Reply #4: Vote NO on All Proposals

[Hidden Stillness]

From what I have gathered learning about these Proposals, I think they should all be voted down; vote No on all of them. There is a really informative forum discussion on the Proposals, by the fact-finding group Citizens Research Council of Michigan, that has been playing on the local cable Government-access channels, that tells about these Proposals with a lot of detail. It is a pretty dry presentation, and runs two hours, but if you can manage to sit through it once or twice, you end up with a real understanding of them. They also have information on their website, http://www.crcmich.org/ .

Vote No on 1: This is a proposal that Conservation and Recreation funds should only be used for those purposes, and nothing else in the State budget, no matter how bad the economy gets, and worst of all, makes it a Constitutional Amendment, so that a whole voter drive, etc., must be conducted every time you need funds for other things in the budget, and these are available. Republicans have been fucking around with the Constittution on all levels for years now, and it would be good to remember that this is a tortured, labored process to have to undergo every time State funds may be needed, and the idea of using funds for other purposes is a necessary one, used all the time. There needs to be an idea of a general, multi-purpose fund available where needed.

Vote No on 2: This is the fraudulently worded ban on Affirmative Action, and on all programs that would target assistance to groups that have been discriminated against, or who need help. The League of Women Voters, which I belong to, has come out against this proposal, noting that it threatens all programs, no matter of what kind, that target any one group--school programs to get girls interested in math and science, programs to help poor inner-city black students with college costs, programs to help the disabled, battered women's shelters (gender-specific), all health screening that is race or gender specific, programs to help women or racial minorities start their own businesses, on and on and on. This scam is funded by a group of California Republican millionaires who have done the same thing to California and Washington State, and in California, after the passage of a similar proposal there, black student enrollment at universities plummeted by 50%, and never recovered. Meanwhile, "legacy" programs, unfairly accepting the children of rich donors to universities, will be unaffected; they account for a larger percentage of students than does all of Affirmative Action. Discrimination still exists, and must be countered by a just and fair society some way, yet this proposal would do away with all existing programs that remedy things. A modern economy is partly judged by how it deals with inequities, whether it attempts to help its citizens to attain higher education, and other things. Removing a structure of just remedies, so that corporations can be even more lawless, is not a good move. Many groups benefit from Affirmative Action legislation--women, older people, the disabled, and racial minorities, not to mention rural students preferred for college admission because of their location, etc.--and Michigan as a modern egalitarian State will suffer if it is killed by this phony Republican group from California. The so-called "threat" of "preferences" is a fake: the http://www.crcmich.org/election/index.html section on Proposal 2 has these lines: "The State of Michigan has a strong civil service system and competitive bidding for government contracts. It does not provide preferences in hiring or contracting through a statewide affirmative action program. A review of local governments' policies yielded little evidence of affirmative action programs that grant preferencial treatment on the basis of minority status or gender." A total fraud, with suspicious motives behind it--vote No.

Vote No on 3: Voting No will continue the ban on the horrible "sport" of calling doves "game birds" and hunting them. Vote No; doves are song birds.

Vote No on 4: This is a change of some kind to the Eminent Domain law, which I don't believe is needed, it will not affect the Eminent Domain law that already exists, people will still have the right to fight the attempted taking of their property for "public usage" as before, and there are provisions in the new proposal for what amounts of money will be paid, that are (I think) unConstitutionally vague, "must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value," which many believe will lead to a flood of court cases fighting for higher amounts, etc. It is not needed and does not improve the law, according to Citizens Research Council.

Vote No on 5: Another fraud. This is something that pretends to increase funding for schools, supplies, buildings, hiring new teachers, etc.; it is no such thing. According to Citizens Research Council, it is a badly figured scheme to increase the amount of funding for the retirement pensions of school system employees, re-figure enrollment figures based on "averages," cap the amount given to this pension fund from school system funds, and take an ever-increasing amount out of Michigan's General Fund, killing the ability of the State to pay for other budgeted items, and eating up a larger and larger percentage of the budget each year. It is a weird, fiscal disaster, opposed by the League of Women Voters. The strange, unknown group behind this mess, something called "Citizens for Education," (helpful?), has been sending propaganda claiming that the funds will be used to fund "Michigan's education"--school supplies, etc.; it will not. It has nothing to do with a school system's budget, which is voted on by passing a millage, which this is not. It will be a nightmare, and use up increasing amounts of the State's general budget. Vote No on 5.

Well, as unsatisfactory as this may seem, I think they are all bad, 2 and 5 are frauds, deliberately worded to seem like what they are not, 1 and 4 are not needed, and 3 continues the ban on dove-hunting. No on all. Remember, however, to vote YES on GRANHOLM.