Scottville, Custer, Branch too. What's in a name...

What to do about the state budget?

The Michigan Legislature is struggling to complete a budget by Sept. 30. Senate Republicans have a plan that appears to be the basis for what will happen that calls for $1.2 billion in cuts.
House Democrats and the Governor have voiced opposition to some of the cuts but haven't decisively stated how they'd rearrange spending or raise revenues to avoid some of the cuts. One scenario suggests they want to extend Michigan's sales tax to services, not just products, and, to sweeten that change -- or at least make it less bitter -- they would seek to reduce the current 6% sales tax. What do you want the Legislature to do?

Tags: budget, legislature

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Shoreline Media, Inc. on September 24, 2009 at 12:15pm: I've seen those signs every 1/10th of a mile by Detroit, and you're right they're ludicrous.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Max on October 14, 2009 at 10:48pm: "Personally I think they should make the cuts. The rest of us has to live on what we bring in so should our government."

Thanks Lisa. This is the most sensible statement that I have read on this thread thus far.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RJE on September 23, 2009 at 9:20pm: No more taxes. We give the Gov. plenty of money for expenses. Income tax, Business tax, Sales tax, Property tax, Gas tax, Cigarette tax, Liquor tax, License fees from car plates to Builders, ect, ect, ect. This has got to stop. We've spent ourselves into a corner. These politcians we put into office reflect how foolish we are for reelecting the same parties over and over. I'ts the public who needs to stop and ponder why we keep putting these same 2 parties into power. I understand that this current financial problem was caused by a recession but guess who allowed it to happen? You can rant and rave all you want but they will still raise taxes until your pockets are empty. Until we dump the Democrats and Republicans nothing is going to change.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Master Kefu on September 23, 2009 at 10:13pm: Tax All food with more than five ingredients. That way fresh produce and 'real' meat and most dairy(the things people actually need to survive) are left alone. Anything processed should be taxed (okay all things go through a process but lets not get overly arbitrary about semantics) .

As far as the marijuana idea, it is rather short sighted. Do you really want the gubment getting their hands in the pot on that.
I would not for sure. Leave it to the people, for a better idea of what I speak please research Monsanto and what they are doing with our food crops already. Once youv'e done that tell me again if you really want that taken away from the people. Decriminalize yes, but keep the politricks and corporations out of it. They will make it legal for them to produce but not for the personal gardener and then we will still be under their thumb. start here http://www.monsantowatch.org/; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Guido on September 24, 2009 at 1:21am: Taxes by the nature of the word, Curb the use of a substance (or service). Usually by those who can afford to pay for said substance the least. If you place a toll on a road those on the lowest income point will chose a different road. If you tax a substance such as sugary or fat filled drinks, those of us one the lowest end of the haves have not scale will simply go without that food you consider too vile to go untaxed. At some point those, so happy to just push the word tax, need to come up with another option like balance your budget like 90% of the real Americans do. Also, to some it may need to be pointed out if we were less concerned with using government outside of the constitutional used for said government. The government would not be in a position to be out of income would they?
Another question comes to the minds of those who really care here. Where does this massive short fall lie? Infrastructure? Social programs? I keep seeing signs on the side of the roads paid for by the stimulus plan. Seems to not be too much in the way of transparency in our state government as well as the federal one at this point in time.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Guido on September 24, 2009 at 1:41am: The working poor in this country, live on the foods some here are so willing to turn into the new tax regulated product. Some of us simply do not have the time between our two or three jobs to shop for fresh sandwich goods or whatever social controls you all seem to see as a good thing. If a tax is supposed to bring in a constant revenue, wouldn't it make more sense to tax those 5 elements in the food pyramid instead of the extra items some feel are bad ( probably those who wouldn't eat those items anyhow I'm sure. The fact is disguising a tax as something good to curb a bad product has been proven time and time again to just move people to another vise or bad product. Marijuana is one of the fastest growing vises now for a reason. It is Illegal therefor not taxed or regulated successfully. I got a kick out of someone mentioning why we would want uncle sugar getting in the weed regulating business. The answer stands out as quite obvious.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by CynicalRealist on September 24, 2009 at 9:35am: Here is another crazy idea, instead of raising taxes or making up new taxes on food. Lets just put a cap on how much money any and all government officals make, lets say thirty to fourty thousand per year. I think thats about as much as a single income "working poor" individual makes per year. I know that all the congress men and senators won't like this but maby it's time they step into the real world and learn what it's like to be considered "working poor". Let them pay for a change.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Guido on September 24, 2009 at 10:37am: That's where self policing comes in. Yes, I know, they do not do a very good job of that aspect now. But that is all the more reason to not give them a hefty salary to do the terrible job many up there do now. I would rather pay 40K for a half assed dictator now, and have him show himself to be corrupt and in need of being thrown out of office than to pay him enough with benefits and perks to have him only removable by a well funded special interest group's efforts.
The ulcers only come from the people asking for too much to be done, with too little, by those we elect in government. These guys are not the tooth fairy. They are businessmen. And most see they only get re-elected by doing things the government was never designed to do.
I guess I take issue with someone who feels if the pay and benefit's were higher it would lead to better quality of businessmen in a particular government job. Men in that position are either there due to their desire to make America better. Or, they are there to bring America down to the size of those seeking to destroy her. Few, if any, are there for good pay and benefits.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Max on October 13, 2009 at 11:30pm: "Only those whose motive was pure power not a desire to make positive change in the world. And then they would have to be quite wealthy to be able to do so. At least that's how I see it."

That is what we have now!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tuebor on September 24, 2009 at 3:21pm: Mr. Begnoche,
Thank you for asking our opinions. And thank you for publishing mine in toto (including the grammatical errors). I had expected an excerpt from the replies at best.

I must remind myself to proofread my rants more carefully as they might get written up in the LDN!!

Again, Thank you for the opportunity.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J M A on September 24, 2009 at 3:46pm: Mr. Begnoche,
Thank you for asking our opinions. And thank you for publishing mine in toto (including the grammatical errors). I had expected an excerpt from the replies at best.

I must remind myself to proofread my rants more carefully as they might get written up in the LDN!!

Again, Thank you for the opportunity

Unfortunately in the paper the portion of another persons post I coped to respond to was put as my own. For the record I do NOT support the growing of marijuana legally for medicinal purposes or any other. That was NOT my quote. No worries, just wanted to claify.; ▶ Reply to This