Reply #30: Again, No Reference to the Studies of the Proposal

[Hidden Stillness]

Again, you did not refer to the studies by the League of Women Voters, Michigan Municipal League, and coalition against this proposal, all of whom studied it and how it would work, and all of whom warn against the increasing drain on the entire State budget by the changed funding rule for retirement/pensions. I did not study it, these other groups did and I quoted their results; again you did not read or answer them. "If you have a problem with the way they spend their money..." etc., was weird and insulting. Try to stick to an issue, whether it "frames" well or not. I don't know why you told me that "Local communities don't fund the retirement plans of Judges, State Police," etc. What does that have to do with anything, other than to change the subject?

The very problem is that this proposal will change the retirement funding for teachers, etc., from a local school-district to a State General Fund responsibility. The numbers do not add up, and it will take an increasing percentage of the State general fund. Please do not pretend that I made that up myself; read the studies from the groups I quoted, go to their websites, etc. "No amount of repetition is going to make it true"--that at least, is a fact, no matter who you work for. From the M.M.L. PDF "Why Proposal 5 is Wrong for Michigan," "Of the at least $565 million dollars Proposal 5 will require, $380 million is earmarked for teacher's pensions." Please address these findings, rather than going over your own "points" again.