated with it. The media has also developed a bad habit of unfairly relating criminal activity to mental illness, which is often an incorrect connection.

One in five people are affected with a mental illness at one point in their life, and Michigan alone has 1.4 million adults with various forms of mental illness. Instead of receiving compassion and acceptance, these people experience stigma everyday.

Battling stigma is one of the greatest PR challenges facing the mental health community. How do we educate our friends, family members and neighbors? How do we change the attitudes and misconceptions that many people have about the mentally ill?

Next week, our client — the Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards — is holding its second annual Walk a Mile in My Shoes Rally at the state Capitol. This rally is one way to combat the stigma. Please visit the web site for event details.

Movies are fun. But it’s also important to be able to separate fiction and storytelling from reality. Pass the popcorn.

-Kelly Hoover
Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig states in his book Free Culture: The Nature and Force of Creativity: �The law is changing; that change is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry you��

While laws continue to change and affect the evolution of culture, do we need to worry? When law firms are doubling in size specifically due to the request for intellectual property rights and patents and the United States Patent and Trademark Office calls for comments and suggestions for a new strategic plan, we have reason to at least take notice.

In the beginning, copyright law drew a distinction between simply republishing someone�s work versus building upon or transforming the work. The former was illegal; the latter was not. Today copyright law regulates both.

Where would we be if this were the case 15-20 years ago? Would we all still be working on Microsoft DOS spreadsheets? What is our answer to today�s Excel program? How has the ability to build upon and transform a work brought us to where we are today?

Restricting the overall concept of a product from even transformative purposes will put a damper on America�s ability to legally innovate. We�ll either become a nation of illegal underground inventors or succumb to the creativity of another culture�s freedom to experiment.

We should continue to patent our intellectual property, but need to be very specific about what can and cannot be transformed and built upon.