Commentary

SEIU Ballot Proposal Raises Questions

Why is the SEIU involved in a ballot initiative that would seemingly have little to do with them?

That should be the question media members and taxpayers ask themselves as we get closer to November when voters may be asked to decide on whether to enshrine into our state constitution the “Michigan Quality Home Care Council.”

The proposal is purposefully innocuous sounding, which covers up the end result of this initiative: The continuing flow of millions of dollars to a union.

As Jack Spencer reports in CapCon, the ballot proposal ensures that “The Service Employees International Union would get millions in cash, but the people it ‘represents’ wouldn't get state employee benefits if a constitutional amendment the union is pushing is passed by voters in November.”

In short, the ballot proposal ensures only things that are already allowed and being done by the state. Allow the existences of a “Home Help Program”? Check. Allow a criminal registry to help with background checks? This has been done for years. Ensure that elderly and senior citizens can stay in their homes? This is a favorite selling point for the SEIU and its allies, but the vast majority of those receiving state Medicaid money are already in their homes and will retain that ability. Especially since many of these recipients are being cared for by their own families in their own homes.

The media coverage on this issue is understandable: It is a confusing scheme and the union and groups behind the signature collections have it in their interest to cloud the issue. If the ballot initiative fails, it boils down to this: The home health care providers and patients will have all of the same rights and abilities that they have always had — they will simply not be sending money out of each paycheck to a union most were unaware of.

The only difference between whether voters pass the initiative or not? Whether the SEIU continues to receive millions of dollars every single year to add to its coffers.

 

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

U-M President Praised as 'Rock Star' for Cutting Costs, Real Numbers Tell a Different Story

University's overall budget has increased 44 percent

In a column in which he referred to University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman as a "rock star," Center For Michigan founder Phil Power said U-M has cut its general fund budget.

Power, a former Democrat U-M regent, wrote, "Year by year for more than a decade, the university has been gradually, remorselessly tightening its belt. Over the period, the U of M has taken $235 million in costs out of its general fund budget by reducing expenditures between 1.5 percent and 2.25 percent per year."

Technically, the university may have chipped away expenses worth $235 million in some areas. However, under Coleman’s guidance spending increases in other areas have more than made up for those savings, with the U-M general fund budget and spending rising 44 percent, from $1.1 billion in Coleman’s first year in 2002-03 to $1.58 billion budgeted in 2011-12.

Power didn’t respond to an email seeking comment on his claim.

Charles Owens, Michigan president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said he has seen Michigan’s public schools say they have cut their budget despite an overall increase in spending.

"We've seen the same kinds of claims by public schools and lawmakers that are looking for justifications to increase taxes to sustain spending levels," Owens said. "A reduction in a net increase is not a budget cut. It's math that doesn't work in the real world."

Mackinac Center Education Policy Director Michael Van Beek has compared such budgeting practices to a family that cuts its cable bill from $100 to $50 a month and then buys a $1,000 plasma screen TV and claims to have reduced their home entertainment budget by $50. By those accounting practices, Van Beek says even the simplest reductions mean budget cuts no matter how much overall spending increases.

U-M has made significant savings in employees' benefits under Coleman. U-M says it has saved $400 million in employees' benefits costs since 2003. But U-M has spent more in other areas, such as faculty compensation, which rose from $122,943 on average per full-time job in 2005-06 to $141,763 in 2009-10, according to a House Fiscal Agency Report.

U-M says that one-third of all faculty salaries are paid for outside of the general fund by donor gifts, endowment proceeds and research grants, which saves taxpayer dollars.

"Universities spend money hand over fist every year and the University of Michigan is no different," said James Hohman, a fiscal policy analyst for the Mackinac Center. "They may have reduced some of their expenditures. But they are spending more in other areas, year after year."

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.