Proposal 2012-05, "2/3rd Majority to Raise Taxes"

[Gene Clem]

A good discussion of this is posted on Citizens Research Council of Michigan (Click Here).

It sounds good, but I think it is just that: a feel good vote.  I have some problems with it:

a)  It is a change to the Michigan Constitution.  We had a chance to fix the constitution two years ago; a large majority said no.  Are people really going to hack away at it and insert more junk into it this year?  If so, why?  I just do not think we should just shove every irritation that comes along into the constitution.  The hard work is to elect the correct people into office so spending is cut, not taxes raised.  Sure sounds easy to just make it unconstitutional though doesn't it?

b)  It creates a 'super minority'.  Now if I am in the 1/3 saying no, I can hold out for something to buy my vote.  Remember the deals that greased the way for Obamacare past some Democrats who did not want to vote for it?  

c)  I just think it is the lazy man's way of avoiding taxes being raised without having to pay attention to what is going on in Lansing and contacting his/her representatives and making sure that they know what you expect.  

d)  The taxes in states that have similar restrictions are not much different than the rest of the states per the referenced CRC article.  There is no evidence that it works.

Like I say, the idea sounds good...............

[Allan Bickle]

I respectfully disagree.

a. Two years ago, we rejected a constitutional convention, which would have opened up the constitution to rewriting by special interests in unforseen ways. That is very different from voting on a specific amendment.

b. Supermajorities are required for a number of things. This is certainly true in Robert's Rules. If a legislator wants to sell his vote, he can do so for a majority vote as well.

c. I don't think that we will run out of threats to our liberty in Lansing. We will still have plenty of reasons to contact our legislators.

d. This is the wrong standard to judge its effectiveness. The purpose is not to make taxes low, it is to make it harder to raise taxes. It unquestionably does this. California, a high-tax state, has a 2/3 requirement. This does not make taxes low, but it helps to keep them from getting even worse. Similarly, having gun rights may not make crime lower than in some other country without them (e.g. Japan), but it makes crime lower than it would have otherwise been in our country.

I support the 2/3 amendment.