A local Michigan Education Association representative recently claimed that first-year teachers in the Lansing School District are paid below the poverty line. That could theoretically be true for a teacher just starting his or her career … with a family of eight to support.

A first-year teacher with a bachelor’s degree in the Lansing School District earned $35,741 in 2009-10. The Michigan Department of Human Services does not calculate poverty levels for Michigan. The Census Bureau  set the poverty level for a family of one at $11,351 in 2010. For a family of two, it was $14,512. It can get as high as $38,388 for a family of eight.  

The poverty comparison was made by Ric Hogerheide, an MEA UniServ Director.

"There are current teachers working full time, first year teachers, that are below the poverty line in Lansing," Hogerheide said.

Hogerheide didn’t return an e-mail seeking comment.

What Hogerheide didn’t mention was how quickly a starting teacher’s salary can increase via “salary steps” which are across-the-board increases that teachers usually get for the first 10 years or more of their career.

For example, a teacher that started in 2006-07 in the Lansing School District with a bachelor’s degree earned $34,521, according to union contracts. That salary would increase 5-percent to $36,261 in 2007-08, then jump 8.8 percent to $39,475 in 2008-09, increase another 6.8 percent to $42,174 in 2009-10 and jump 6.4 percent to $44,900 in 2010-11.

“The MEA claims that schools need to pay for extremely expensive health benefits to attract good teachers, yet at the same time the union perpetuates the myth of the poverty-stricken teacher,” wrote Michael Van Beek, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s education policy director, in an e-mail. “How does this help attract high performers to the profession?”

Michigan school districts have regularly paid some of the nation’s highest teacher salaries.

Why did four fiscally-conservative Republican state representatives vote "no" on two odd bills allowing Kalamazoo County to have two transit authorities that impose two separate millage levies, when 59 of their GOP colleagues voted "yes"?

Or perhaps more to the point, given that the four no-voters are probably the strongest "fiscal hawks" in the House, why did the other 59 Republican reps vote in favor of these unusual bills?

One insider with access to the supporting documents behind the bills called them "unusually vague and misleading." House Fiscal Agency analysts expressed their own puzzlement in an analysis by simply reporting what the bill's sponsor and its main supporter said in committee, as follows:

Representative O'Brien testified that, "There is community consensus that the city of Kalamazoo needs and supports increased linehaul services [that] the rest of the county does not need. Kalamazoo County desires an efficient and effective transportation authority that can maximize community dollars. Current state law does not allow for a differentiated millage - meaning one millage with different rates for various townships or cities. But Kalamazoo County recognizes that the City of Kalamazoo has higher demand for services that would not benefit the rest of the community. Thus we have sought a compromise that reflects the unique desires of Kalamazoo County."

The chairperson of the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners testified that one way to view this proposal "is the overlay of two authorities, one encompassing the urbanized core receiving line haul service at one millage rate, and one comprised of the entire county (primarily paying for demand response service) at another millage rate, but both under a single, efficient operating umbrella." The bills, the commissioner said, "will permit and make it easier to levy different amounts of taxation to support differing levels of service . . .and to better integrate governance of the system."

In the world of local government transit tax hikes and spending, citizens are generally advised to keep a tight fist on their pocketbooks and a suspicious eye on politicians and bureaucrats. Methinks this is no exception.