A Republican governor. A Republican legislature. Each ignoring the other.

ignoring each other concept

Two commissions convened by Gov. Rick Snyder recommend dramatic upgrades to Michigan education and infrastructure. But the Republicans who lead the House and Senate want to shrink government, not expand it. Can anyone get them to consensus?

Even with the GOP in charge of Michigan’s Legislature and governor's seat, the Lansing political scene these days resembles nothing so much as two ships passing in the night.

A pair of commissions named by Gov. Rick Snyder recommended $6 billion in added annual funds – suggesting an array of new taxes – to upgrade roads, sewer and water systems and public education. The Legislature has ignored both.

Republican leaders looked instead to budget and tax cuts, falling just short in February of passing a House measure to cut more than $1 billion a year in personal income taxes.

Snyder proposed tougher limits on lead in drinking water following the Flint water crisis. The GOP Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof said no thanks, the current limits were a “pretty good standard.” The governor drafted an ambitious 2017-18 state budget ‒ the House and Senate whack hundreds of millions of dollars from it.

And so it has gone in the final two years of Snyder’s second term: A lame-duck governor looking to burnish his legacy, and a Legislature dominated by the same party steaming ahead on its own course.

Lansing GOP consultant Tom Shields said it's not as if Snyder and Republican leadership detest each other.

“I don't think they're close drinking buddies,” said Shields, president of Marketing Resource Group. “But they know they are going to have to work together to get something done.”

It remains to be seen if that will happen.

It can't help Snyder's political capital that he is still weighed down by Flint, where thousands of children were exposed to toxic levels of lead in the drinking water, a tragedy for which his administration has been assigned most of the blame. A recent poll found that Snyder ranked as the nation's fourth most unpopular governor.

“Flint is the albatross around his neck that he is going to have to live with,” Shields said. “The governor’s lack of popularity with the general voters is hampering his ability to use the bully pulpit on issues.”

Still, said Shields: “You always have leverage as a governor. You just have to use it.

“These legislators have their own agenda. If if it meshes with the governor, fine. If it doesn't mesh with the governor, too bad.”

A standoff at the top

There are hints of compromise, with Snyder signaling he would consider a GOP plan to make further changes to the state's public teacher pension system. Republican leaders in both chambers are calling it a top legislative priority, as they work on a plan that new teachers be required to join a 401(k) tax-deferred investment account.

But Republican leadership has clearly rebuffed any notion that big tax increases are the answer to needs outlined by the commissions on education and infrastructure. Indeed, reining in spending appears to remain foremost on the minds of House and Senate leadership.

Gideon D'Assandro, spokesperson for GOP House Speaker Tom Leonard, said Leonard believes “we can continue to make progress by asking more of state government and not putting the burden on our hard-working taxpayers.”

As for an income tax cut, which Snyder opposes, that’s still “on the table.”

Likewise, Amber McCann, spokesperson for Meekhof, wrote Bridge that the Majority Leader “is not hearing from constituents in favor of significant tax increases.”

Bill Rustem, Snyder’s former director of strategy, said it’s typical for the relationship between a governor and leadership to break down as the governor approaches the end of the term.

“At the beginning of a governor’s administration there is contact on a very regular basis. But as the term goes on, it gets to be less and less. It becomes a political game instead of a policy game,” said Rustem, who also served as environmental adviser in the administration of GOP Gov. William Milliken going back to the 1970s.

“It happens all the time, all the way back to Milliken.”

But Snyder chief of staff Richard Posthumus insisted that hasn’t happened.

“We have regular weekly meetings with the two (Republican) leaders,” Posthumus said. “That’s something the governor has done since the beginning and he continues to do so.

Posthumus said he also tries to meet privately with leadership every two or three weeks, especially with Leonard, who was just elected speaker by the Republican House caucus in November.

“The important thing is to get to know each other.”

Leonard spokesman D’Assandro likewise described relations with the governor as “very positive.”

Impact on public trust

But this political disconnect – within a single party that controls the state’s agenda – may continue to feed public mistrust that Lansing can get anything done, according to Peter Pratt, president of Public Sector Consultants, a policy research and management organization.

A March report by The Center for Michigan, a nonprofit organization focused on increased public involvement in state policy issues (and Bridge Magazine’s parent organization), found that 80 percent of state residents had “low” or “very low” trust in both state government's oversight of K-12 education and its ability to protect public health.

“I feel like we are a dog chasing our tail here,” Pratt said.

“You need significant investment to address major issues like schools and infrastructure. The money has to come from somewhere. But the distrust of government is so great that people think government is not going to make things better.”

At the same time, Snyder's business-driven political instincts are often at odds with the more populist-minded, conservative impulses of state Republican leaders.

Snyder – a former Gateway Computers president who had never before run for office – reportedly considered running as an independent as he weighed a 2010 gubernatorial bid. He bucked GOP leadership in 2012, vetoing bills that would restrict voter identification laws and that would have allowed concealed weapons in schools and bars.

Snyder also pushed hard to persuade enough Republicans to pass Medicaid expansion in 2013, putting him in the minority of states with GOP control to do so.

Of course, Snyder at other times tacked right to suit the aims of conservative state  Republicans. In December 2012, he signed legislation making Michigan a right-to-work state after saying days earlier the issue “is not on my agenda.” The measure allows employees to opt out of union membership.

“Rick Snyder is a conservative, but he is on the moderate end of the conservative Republican Party,” said Matt Grossmann, director of Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.

“When you look at it nationally, Rick Snyder stands out (as a relative liberal) among the Republican governors. He seems to be on the left part of a rightward-moving spectrum of the national party.

“It's obvious that the median member of the (Republican state legislative caucus) is well to the right of Rick Snyder.”

A rightward drift

In the view of many, GOP leadership has shifted more toward a tea-party conservative agenda than in the recent past, as evidenced by the first House bill of the year ‒ a massive income tax cut that would have wiped out that tax and $9 billion in annual revenue over 40 years. A more modest ‒  by comparison ‒ measure that would have cut $1 billion a year lost by just three votes.

Leonard and Meekhof in 2015 earned approval ratings of 84 percent and 87 percent, respectively, from the American Conservative Union, a conservative advocacy organization. That’s high enough to earn its “Award for Conservative Achievement.”

GOP consultant Shields said Snyder is also hampered by the loss of clout common to just about lame duck governor. GOP Gov. John Engler, he said, struggled to accomplish much – even with GOP control of the Legislature - the last two years of his third term.

Snyder's January State of the State address – much of it warmed-over iterations of previous recommendations – got a tepid response from legislators. It had few new program proposals. Snyder talked of “billions of dollars of new investment” for infrastructure, without directly saying how it would be paid for.

“There didn't appear to be a whole lot of beef in that address. Right now it feels more like Snyder is managing the state instead of leading it in a specific direction,” Shields said.

Snyder conceded recently that advancements on education and infrastructure may have to come in baby steps.

In a brief interview in April, Snyder sidestepped where annual funding for $2 billion in recommended education reforms would come from: “Let’s figure out what our short-term, medium-term, longer-term priorities (are) and then sort of figure out what resources are required to get them done and then do them in some staged fashion.”

As for $4 billion in proposed additional annual infrastructure spending, Snyder punted on endorsing any of his own appointed commission’s tax hike recommendations.

He instead pointed to pilot programs rolled out in April in Southeast Michigan and the Grand Rapids area intended to greater collaboration between utility and construction companies on future infrastructure projects.

“Think now about the road in front of your house or your business,” Snyder said in his State of the State address. “How often have you seen that road get torn up to do road work and then it gets repaired and it gets torn up to do gas work or electric work or fiber beam laid…”

“That doesn’t require big dollar resources, but it can have huge impact,” he told Bridge in the April interview. “So let’s start taking these one step at a time.”

Small bites

Meanwhile, Snyder and legislators find themselves haggling over a more modest investment in infrastructure than the “billions” Snyder mentioned in the State of the State. Snyder's proposed budget calls for a $20 million investment ‒ a mere 0.5 percent of what his infrastructure group recommended ‒ for future projects. The House budget cut that to $5 million.

Snyder's education commission proposed up to $900 million more a year for at-risk students in high-poverty schools. Snyder's budget calls for a fraction of that: $150 million in the year ahead. The House budget cut that to just under $130 million.

Lansing political analyst Susan Demas said she does not doubt the governor's sincerity in convening these commissions. And while Snyder must have known it's the longest of longshots this Legislature would approve any major tax increase, Demas said he may be playing a longer game – framing the task for future administrations. Demas is publisher of the Lansing political newsletter Inside Michigan politics.

“I think his crown jewel as governor is the business tax reform he passed right out of the gate,” Demas said, referring to a $1.7 billion business tax cut Snyder signed into law in 2011.

“Now that most of the business groups are satisfied with the tax climate, I think he felt had a chance to look at some of the issues that have plagued Michigan and dragged Michigan down for decades. Infrastructure and education are at the top of that list.

“At some point, the piper has to be paid and we have to deal with it.”

Doug Rothwell, president and CEO of Detroit-based Business Leaders for Michigan and a member of the infrastructure commission, credits Snyder for advancing the debate – through his commission – on what he deems a critical issue.

“He was trying to lay out an agenda that hopefully could be followed for years to come,” Rothwell said.

BLM issued a report of its own in January that largely agreed with the findings of the infrastructure commission: Michigan needs to invest $4 billion more a year on infrastructure to align with the U.S. average.

The report identified $2.7 billion in needed additional annual road funding, suggesting a raise in the gas tax, a tax on vehicles for miles driven each year and unspecified “user fees.”

Rothwell knows that wouldn't be easy.

“It's going to be a process,” he said. “I think at least in infrastructure there are some very specific steps that can be taken toward moving to the finish line.”

Where commissions go to die

But Lansing political analyst Demas said that big change in politics is hard. That's why state commissions, task forces and advisory panels in Michigan have a less-than-stellar batting average for producing results.

In 2004, Democratic Lt. Gov. John Cherry chaired a commission to find ways to double the number of college graduates in Michigan over 10 years. But as the commission was dreaming of growth, the state had already begun to cut operating support for students at public universities, from $9,387 a year in 2000 (in 2017 dollars) to $5,217 today.

The doubling of college graduates hardly materialized. In 2005, just under 25 percent of Michigan residents over age 25 had college degrees. In 2015, it was about 27 percent.

In 2007, Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm named a bipartisan panel to deal with the state's fiscal crisis. The panel suggested trimming pension benefits for state workers, sharing of administrative costs between government and schools and slowing the state's skyrocketing prison costs. The recommendations were also widely ignored. Later that year, Michigan had a brief government shutdown as legislators struggled to fill a $1.75 billion budget deficit.

A similar fate awaits the infrastructure and education recommendations of the Snyder commissions, said Shields, with the reports likely to “end up being paper at the bottom of a bird cage.”

Pratt, of Public Sector Consultants, doesn’t disagree, but warned that there will be a reckoning at some point.

“I don't know where the breaking point is,” he said. “I fear that things are going to get much worse before they get better in terms of investment. I can only hope there's a group of people who find their way into government who are able to calibrate what wise investment means.”

Has this story impacted or informed you about Michigan? Please support our work.

No other news outlet is dedicated to providing the same level of in-depth, data-driven coverage of Michigan’s issues as Bridge Magazine. Any donation between now and December 31, will be matched dollar-for-dollar, thanks to our generous partners. Become a Bridge Club member and help our reporters get the resources they need to ramp up coverage during a critical election year. Join the Bridge team today.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 06/01/2017 - 10:55am

“I don't know where the breaking point is,” he said. “I fear that things are going to get much worse before they get better in terms of investment. I can only hope there's a group of people who find their way into government who are able to calibrate what wise investment means.”

The legislature only looks at short term political survival and the next election cycle, whether that means moving to the state senate, congress or just trying to survive their term limited time in the legislature. The messy topic of tax increases to pay for infrastructure can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future as far as they see it as long as the public has no stomach for tax increases.

Nancy Kaplan
Thu, 06/01/2017 - 10:00pm

I'm looking for more analysis on WHY these Republicans state legislators, especially the House and Senate leaders, are tacking so far to the right in Tea Party fashion. Are they under the influence of certain donors who are helping to set their agenda? They seem to be hell-bent on dragging Michigan into a Kansas-like catastrophe. The governor seems hapless and helpless. The voters, when asked, do not support the anti-tax mania of Leonard and Meerkof. Why isn't the business community taking a stronger stand in trying to influence the legislature?

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 8:41am

Ms. Kaplan,

Have you ever considered that what we have be promised for generations is the long-term view and we have not recieved those promised results?

When you spend you money on a phone, house, a car, are you long buying it for promised results that are never delivered?

When you invest in a company's stock on the promise of what it will do in the future and when the future arrives and the promise does materialize do you stay with that company or do you invest you money elsewhere? Most investors take what money they have left and run.

Maybe the voters are 'telling' there legilative officials that they want results and don't waste you time on long-term promises. Maybe a Governor that claims, years ago, that a new bridge to Canada is critical to the future of the Michigan economy and when it doesn't happen in the first year, it disappears as an issue, no long has credibility and the legislators are going to risk their credibility on someone who has already undercut his own credibility.

When are you going to look to the voters and ask them why they have lost confidence in government and the elected officials? Do you honestly believe that simply by spending more of other people's money things will get fixed and we will miraculously get the results we have been promised for decades?

As for the tax issue, have you considered that the only way to get the governments attention and it seems yours is by slowing the amount of money available for spending. I learned a long time ago that when I was spending other people's money if I didn't deliver the results I promised money for future projects dried up.

As for these so called CEOs, ask any of them if people in their organizations don't deliver on what they claimed company spending would deliver every time they gave particular people to spend whether they would keep giving them money. Ask the CEOs if they didn't deliver results for the company money they were spending how long would they keep their jobs, how long would the company stay in business.

The legislators are elected locally, if they don't listen to their constituents the vast majority will be replaced.

On a personal note, in may career we to plan 3-5 years out, invest up to 20 years out, but we were expected to deliver today on the promises we made. I know about long-term planning, without the immediate successes for decades long-term plan is an illusion nobody trusts.

David Waymire
Thu, 09/28/2017 - 3:36pm

Duane, Michigan has been cutting taxes for nearly 20 years. As the document linked below shows, in 1999, our effective state tax rate was 7.9 percent under Engler. Under Gov. Granholm, it was cut to 6.7 percent. Under Snyder, it's dropped to 6.4 percent. Of course, in 1999 our roads were decent, tuition affordable and our cities weren't going bankrupt every week...and had enough cops and firefighters to do their jobs. Now...well, roads are a disaster, state support for college students has been slashed and our cities are flailing, all due to tax cuts. Thanks for paying attention. http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Revenue/StateTaxBurdenPerCapita.PDF

Kevin Grand
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 8:13am

For a governor whose own budgets have consistently increased since the day he took office (along with a corresponding rise in state matching funds during that same time...all clearly spelled out by the SFA, BTW), I find the whole argument of more funding necessary for "investment" completely and totally ludicrous.

We don't need creative ways to reach into our wallets in order to assuage the conscience of the latest cause du jour or the well-connected.

What we DO need is someone who has a backbone and can prioritize spending on the areas in which government is supposed to be operating in.

If anyone wants to see the end result of what happens with politicians attempt to placate as many people as they can, instead of setting priorities like the rest of us do on a daily basis, look no further than Illinois and California.

Politicians (both Republican or Democrat) cannot make people continue like them when there isn't any more money to spend.

That is inevitability when the hard choices will eventually be made.

And it won't be pretty.

David Waymire
Thu, 09/28/2017 - 3:49pm

Kevin, please visit the Senate Fiscal Agency's web site. There you will see that we are today spending about $500 million less to support college education in our state than in 2000, and that our support for cities is down $250 million ( before inflation). You will see we have 200 fewer people monitoring our environment to keep water, air and land safe. You will see that that state's taxes as a share of income has dropped from 7.9 percent to 6.4 percent.
And if you look a little bit, you will see that all of this has made college tuition rise (unless you want our universities to look like our roads)...and let's not even talk about roads and sewers...and our k-12 education system is now officially one of the worst in the nation, and our cities are unable to attract enough young college grads so knowledge industry jobs in the auto industry are being created in California, where young college grads thrive. If we follow Mississippi's policies...or those of Indiana...we will get poorer and less educated like those states. Or we could follow the policies of Minnesota, where invest in education and cities, attract more college grads, have lower poverty rates, and have a per capita income $8,000 more than Michigan. Policy has consequences. We can follow the examples of rich states...or do what you are saying, and become poorer and poorer.

David Waymire
Thu, 09/28/2017 - 3:51pm

Oh...and by the way, per capita income in Illinois and California is far, far higher than Mississippi...or Texas. You could, as they say, look it up. Or you could live through dogma, not caring about reality.