Revenue sharing cuts endanger all citizens
(Last updated: 10/07/09 7:43pm)It seems lately, every time you open the paper, the hits keep coming. Just looking at the opinion page this week tells a tale of budget problems that seem to overwhelm us all. Today is no different.
Next year does not look any brighter for the city of East Lansing. The city’s budget is being reduced by almost $600,000 next year after the state cut revenue sharing by 11 percent in an effort to balance the budget.
Revenue sharing is the city’s second-largest source of revenue.
The main argument for the cut in revenue sharing is it’s the only feasible way to balance the budget without raising taxes.
Although we understand the value of keeping taxes reasonable and the state’s desire to be fiscally responsible, we can’t simply sign off on this decision as if it were another unfortunate cut. Revenue sharing is a source of revenue explicitly meant to fund services such as capital improvements, police and fire departments — in short, the things that keep us safe.
When the state eventually has to resort to cutting fundamental services such as police and fire, it’s time to step back and wonder if something else can’t be done.
The people of East Lansing deserve to feel safe and those charged with keeping us safe should not be forced to be spread thin. When things that were once considered necessary are considered expendable, maybe it’s time to think about raising taxes.
We appreciate that the city is making the best of a bad situation that, admittedly, is not their fault. Although the cuts likely won’t allow the city to purchase any new equipment or hire any new positions, it’s a smart move by the city to leave a few positions unfilled now rather than cut staff later when the stakes are higher. Let’s just hope further cuts aren’t required.
The city has been reassuring, saying cuts will likely result in fewer sidewalk repairs or slower action to fix damaged city property. And at first glance, these cuts likely won’t affect East Lansing residents too much. They’re not supposed to.
But why are these things being eliminated now and being mentioned in the same breath as police cuts? Maybe if the city wasn’t so set on continuing to give financial extensions to City Center II’s developer or stubbornly moving forward with an unnecessary parking structure, the city wouldn’t be strapped with public safety cuts.
Sadly, these further cuts just continue to drive home the fact that things in Michigan are not getting better. Many of us would love to stay in our home state, but these cuts will do nothing but add to the growing number of students who move elsewhere after graduation. Students will not be safe or reassured when fundamental services are put on the chopping block. It’s time the city and state explore new ways to bring in revenue and protect necessary services, because many of us would love to stick around.
When legislators are making these cuts, they need to realize it’s almost as if they are raising a sign telling college students they are no longer welcome.
Even if that means a few bumpy sidewalks.
Originally Published: 10/07/09 7:43pm
J
10/07/09 11:16pmSnewz: save your pithy budget comments for the peanut gallery unless you offer a complete substitute budget for every single state department.
We’re waiting, let’s see some specifics. You balance the budget, go ahead editorial board, let’s see your version of the balanced budget.
Hey J
10/08/09 12:51pmHey J, when you mention the peanut gallery, don’t you really mean “The Peanut Barrel?”
Getting rid of police in East Lansing? Come now, everyone knows that the #1 source of income for the city of East Lansing, ahead of revenue sharing is the ELPD/PACE! The city couldn’t run a balanced budget without the countless tickets and bogus infractions year on year!
darryl
10/08/09 2:27pmMy brother, a retired sheriff’s deputy up north has a good idea. Fire all the cops who spend all their time chasing kids smoking weed. He says these guys are just lazy cops who don’t want to do any real police work. He also is willing to help any whiner who plans to leave the state pack their junk. Less idiots up north messing up the woods and streams. He figures the saving on lazy cops and their interdiction teams could save 5-6 million a year easy.
rob
10/08/09 2:43pmhey Darryl, other than give you an opportunity to bring up your very close ties to law enforcement, what exactly does your comment have to do with this article?
Hey hey J..If you don’t like paying tickets, stop breaking the law…and leave the comedy to the professionals. Pretty lame sarcasm.
And J…Are you saying that one can never criticize the budget process unless one has a plan that is better?
J
10/08/09 5:20pmI’m saying that criticizing a relatively microscopic piece of the budget without flat out telling us, “Raise taxes by this percent” or “Transfer x dollars from this department” is just useless touchy, feely English major nonsense.
rob
10/08/09 6:54pmWell, now that you put it that way…..
Change of heart?
10/09/09 2:33amAnd cutting funds to education and our state’s future doesn’t endanger all citizens?
I mean I agree with you, but when did the editorial board get so liberal? This is quite unexpected.
darryl
10/09/09 8:30amThe point Rob is that money can be cut from some services and still not really effect their core missions. They need to change priorities and focus on genuine safety issues and not spend inordinate amounts of time and money on vice.
1HappyFool
10/09/09 4:25pmJ, we’re past the point where raising taxes will help. The state is depopulating. That indicates a systemic problem. Increasing revenue means bringing business in, not driving it out faster. That means attracting investment. That means helping businesses make a profit. That means biting the bullet and cutting business taxes and anti-business regulation. That probably means herding liberals into boxcars and shipping them off to some worker’s paradise like Massachusetts or California. You ready?
J
10/09/09 5:36pmRe: 1HappyFool
Where did I say we have to raise taxes? I criticized The State News editorial board for producing no specifics.
I support a lower state income tax, lower sales tax, and elimination of the Michigan Business Tax “surcharge” (“Sir, charge your taxes on your business credit card or the Michigan Gestapo will shut you down”).
On the same token, do not heed these calls for a part-time legislature. Part-time legislature is code for “hand over more inordinate amounts of power and money to a runaway out of control federal government”
1HappyFool
10/09/09 10:31pmJ: ‘Where did I say we have to raise taxes?’
It was your example.
J: ‘Iâm saying that criticizing a relatively microscopic piece of the budget without flat out telling us, âRaise taxes by this percentâ or âTransfer x dollars from this departmentâ is just useless touchy, feely English major nonsense.’
J: ‘I criticized The State News editorial board for producing no specifics.’
I realize what your intent was, but you have to take your own medicine.
...View full comment »
J
10/10/09 6:08pmHere’s your specifics then: Granholm needs to remove the stuffed socks from her drawers and sign the budgets that Dillon and Bishop already worked out together without a penny of new taxes.