When I logged on to Facebook today, I saw that I had an invite to a group called Nobrokenpromise.com. I knew it was related to the Michigan Promise Scholarship (or lack thereof) and was glad but before I joined, I went to the site and the Facebook group to see what it was about. I was immediately turned off by the site.
The site simply blamed Granholm for the entire situation. There was no information regarding why the promise scholarship was eliminated from the budget, nor where there any proposed solutions on how they could make this better. I looked for a place to contact the blog creators or comment on a post. Nothing of that sort even existed.
I went back to Facebook to see how the group members felt. The comments were limited but I was pleased to see that somebody started a discussion. It was a brief statement mentioning that the members of the group should look at the issues of the congress members.I was happy at how simple and honest his post was. He did not blame a particular person nor did he blame a political group. I joined the group for a moment only to commend him and agree.
12/10/09 Update: The group moderator removed the discussion I just mentioned and replaced it with his own…
I’m pleased to see that people are politically active… but I’m concerned when these activists are so politically ignorant. The site is written at a level of a Jr. High student when the authors are actually students at Central Michigan University.
If college students can’t make a good political argument how will the future of the United States turn out? In my opinion, there will be a lot more government control and a lot more dependent citizens. Worst of all, I fear these dependent citizens will not be those that are low income citizens or people who dropped out of high school. These people will be college graduates. These people will be leaders in our society…
Oh wait. It’s already happened. Our largest corporations have failed and depended on the government to make corrections. Many of my working peers are applying for the bridge card to keep their spending habits at a desirable level. My peers are depending on money from the government to get a higher education.
Guess what? The government is not in the business of education. The government is not in the business of medicine or health care. The government is not in the business of real estate. The government is in the business of international defense and securing our boarders from outside attacks.
The only thing I can do to protect what the founding fathers had originally planned for the United States is what I know best. I am writing to those who will listen. I am educating to those who are open for knowledge. In the matter of the Michigan Promise Scholarship, I took the time to contact the people who actually make decisions… Below is the email communications:
From: Senator Tony Stamas [ofctstamas@senate.michigan.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:35 PM
To: Owens, Jessica L
Subject: Re: Other issues not listed=OTHER
October 8, 2009
Dear Jessica:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Michigan Promise Grant scholarship. I appreciate knowing how important this scholarship is to you.
First and foremost, I feel the Michigan Promise Grant is a valuable program. I have supported it, and fought to protect it from budget cuts in the past. As such, making the decision to eliminate funding for the program was difficult. I am taking this opportunity to explain my reasons for ultimately doing so.
Michigan’s budget struggles through the last decade are well known. As over a quarter of our manufacturing jobs have evaporated, efforts to balance the state budget have produced one time adjustments, short term fixes, clever accounting and significant tax increases. In the last 14 months however, we have gone from difficult and challenging budgets to an unprecedented decline in ours state’s economy. Since the fall of 2008, we have seen a 21% drop in revenue. Michigan’s general fund – the dollars over which the state has discretion – has dropped from $9.3 billion to $6.9 billion.
The options facing the State are either cut state programs to the extent proposed in the State Senate’s budget, or increase revenues by increasing taxes, reducing or eliminating tax credits, or completely restructuring our tax system.
As to the first option, the proposed cuts are slightly mitigated and restricted by Federal stimulus dollars. After using stimulus dollars for the current year budget, which ended September 30, the state is left with roughly $1.4 billion in unrestricted dollars. If these dollars are divided over the next two budget years, as allowed, the current year deficit could be reduced by $700 million, still leaving a roughly $1.7 billion current year deficit. The restrictions on these dollars prohibit the state from cutting in several areas: non-optional Medicaid services, appropriations to public universities, and funding of our K-12 system.
The second option is looking at increased revenues. In 2007, this was an option advocated by many, and was, in large part, the resolution of the budget stand-off in Lansing. We saw an increase in our individual income taxes from 3.9% to 4.4%. Many businesses saw dramatic increases with the new Michigan Business Tax and certainly many saw an increase in the MBT surcharge (which replaced the short-lived service tax). Understandably, given our unemployment numbers and business struggles, very few are actively advocating an increase in individual and/or business taxes as a resolution for the 2009-2010 budget year. The most serious debates in this area are proposals to eliminate tax loopholes (in essence, a tax increase). While there are suggestions of temporarily reducing tax exemptions, such as the Home Heating Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit, no firm plan has been put forward. Some groups have advocated changing Michigan’s tax structure by either reducing or eliminating items such as the MBT surcharge, while other groups have called for a Constitutional amendment in order to institute a graduated income tax.
Taking these options into account, the budgets presented by the Senate presume no new revenues. They present an honest picture of the decisions facing the Legislature and the Governor. While additional revenue may, ultimately, be deemed necessary by a majority of the Legislature, it is fair to assume a large portion of the remedy will have to come from cuts to current programs. I have heard from many constituents and representative groups regarding the effects of such dramatic cuts. While it is fair to say in many cases the state would be forfeiting additional federal dollars by cutting programs, it is also fair to say if the state does not even have the dollars to spend to begin with, we will not be able to see the federal return. Lacking those funds, we certainly are unable to reap the less measurable investment returns from the Promise Grants and early childhood programs.
There is no question, program cuts proposed in the budgets are painful to many, especially those who, in the case of the Promise Grant, were depending on the scholarship for tuition. In the past, the Legislature and the Governor have tried to prioritize funding for programs, but the dollars to fund these very necessary programs simply no longer exist. The hard reality is that Michigan’s revenue base has dropped 21% in the last fiscal year. The elimination of the Promise Grant does not reflect a lack of importance in priority by the Senate, far from it, but simply a lack of resources to pay for the program at this time.
As Legislative leaders and the Governor negotiate final agreements on these important budget issues, some programs, such as the Promise Grant, may be saved and funded (to a certain extent). Many will not. It is a reflection of Michigan’s economic reality. As mandated by our State Constitution, Michigan must have a balanced budget and we are working towards that end. However, it is important to realize Michigan can no longer afford to pay for many programs to which we have become accustomed.
Despite these hard economic and budgetary realities, I remain optimistic Michigan will weather this storm, as we have in the past. Michigan will once again become a thriving economic state. Until that time comes, the State, like every Michigan family, must live within its means.
Again, thank you for writing. Please know I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as debate on this matter continues. In the meantime, if I can be of assistance with any state government matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
TONY STAMAS
State Senator
36th District
