|
The Michigan Democratic Party's 2010 Ballot Proposals: Right or Wrong for Michigan?
Following is a rundown of each ballot proposal and what proponents and opponents, in general, are saying about them.
Brewer Proposal #1: Mandating all employers to provide affordable health care for their employees and dependents or pay a penalty (“pay or play”).
Proponents: Over 1.2 million Michigan citizens do not have health insurance. Most of them have jobs, but their employers refuse to provide health insurance as a benefit. Companies need to take on more responsibility for the health of their employees and families because a failure to do so puts a strain on government. Employers make more than enough money to offer their employees this basic human right and if they refuse they should be penalized.
Opponents: Punishing employers who cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, including requirements to “pay or play,” is not the answer. Employer mandates, by their nature, limit flexibility and innovation – the cornerstones of American healthcare – and would be devastating to employers who are struggling to survive the economic downturn. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide not the government.
Brewer Proposal #2: Raising the minimum wage from $7.40 per hour to $10 per hour and covering all workers with no exceptions.
Proponents: Michigan’s minimum wage is only $7.40 an hour and for a family of four this only amounts to $15,392 a year. This small amount of yearly earnings is below the poverty level and forces some to seek government assistance.
Opponents: Raising Michigan’s minimum wage at a time when job providers can least afford it would be both counterproductive and counterintuitive. Under Democratic Chairman Brewer’s plan, Michigan’s minimum wage would rise $2.75 per hour over the minimum wage required by the federal government. The Brewer plan is only likely to do one thing: reduce low-skill, entry-level jobs that benefit many of Michigan’s younger generation and those who need flexibility in their work schedule.
For an employer with 50 full-time minimum wage employees, this proposal would increase payroll obligations by more than $270,000 per year (the equivalent of 17 employees’ wages). Faced with these increased payroll obligations, most job providers would have no choice but to lay off employees.
Brewer Proposal #3: Increasing unemployment benefits by $100 per week, making all workers eligible and adding six months to the time one can receive benefits.
Proponents: Unemployment is a very serious problem that is impacting more and more families each day; however, about one-third of Michigan’s unemployed—nearly 250,000 people—are ineligible to receive benefits. For those receiving unemployment benefits, the maximum weekly benefit is only $387, an amount that was last raised in 2002. There have been extensions in the number of weeks of benefits allowed, but in many instances people will soon exhaust their 79-week eligibility.
Opponents: Increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to $487 per week would make Michigan’s rate the 12th highest in the nation and the highest in the region. In addition, the 13-week extension would place Michigan sharply out of line with every other state which offers a maximum of 26 weeks under state law (as Michigan currently does).
Unemployment benefits are 100% financed through payroll taxes on employers and, simply put, Michigan’s job providers cannot afford a tax hike during these challenging times. The Brewer proposal will further damage Michigan’s business climate and ultimately lead to higher unemployment.
Brewer Proposal $4: Cutting utility rates by 20%.
Proponents: Over the last few years, the cost of energy has risen steadily and, in particular, electric utility rates have gone up. Many citizens are struggling to make ends met during these tough times and they need relief from the high cost of essential utility services.
Opponents: We all would like to pay less for our energy needs but as we all know there is no free lunch. Other states have tried manipulating the energy markets and those efforts lead to disastrous results for customers. In Illinois, artificial rate caps held down rates in the short term but when the caps were removed residential customers were socked with a tripling of their utility bills. In California, artificial rate caps caused utility companies to go bankrupt which led to customers having unreliable energy service including blackouts of service.
Brewer Proposal #5: Imposing a one-year moratorium on home foreclosures.
Proponents: Michigan has one of the highest home foreclosure rates in the country and tens of thousands of people have lost or will lose their homes, hurting all home values and creating dangerous eyesores in our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, some politicians in Lansing keep protecting the banks that are kicking people out of their homes.
Opponents: It is false to guarantee that a moratorium will definitely increase the number of homes saved from foreclosure sale. Delaying an inevitable foreclosure is detrimental because it will increase costs for both borrowers and lenders. In addition, imposing a moratorium on foreclosure will increase the number of delinquencies as borrowers who would otherwise stretch to continue to make payments will decide to stop at least for the duration of the moratorium. As a result, a foreclosure moratorium will unintentionally harm the borrower’s ability to recover.
|
