Proposal 5 seeks end to majority rule on taxes

The signal moment in the budget reform agenda of Gov. Rick Snyder came by a margin of one, as the state Senate voted 20-19 in May 2011 to approve a $1.7 billion tax cut for business and impose a variety of changes to Michigan’s personal income tax.

Lt. Gov. Brian Calley cast a rare tie-breaking vote to push the legislation across the finish line.

While controversial even today, the measure was one factor – an improving economy being another – that ended years of budget turmoil in the State Capitol.

And it all would have been dead on arrival under a proposed constitutional amendment  -- Proposal 5 -- that would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to enact new taxes.

“It's crazy. It's the silliest thing I have ever seen,” said Mitch Bean* of Great Lakes Economic Consulting. Bean is a former director of the House Fiscal Agency, the nonpartisan analysis staff of the state House.

“There would never again be any meaningful tax reform. All it would take is 13 senators to block anything. It's the tyranny of the minority.”

Long-time Lansing political observer Bill Ballenger said it's hard to predict what the short-term impact would be should Proposal 5 pass.

“The politicians themselves -- the governor and the legislators -- don't have a clue what they might do if this passes,” said Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics.

Foes predict damaging turmoil

Bean doubts that other significant tax reform measures -- including Michigan's income tax or 1994's Proposal A revamping how Michigan schools are funded -- would have happened under terms of Proposal 5.

But beyond that, Bean shares the concern raised by state budget director John Nixon that approval of the amendment could jeopardize Michigan's bond rating – which affects how much the state has to pay to borrow money.

“One of the things that rating companies look at is your ability to pay. This significantly reduces your ability to pay,” Bean said.

Prop 5 earns a thumbs-down from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which considers it poorly drafted and a threat to responsible tax reform. Tricia Kinley, the chamber's senior director of tax and regulatory reform, stressed that the chamber, by no means, views tax increases as the first solution to government challenges.

But she warns the amendment “poses too many unintended consequences. We think it ties the hands of legislators.”

She noted the chamber backed both Proposal A and Snyder's tax reform of 2011: “We do not believe either could have taken place had this proposal been in place at that time.”

The measure is pushed by Michigan Alliance for Prosperity, which raised $1.9 million to put it on the ballot. Most of that money came from Liberty Bell Agency Inc., which lists the same Sterling Heights address as a trucking firm controlled by Manuel “Matty” Moroun, billionaire owner of the Ambassador Bridge.

Former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis supports Prop 5, while disputing the assertion it would prevent legislators from doing their job. He maintains it puts sensible restrictions on their ability to extract more money from taxpayers.

“I want an overwhelming consensus for the need to increase taxation. I don't view the problem in this country or in this state that we are taxed too little. I think we tax too much.”

Anuzis asserts that a two-thirds threshold would make tax reform “more deliberative and more difficult. But that, by definition, isn't necessarily bad.”

Prop 5, complexity don’t mix

In its analysis issued in September, the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan concluded the measure could hamper the Legislature's ability to deal with complex fiscal issues. It echoed Bean's concern over its impact on the state's bond rating.

“Supermajority vote requirements make it more difficult to respond to financial challenges that might call for additional tax revenues ...Temporary tax increases occasionally are needed to avoid program cutbacks and eliminations when state economies (and tax revenues) are adversely affected by recession. For these reasons, adoption of a two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases could affect Michigan’s bond rating, which in turn could affect the state’s cost of borrowing,” it stated.

CRC's Eric Lupher, co-author of the report, said he understands the sentiment of frustrated taxpayers who might be attracted to limits on the power to tax.

“That all sounds good,” Lupher said. “The reality is that, sometimes, tax changes are needed to adapt to a changing environment.”

Michigan, in fact, already has a major tax limitation system in the constitution. Commonly known as the “Headlee Amendment,” the system was enacted by voters in 1978 and includes a prohibition on state taxation in a given year that generates revenue beyond a certain amount established by formula.

As detailed in a House Fiscal Agency analysis, Michigan hasn’t been near the Headlee revenue cap since 2000. The long-term trend shows state tax collections moving consistently away from the maximum allowed by Headlee.

Proposal A vs. Proposal 5

In March 1993, Michigan attracted unwanted national attention when the Kalkaska Public Schools closed three months early because it was out of money. The shutdown was symptomatic of a broken system for funding public education that was heavily dependent on local property taxes and riven by substantial per-pupil spending gaps between rich and poor districts.

A few months later, legislators approved a series of measures to put Proposal A on the ballot in 1994, a major shift in how schools were funded that included a property tax cut, an increase in the sales tax from 4 cents to 6 cents, a cut in the income tax from 4.6 percent to 4.4 percent and a 50-cent boost in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. It closed the gap in spending between districts. Voters approved it 61 percent to 39 percent.

Many of the votes sending the package of bills forward fell short of the two-thirds margin Proposal 5 requires. And the political compromises it took to assemble the elements of  Proposal A  “would have been much more difficult” under terms of the proposed amendment, Lupher believes.

Turning dollars into roads

By the mid-1990s, Michigan's local roads and highways routinely ranked among the worst in the nation as state gas tax revenues failed to keep pace with maintenance and new construction costs.

In 1997, thanks to considerable arm-twisting by Gov. John Engler, the Legislature voted to raise the tax from 15 cents to 19 cents a gallon. The margin was 20-16 in the state Senate, well short of the two-thirds margin Proposal 5 would mandate.

Michigan's roads are still crumbling, though, rated second worst in the nation in 2010 by Overdrive Magazine. In 2010, a national transportation research group estimated that Detroit's deteriorating roads cost drivers $536 a year. But revenue remains short of need because of increased automobile efficiency and the fact that many consumers cut back on driving because of higher gas prices.

Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed increasing Michigan's Transportation Fund by at least $1 billion a year and has advocated replacing the gasoline tax with a wholesale tax on fuel and an increase in registration fees.

While legislation to do so remains stalled in Lansing, prospects for any such measure would seem even more remote should Proposal 5 pass.

“Here we have roads that are clearly in bad shape to anyone who drives on them,” said Lupher of the Citizens Research Council.

“We know that it adds to the cost of locating here, whether you are business or an individual. It costs more to repair your automobile. It's easy to say we don't want more taxes. But do we want to forego the services paid for with taxes?

“You get what you pay for.”

*Editor’s note: Mitch Bean is a member of the Bridge Board of Advisers.

Ted Roelofs worked for the Grand Rapids Press for 30 years, where he covered everything from politics to social services to military affairs. He has earned numerous awards, including for work in Albania during the 1999 Kosovo refugee crisis.

At a glance: Proposal 5

WHAT VOTERS WILL DECIDE: If you vote for Proposal 5, it is effectively a vote to give a minority of the Legislature the power over tax changes. If you vote against Proposal 5, effectively you are supporting the status quo on tax policy, as governed by the Headlee Amendment.

WHAT THE ADS SAY: Proponents of Proposal 5 have kept their powder dry on the ad front, but have used Twitter to argue that Proposal 5 will require consensus on tax matters and will taxpayers from “unnecessary tax increases. Opponents of Proposal 5 have used mailers to argue it leaves decisions on taxes to only 13 members of the 148-member Legislature and it would make it more difficult to ensure delivery of public services.

WHAT THE TRUTH SQUAD SAYS: The Michigan Truth Squad has not weighed in on Proposal 5, as both sides have chosen to wait to launch major advertising campaigns.




This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved?

YES ___

NO ___

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

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

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

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.


Tue, 10/16/2012 - 9:03am
should add commercials for proposal 5
Paul T
Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:15am
"it’s hard to predict what the short-term impact would be should Proposal 5 pass"? I'm not convinced. Perhaps a short-term impact would be increased contempt for legislatures in particular and electoral politics in general. There would be also an increase of acrimony among politicians. These would be good outcomes, although a more thoroughly ossified legislature is a noxious way to obtain them. In fact, the proposal is sure to put more pressure upon the central government of Columbia to convert the presidency into an emperorship, as it nearly is already. The emperor, the presider, would be petitioned to solve problems caused by squabbling provincial politicians. An absolute despotism would then be more likely. So, is there a better way to obtain the good outcomes while not increasing the likelihood of bad outcomes?
Paul T
Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:11am
A better understanding of Michigan’s politics is desired, so let’s replay Saul Anuzis’ words. “I want an overwhelming consensus for the need to increase taxation”, he claimed. Well, why doesn’t the former Michigan Republican Party Chairman want to reduce the limits imposed by Headlee’s amendment? Wouldn’t that address his concern about taxes? So, should we believe that the clever old chap lacks even this much imagination? I don’t think so, so let’s restate Saul’s words with just two changes, to better emphasize what he means. ‘I, [Saul Anuzis] want an overwhelming consensus for the need to increase extortion and robbery that is carried out by government under the color of law and on the pretext of defending liberty.’ 'Me, too!', adds Eric Lupher, co-author of a report published by Citizens Research Council of Michigan , a "nonpartisan" advocacy outfit. ‘In fact,’ continued Eric, ‘do I want to forego goods and services paid for with taxes, most of which are not paid by me? No! I deserve what they pay for’. ‘Heh, heh, heh. Tax and spend liberals’, sneered Saul. ‘You’re all the same, but I don’t view the problem in this country or in this state that we are taxed too little. I think we tax too much! ;-) ’ ‘Gentlemen, you really should learn to disguise better your characters and mentalities’, injected Ted Roelofs. ‘Some nutty, extremist liberals might get into their heads the idea that the term libertarian means justice sect. And someone might just persuade a few of them that no liberal is a leftist.’.
Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:25am
I am a retiree who was a higher-than-average wage earner during my career. I was born after 1952, so I was socked with the huge tax increase on pensions this year. I am voting for this proposal. Our legislator (as well as local governments) are STILL NOT aggressive enough in reducing cost of government. This proposal will finally force them to cut. Democrats and their main constiuents would LOVE to see a progressive income tax in Michigan. This proposal will stop that movement in its tracks. High income people already pay more in sales tax (because they spend more), and way more in property tax. But I would support this proposal even if I were in a lower income bracket. It seems to be the only way to rein in government.
Robert Kleine
Tue, 10/16/2012 - 1:09pm
First, Saul Anuzis's comment that we tax too much is wrong. Federal, state and local taxes as a share of GDP are at the lowest level since 1950. Second, only two of the 34 OECD countries (developed nations) have lower taxes than the U.S- Mexico and Chile. The comment about spending from SBR is also way off base. State spending from state sources (excludes federal aid) is down 18% since 2002 adjusted for inflation. General fund-general purpose spending is down $700 million since 2001 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusted for inflation GF/GP spending id down about 30%. No other state is even close to Michigan in controlling spending. As for federal spending, only 10% of the increase in the debt since 2000 is due to increased non-defense spending- most of the increase is due to tax cuts, the poor economy and defense spending. Also we do not need Proposal 5 to stop a graduated income tax. The constitution already requires a vote of the people to enact a graduated income tax. This proposal will likely end any chance to raise revenue to improve our poor roads. We are each paying more for poor roads than we will pay in higher taxes. We need to stop being pennywise and pound foolish. Passing this proposal will be a devastating setback for our states finances and economy. I do not understand why anyone would vote for a proposal supported also entirely financially by a billionaire who is trying to punish the state for supporting a second international bridge that would threaten his monopoly.
John Q. Public
Wed, 10/17/2012 - 12:53am
You're begging the question, Mr. Kleine. Using what we levy in taxes relative to prior years as a basis to argue that we don't tax too much assumes a level of correctness in the rate of taxation in those prior years. Likewise for what other countries tax. The proper rate of taxation is the amount the citizens want to pay. Our representatives have a nasty habit of thinking that's more than it actually is, so they need an Election-Day lesson in humility. The people have reserved the simple-majority rule for themselves in Proposal 5. Those who think we are undertaxed want more government spending on things that they argue makes the state a better place to live. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement with those being asked to pay the bill as to whether the spending actually accomplishes that goal, at least at a level where people think they get good value.
Robert Kleine
Wed, 10/17/2012 - 11:06am
I think it is very relevant that taxes are at the lowest level since 1950 since we did not have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security was much smaller then. Every poll shows that these programs are very popular with the puiblic. If we do not want to pay for the programs that we want we are going to run large deficits as we are currently doing. Federal taxes are now about 15% of GDP down from about 20% in 2000. We cannot provide the programs that people say they want at this level of taxation, particularly with the baby boomer generation being to retire. We need both entitlement reform and higher taxes. I do not want higher spending I just want us to fund the programs that we have and that people say they want and need. A final point, Proposal 5 does not require a simple majority, it requires a two-thirds vote. This is not democracy it is tyranny of the minority.
John Q. Public
Wed, 10/17/2012 - 6:58pm
Proposal 5 has little effect on the federal programs you mention. That niggling point aside, wanting to pay for the programs we have is a worthy goal, if we really do want the programs. Politicians and bureaucrats never seem to accept that given a choice between low tax/low service or high tax/high service, maybe people want the former. When the people vote for low taxes, the proper government response is to cut services (i.e., match programs to available revenue), not try to convince the people that the sky is falling, or worse, borrow to maintain the service. The polls on the popularity of the programs are hardly surprising: people usually favor programs when they are divorced from the costs. Part of the problem comes from the language we use when referring to elected officials. The media consistently refer to them as 'leaders' and they fancy themselves as such, even though we elect them to be FOLLOWERS. Proposal 5 requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes only when the legislature does the voting; as I noted, when the vote is by the people in a November election, the standard remains a simple majority. Given that the measure must pass in three weeks by the same standard, that hardly constitutes "tyranny of the minority." I will respect whatever outcome results from the election. I know that if 5 passes, the legislature and the lobbyists will shift into overdrive finding ways to try to circumvent it. You want to see REAL tyranny of the minority? Just observe the decennial drawing of gerrymandered districts so that the legislative bodies are composed of party members disproportionate to the composition of the citizenry. A final point: tyranny of the majority is every bit as objectionable as its smaller sibling.