|
A Deeper
Look - Anything New in Gubernatorial Race? Part 2
MIRS, August 30, 2002
For more articles on disabilities and special ed visit
www.bridges4kids.org.
Every two weeks, MIRS publishes a column from one of two of
Michigan's more respected political thinkers and analysts,
former House-member-turned Executive Director of the Michigan
Prospect for Renewed Citizenship, H. Lynn JONDAHL, and Dr.
Lawrence W. REED, president of the Mackinac Center for Public
Policy. Both men bring a public policy analysis from a
perspective outside of the traditional day-to-day Lansing
political arena.
This month's question is: “Thus far,
has the race to serve as Michigan's next governor raised any
new policy proposals or solutions, or just shown more of the
same?”
Today, MIRS features Mr. Jondahl's response.
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
•
Now that Michigan voters
reduced the number of candidates for governor to one
Republican and one Democrat, and the Greens picked their
standard bearer, it makes some sense to rehearse just what we
have learned thus far in the campaign season.
In at least one sense, the campaign is showing us only more of
the same — more money spent on ads designed to encourage votes
for some candidates and discourage votes for others. Past
Republican and Democratic gubernatorial campaigns have shown
us that the candidate who spend the most won. That amounts to
more of the same.
The nature of all the winning campaigns is to invest record
amounts of money in media (primarily TV) buys. We don't see
much of the candidates in actual discussion or debate of
issues and policies. This reinforces the trend towards
campaigns based on warring ads with endorsements more critical
for candidate fundraising than for recruitment of ground
troops to communicate their messages. This is reinforced by
the media coverage of the campaigns that spends its focus on
telling voters what is in the advertisements that the
candidates are running and telling voters why the candidates
are running those ads. Perhaps the only thing more bizarre
than the campaigns holding press conferences to “introduce”
their new ads to the media, is the media's willingness to
cover these press conferences. So we have more coverage of the
workings of the campaigns than we do of the competing policy
positions of the candidates. That's showing us more of the
same.
Having said that, it does seem that we can expect some new
policies in the new administration — policies that differ from
the 12 years of the Engler administration. The policy
proposals of the candidates are spelled out on their web
sites in a manner that gives voters an opportunity to
explore the issue priorities. In fact, Michigan voters have
been offered more issue proposals and descriptions than at
any time in memory. Unfortunately, there has been little
media attention to these issue statements and policy
proposals.
We probably are not surprised that both candidates express a
commitment to education in their issue statements. Nothing new
there. Each also expresses concern for policies to protect the
environment. In some manner, each wants to encourage economic
development. To varying degrees, the candidates spell out a
concern to develop an urban policy that recognizes the fiscal
and infrastructure needs of urban areas. Posthumus' issue
papers include two paragraphs that urge “making Detroit the
best that it can be.” Granholm's web site offers four-plus
pages of an “urban plan” recognizing our cities as “centers of
jobs and culture, and ...neighborhoods [that are] home to
thousands of hard-working families.” This focus on the need
for urban policy is new and long overdue in spelling out
specific solutions to longstanding problems.
Remarkably, during the primary season, we were offered a
couple of rare and challenging policy solutions to address
very real short-term budget and fiscal problems. Sen. Joe
Schwarz (R-Battle Creek) and U.S. Rep. David BONIOR (D-Mt.
Clemens) were explicit in their advocacy for a “pause” in the
scheduled rollback of the single business tax and the income
tax rates. Try to remember the last time you heard
gubernatorial candidates arguing in advance of the election
that the budget is in such bad shape. Try to remember the last
time candidates said that the state can not afford to continue
a pattern of expanded tax cuts without dire consequences. This
is certainly the first time we have heard this kind of policy
proposal at least since the temporary income tax increase
early in the Gov. James Blanchard administration. Anytime a
candidates suggest we postpone tax cuts, it's a new policy
proposal or solution. Although both advocates of this policy
proposal identified it as a short-term solution, it did
elevate the state's financial crisis as a key policy question
openly to be debated. Unfortunately, the proposal did not
appear to attract many fans and, so far, has not led to
long-term solutions.
The budget crisis, however, remains and should be a major
issue of debate during the general election campaign. Even if
the remaining candidates wish to avoid offering policy
responses to the budget deficit, the problem will not
disappear. There already are reports that state revenues are
coming it at lower than previously estimated levels. Gov. John
ENGLER, with his veto of funds for local government services,
justified his action by tying the budget questions to November
ballot proposals. This probably will not affect the debate
over the ballot proposals, but certainly will keep the budget
mess he leaves his successor before the eyes of voters. Even
though his veto was overridden, we can almost be certain that
the budget crisis will keep coming up as the campaign enters
the new fiscal year and more state services are reduced.
Michigan's budget debacle is not the result of proposals yet
to be voted on this fall and won't be resolved by our “yes” or
“no” votes on this fall's ballot proposals.
While all the primary candidates expressed concern for the
economy, only Posthumus advocated cutting taxes as a specific
major policy proposal. He advocated that the Legislature be
required to cast an extraordinary majority (three-fifths) vote
for any tax increase. On his campaign website, he tells us,
“This election is not about just holding the line on taxes.
It's about cutting taxes. My message is simple: `I'm going to
keep cutting taxes for working families. I'll make it harder
for politicians to raise taxes and if a new tax bill lands on
my desk, I'll veto it.'” There is nothing new in advocating
tax cuts.
Granholm's “Economic Plan” recognizes that “we find ourselves
with a $1 billion budget shortfall.” She acknowledges the need
to “hold the line on the number of state government jobs, and
cut 2 percent of the General Fund budget through reductions in
administrative and overhead costs.” She also proposes to reach
outside government to create a “Council of Economic Advisors”
to “provide objective guidance on economic issues.”
The Green Party also underscores the state deficit in their
policy discussion (migreen.org), acknowledging “official
estimates now put the state government's annual budget deficit
in the hundreds of millions of dollars.” They advocate, as a
matter of “fiscal and moral responsibility,” that “cutting the
state government deficit should begin with a repeal of the
exorbitant raise legislators accepted for themselves and other
top officials in 2001.” (migreens.org/press/or20424ahtm)
All of which is to suggest that the budget crisis will demand
proposals for solutions, probably beyond the tentative
proposals already articulated. The deepening budget problems
combined with pressures for saving needed services certainly
should raise this discussion to a prominent level in the next
couple months of campaigning.
The major party gubernatorial candidates and the Green Party
separated themselves from the Engler administration on
environmental protection issues, which isn't surprising. To
have the Republican candidates express their commitment, for
example, to clean water is new. It would, of course, be more
surprising to hear a candidate voice support for environmental
deterioration. We do notice, however, when their support
specifically includes a ban on directional drilling for oil
under the Great Lakes – a new Republican policy distinct from
that of Governor Engler. Lt. Governor POSTHUMUS spells out the
detail of his “Marshall Plan to improve water quality” by
“Maintaining the ban on directional drilling, stopping any new
underwater pipelines in the Great Lakes and calling on Canada
to get their drilling rigs out of the lakes.” Attorney General
GRANHOLM advanced a “Clean Water Forever Initiative” that will
“Enforce the ban on slant drilling for oil and gas under the
Great Lakes.” So the campaign already has assured a new policy
initiative to enforce a ban on directional drilling regardless
of who wins the November election. That's not more of the
same.
The national economic experience with corporate failure and
corruption and a precarious stock market, jeopardizing savings
and threatening retirement for thousands of Michiganians,
provoked new policy proposals from the major candidates that
most surely will be given greater attention in the general
election campaign. Attorney General Granholm, along with her
Democratic primary opponents, addressed the issue of pension
protection. It is unusual that a candidate for governor would
have a “Pension Protection Plan” designed, says Granholm, to:
improve corporate governance; secure workers' retirements;
demand managerial responsibility; toughen accounting
standards; crack down on corporate crime; work with other
institutional investors for change; improve transparency of
corporate books. This is a listing of new policy proposals
rising out of the current economic and political problems and
beginning to receive attention with suggested solutions. This
could easily become a focus of major interest in the general
election.
So far in this election season we do have the makings of a
real debate about new policies – new solutions to both ongoing
and new problems. Interestingly and importantly, it is the
interest of potential voters that will require candidates to
elaborate policy solutions. We'll hear proposals for pension
protections because citizens are worried about their
retirement. We'll hear proposals for challenging the budget
crisis because citizens are aware of the impact of budget
reductions. We'll hear specific environmental policies because
Michigan citizens are sensitive to environmental threats.
In short, if voters demand solutions, these are candidates
capable of offering them and effectively debating them. If
voters don't demand solutions, these candidates are also
capable of avoiding the issues.
|
