[skyl4rk]

What is with the state government focusing totally on cities, schools and counties?

We all know it is the state that has the budget deficit. Yes there are some cities with problems but the big problem Michigan has is that its state government is poorly managed. The state government is running a 1.6 billion dollar budget. There are far too many rules and procedures set up within the bureacracy and very little gets done. There is way too much regulation, with complicated rules that can't be enforced fairly.

Instead of focusing on state government, the governor and legislature are trying to shift everyone's focus onto the local governments. From Emergency Financial Manager legislation to Consolidation, you would think that the problem lies with local government. But no, most local governments are flexible enough to cut their budgets, it is what they have been doing for years. And they can do it again, because they have to, although there will probably be service reductions to the taxpayers.

The governor took Revenue Sharing from the locals, which was a historical source of funding the general fund of cities for things like police and fire. Did the governor give the revenue sharing back to the taxpayers? No, the governor plans to absorb the money into the state bureaucracy.

There is a big sham going on here. The reality is, much of state government is not needed by the average person. There are many departments that could go away and the average person is not going to know the difference. The state is the first place that government should be cut.

Here is my theory: politicians of either party are such bad managers that they have let bureaucrats and unions take over state government. The bureaucrats have set up rules and procedures that make it almost impossible for the elected people to control the spending. So now the local governments, which provide most of the important services to people, are going to get their funding cut so that the state bureaucrats don't lose their jobs.

Plus, in order to shift the focus away from the problems in state government, the state is going to focus on local issues to try to make people think that the problem is at the local level.

I call BS

[MI-Roger]

I didn't vote for the guy, but holy cow! He has only been in office 2 months.

[allbusiness]

Yeah, seriously. Give them some time. They barely know there the restrooms are at the state capitol.

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

What is with the state government focusing totally on cities, schools and counties?

We all know it is the state that has the budget deficit. Yes there are some cities with problems but the big problem Michigan has is that its state government is poorly managed. The state government is running a 1.6 billion dollar budget. There are far too many rules and procedures set up within the bureacracy and very little gets done. There is way too much regulation, with complicated rules that can't be enforced fairly.

Instead of focusing on state government, the governor and legislature are trying to shift everyone's focus onto the local governments. From Emergency Financial Manager legislation to Consolidation, you would think that the problem lies with local government. But no, most local governments are flexible enough to cut their budgets, it is what they have been doing for years. And they can do it again, because they have to, although there will probably be service reductions to the taxpayers.

The governor took Revenue Sharing from the locals, which was a historical source of funding the general fund of cities for things like police and fire. Did the governor give the revenue sharing back to the taxpayers? No, the governor plans to absorb the money into the state bureaucracy.

There is a big sham going on here. The reality is, much of state government is not needed by the average person. There are many departments that could go away and the average person is not going to know the difference. The state is the first place that government should be cut.

Here is my theory: politicians of either party are such bad managers that they have let bureaucrats and unions take over state government. The bureaucrats have set up rules and procedures that make it almost impossible for the elected people to control the spending. So now the local governments, which provide most of the important services to people, are going to get their funding cut so that the state bureaucrats don't lose their jobs.

Plus, in order to shift the focus away from the problems in state government, the state is going to focus on local issues to try to make people think that the problem is at the local level.

I call BS

He is not taking all revenue sharing away. There is a level of it that cannot be taken away. Over and above that amount he is still preserving some but with a few hoops the locals must jump through to get their full share.

Yes, he hasn't put all his cards on the table at once. He seems to be doing it in stages. One month is addressing his overall budget, next month is addressing local money, following month education and so on. Not sure I agree with that approach but it might be necessary because all this stuff takes time. I certainly don't see where he has focused solely on the local level as problematic...that issue was simply put on the table before the state gov't issues. State gov't will get their time in the woodshed pretty soon.

[magellan]

I read somewhere that Snyder's proposed budget cuts and new tax system will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 jobs in Michigan. I know of one school district here locally that would lose 71 of their 210 staff.

So already his ideas have created a negative 45,000 jobs.

[michigan83]

I read somewhere that Snyder's proposed budget cuts and new tax system will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 jobs in Michigan. I know of one school district here locally that would lose 71 of their 210 staff.

So already his ideas have created a negative 45,000 jobs.

These would mostly be government jobs, right? It would be tough to calculate that number otherwise. Maybe the idea is short-term pain for long-term gain? I don't know. Job losses are hard to stomach, and I am cringing at the thought of trying to defend a loss of 45,000 jobs. But if the private sector keeps shrinking, won't we eventually lose those jobs anyway? Either because we don't have the tax base to support them, or we lose private sector jobs as businesses keep leaving. This is going to sound harsh, but the government's job is to provide services, not employ people. If we gain 100,000 private sector jobs over the next few years as a result of the tax cut, would it be worth it? Obviously I'm just throwing that number out there, and I'm not saying that I know the answer, but I think I have to put the opposing viewpoint out there.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by michigan83

These would mostly be government jobs, right? It would be tough to calculate that number otherwise. Maybe the idea is short-term pain for long-term gain? I don't know. Job losses are hard to stomach, and I am cringing at the thought of trying to defend a loss of 45,000 jobs. But if the private sector keeps shrinking, won't we eventually lose those jobs anyway? This is going to sound harsh, but the government's job is to provide services, not employ people. If we gain 100,000 private sector jobs over the next few years as a result of the tax cut, would it be worth it? Obviously I'm just throwing that number out there, and I'm not saying that I know the answer, but I think I have to put the opposing viewpoint out there.

In theory, yes. Give up 45,000 public sector jobs for 100,000 private sector jobs. Seems like a pretty big gamble. I really hope he has some bold ideas about GROWTH, which he platformed on. All he's talking about now is cuts. If he wants to treat Michigan like a company, where are the cutting edge ideas? What about new technologies? New markets? Companies don't grow much by just cutting expenses. He's more of a libertarian than I thought, which is unfortunate. And yet he advocates giving extreme authoritarian powers to the State government.

The educational system could be a lot more lean, but I'm not sure that cutting schools by 40% makes any sense. 80 kids per class anyone?

Just "getting out of the way" of the private sector to me only creates Walmart jobs. Which people won't take because they can make more money getting unemployment benefits (extended infinitum) and food stamps.

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by magellan

In theory, yes. Give up 45,000 public sector jobs for 100,000 private sector jobs. Seems like a pretty big gamble. I really hope he has some bold ideas about GROWTH, which he platformed on. All he's talking about now is cuts. If he wants to treat Michigan like a company, where are the cutting edge ideas? What about new technologies? New markets? Companies don't grow much by just cutting expenses. He's more of a libertarian than I thought, which is unfortunate. And yet he advocates giving extreme authoritarian powers to the State government.

The educational system could be a lot more lean, but I'm not sure that cutting schools by 40% makes any sense. 80 kids per class anyone?

Just "getting out of the way" of the private sector to me only creates Walmart jobs. Which people won't take because they can make more money getting unemployment benefits (extended infinitum) and food stamps.

Wherever you "read somewhere" (union trade publication?) this figure, I'd like to hear how they arrived at that number. The average pay/benefit package of public servants in Michigan is about $90,000. Let's get conservative and say $75,000 and multiply it by 45,000. That gets us to $3.375 billion. His cuts total about $1.5 billion (the business tax credit proposed is mostly balanced by the "increased revenue") and at least $180M of that is concessions (reduced compensation or benefits) by state employees, not layoffs.

Our school district is facing the same amount of per-student reduction as the rest. I've seen the proposed budget (with the cuts) from the superintendent. Absolutely NO layoffs in it. Higher health premiums, cutting all clubs and reducing some of the athletic budget were the major cuts. We are not an atypical district either so I don't see why there has to be mass layoffs. It sounds good as a headline but I don't think it is based in reality.

The cuts HAVE to be made because we don't have the revenue to afford the current level of spending.

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by magellan

I know of one school district here locally that would lose 71 of their 210 staff.

So already his ideas have created a negative 45,000 jobs.

Name the district. If in the new school year, you have evidence that they have laid off 71 or more staff, I will send you a $10 check, no questions asked. Not saying it is impossible (and why my cheap butt wouldn't risk more than $10), just that it would be highly unlikely.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by JimmyInGreatLakes

Name the district. If in the new school year, you have evidence that they have laid off 71 or more staff, I will send you a $10 check, no questions asked. Not saying it is impossible (and why my cheap butt wouldn't risk more than $10), just that it would be highly unlikely.

Northview Schools. No cuts have been made yet because the budget hasn't been passed yet.

I think your $75,000 is high. I think they were using $40,000. But let's say the 45,000 is high, and it's more like 37,500 jobs. We do KNOW that his budget will cut jobs, everywhere, not just at schools. That we KNOW. No one knows if it will create one job. So in a year, we will be right back to square one trying to cut more out of the budget, and more the next year, and more the next year....

And as the OP mentioned, when do we hear about cuts in State government?