Tim Skubick

Question: If you had a choice between improving the roads vs. spending more state dollars on K-12 schooling, which would you choose?

It’s not even close in the polling. Schools.

Question: Do you think wealthy state taxpayers are not paying their fair share in taxes and if so would you back a plan to tax them more and send the cash into the schools?

Answer: By a “narrow” margin voters rejected an outright repeal of the state income tax and a graduated income in favor of a 5% surcharge on the income tax for those individuals who earn over $500 thou a year and 5% on couples earning over a million.

“It was very clearly the preferred response,” reveals Rachelle Crow-Hercher who commissioned that poll and now directs a petition drive launched by the Michigan Education Justice Coalition. It hopes to raise $1.7 million from this tax surcharge to help bring our test scores back up and send children into the real world with a real world education.

If everything falls into place, the State Board of Canvassers will give its blessing to the petition language, the MEJC will launch it’s statewide petition drive sometime in July and if at the end of 180 days they have 422,000 plus valid petition signatures this puppy will be on the November 2026 statewide ballot for you to decide. Just to be on the safe side they want 600,000 names as a protection against any invalid signatures. They say they won’t be paying for the names so there goes Junior’s summer job of collecting names at two bucks a pop.

Michigan veteran pollsters Bernie Porn and Steve Mitchell concede that anytime you give the masses a shot at soaking the rich for whatever reason, citizens would likely fall all over that in a New York minute.

“Citizens do not believe that the wealthy pay their fair share,” Mr. Porn reflects and says this ballot plan, if it gets that far, stands a reasonable chance for passage.

Mr. Mitchell is not nearly as upbeat indicting, “I’m not so sure it will pass.”

That may be in part because you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be opposition and those groups will be well financed, very vocal and won’t give in. In fact the ink was hardly dry on the petition language when there was the Michigan Chamber of Commerce unloading on this, suggesting that it is bad for business.

The West Michigan Policy Forum checks in with a huge ditto and this is only the beginning and the thing’s not even on the ballot yet.

Another voice is also checking in. Don Wotruba from his perch as head of the Michigan School Board of Association and with a huge chunk of education lobbying experience under his belt.He would prefer to have lawmakers resolve all this. After all, he contends, if the voters understand the issue and vote yes, it will still be up to lawmakers to implement the proposal.

And lest you forget, in the past ballot proposals saying one thing, get into the legislative meat grinder and come out the other end saying something completely different.

Ms. Crow-Hercher in effect acknowledges her proposal might end up in that grinder.

“The money interests in Michigan think they should not have to contribute fairly to the infrastructure that makes the state prosperous and successful. I disagree with that.”

She notes that the petition says the $1.7 billion raised by the tax should got into the school aid fund.

But “should” is not a legal mandate that it will go there.

The fear is the ole “shift-shaft” will be applied here.

Lawmakers could take the state funding of $1.7 billion now in the school aid fund and legally divert it to roads or whatever and replace the same amount with the $1.7 million from the voters.

Is there language to prevent that?

“If there are legal ways to do that, I’m willing to explore that,” the director wishes but adds that the mandate is “not currently” in the plan. And already she has heard from her membership that the “shaft” concerns are being expressed.

What will she do if she sees this happening?

“I will let the legislators know that our community members are very adamant that this ($1.7 B) is in addition to the existing revenue streams to grow the pie.”

Some might argue that if that statement is not coupled with a strongly worded threat to vote out of office any lawmaker who dares to shift, her “adamant” comment might not work.

So buckle up boys and girls.

The betting money in our town is that the drive will get enough names. That’s the easy part. Getting the votes to implement it remains at best a jump ball … a very expensive jump ball for both sides.