Vote as You LIke on 5, Michigan

Of all the proposals on the statewide ballot this year in Michigan, perhaps the easiest to overlook is Proposal 5. It would call for a supermajority in the the State Legislature to pass any tax increase, or a popular vote in a November election. The idea gives one pause. It appears to be a very easy proposal to support; who among conservatives anyway does not want to make it more difficult for governments to increase taxes? Still, a two-thirds vote of the Legislature seems high. On how many things can we find two-thirds support among the people, let alone politicians? Not many. That, perhaps, is the most troubling fact with the proposal. It becomes fair to wonder whether democracy itself could survive should the idea be more broadly applied. Still, we can't shake the feeling that there is a degree to which Michigan politicians, or, more correctly, politicians in general (Michigan government seems to have been curtailed in recent times), have brought this upon themselves. As government continues to expand, it may be that the only real check on its growth is to choke it financially. Limit what it can take in, and it can only spend so much. Yet sometimes taxes must be raised, whether we like it or not. While the principle of minority rights cannot be too readily shunted aside, neither can the fear of the tyranny of the majority. If and when needed monies must be had for the sake of everyone in the state it seems foolish to hamper raising them. As we have said twice this week already in addressing ballot proposals, we always have options with elected officials. We can elect them out the next time. So what to do about Proposal 5? We lean towards saying no. The idea of limiting the power to tax is quite appealing, and we realize that a simple majority to pass any given tax all too often comes dangerously close to infringing minority rights. This is particularly true in this day and age when we have married ourselves to democracy so much that we have an attitude that if the majority wants it, it must be right. Might makes right, as such, is hardly moral. Yes, sadly, the safe bet seems to be vote no. But we will just the same not harbor any ill will towards those who vote yes. By itself, that may be a great message to send to Lansing. It's really only too bad we can't apply the measure to Washington.

Government must Govern

The Michigan ballot proposals which we face this coming Tuesday are an intriguing lot. But no matter what each one individually may say, they all have one thing in common. They're all attempts to enshrine ideas within the state constitution. That's not necessarily good.

There's no inherent reason to tie too many things into our governing document. Constitutions are only supposed to be basic guidelines or offer a skeletal frame for the workings of government. Filling them up with any and everything is counterproductive; it can cause inefficiency in government by tying its hands. As much government waste as there may be, if we put too many limits on it we may as well not have it at all.

This is not to say that every ballot measure should be voted down. Each must be accepted or rejected on its own merits or lack thereof. But a good general rule of thumb is to vote against them. As much as it pains us to say it, because we do know that government is all too often unresponsive, the job of legislators and executives and judges is to legislate, execute, and judge. We have to let them do their jobs. We can vote them out later should they not.

The Ballot Proposals which Failed

We know that there are 6 ballot proposals facing Michigan voters this November. Yet how many people realize that there were 9 more that were, for one reason or another, not included on the upcoming ballot? We don't necessarily know why each was rejected, but that really doesn't matter right now. What is interesting is that sometimes the things which don't make it are more interesting than the ones which do.

An initiative on expanding casino gaming was scrapped by a ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court. But that was one of two which dealt with new casinos; this demonstrates that gambling has become a big business around here. Yet it ignores the issue of how much is too much, and we're probably just as well without having to consider the question ourselves.

Two other rejected ideas involved the structure of government: one would have abolished the State Senate, while the other would have enshrined the right of the people to alter or abolish government. Interesting ideas, both. Yet both are better off off the ballot. There's nothing particularly wrong with a two house legislature, and don't we have the right to 'alter or abolish' government as it is?

Another proposed amendment would have made horizontal hydraulic fracturing for oil illegal. Come now, why would we want to do that? We need oil, and fracking is safe. This is just a liberal scare mongering tale which has no business as part of our State's highest law. We must be very, very slow about having a Constitution dictating how and why to get energy. It would have only tied the hands of our legislature in an area where it ought to be making decisions.

One proposal would have banned union dues as a condition of employment. We would have liked for that one to have approved. There's always been something underhanded about a group of people claiming to represent your best interests but, as is often the case, against your will. With your money and my brains, we can change the world; how can that not sound suspect? Yet it didn't make the ballot, and that's too bad. It's one we would really have liked to see voted upon.

Any way you slice it, for all the complaining about this November's initiatives clogging up the state Constitution, it could have been worse. We might have had another 9 to consider. Seeing that, perhaps we are lucky to have only what we have.