You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:59 a.m.

Ann Arbor officials fear possible cuts to revenue sharing as Snyder delivers budget proposal today

By Ryan J. Stanton

Ann Arbor officials are bracing for major cuts in state revenue sharing as Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder lays out his executive budget recommendations today.

Tom Crawford, Ann Arbor's chief financial officer, said early on Wednesday the word in Lansing was that Snyder's budget could include up to a 40 percent cut to the statutory portion of revenue sharing — the portion that the Legislature has discretionary control over.

For Ann Arbor, that would mean a $760,000 cut on top of the $5 million the city already has lost over the last decade, Crawford said.


Rick Snyder

"It's pretty significant," he said. "We're nervous. Though, it's speculation at this point. We really have to wait and see."

However, The Detroit News is reporting Snyder is expected to announce a 33 percent cut in statutory revenue sharing. That's according to Snyder's director of strategy, Bill Rustem.

Rustem told the News that, under Snyder's proposal, the state would distribute $200 million in statutory revenue sharing to cities, villages and townships. That's down from nearly $300 million.

It's also expected that governments would have to compete for that money by showing they can consolidate services and reduce employee costs — something Snyder hinted at in his State of the State address last month.

Snyder will present his executive budget to the Legislature at 11 a.m. today. The Senate will stream the presentation at

Snyder's budget is aimed at eliminating a $1.4 billion deficit while at the same time financing $1.8 billion in business tax cuts, the News reported.

It's expected Snyder will recommend cutting state aid to public schools by another $300 per student, in addition to the $170 per-pupil cut enacted this year.

Meanwhile, public universities would receive 15 percent less from the state, but $83 million would be set aside to be shared with those that kept tuition increases at 7 percent or less. Community colleges would get the same $296 million they're getting now.

Even without additional revenue sharing cuts, Ann Arbor already is facing a $2.4 million deficit for the fiscal year starting July 1. Deep cuts are expected in police and fire.

"It just adds to the problems that all Michigan cities are facing," Mayor John Hieftje said of further cuts to revenue sharing.

Hieftje noted that Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero is advocating a 4-mill property tax increase as his city struggles with declining revenues and a $15 million deficit.

Hieftje doesn't plan to ask Ann Arbor voters to do the same.

"My goal is to make it through the recession without a tax increase," he said. "Anything that we did wouldn't help us in this budget anyway."

Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber said Wednesday afternoon he hadn't heard any rumors about Snyder's budget, but more cuts to statutory revenue sharing would hurt greatly. He commented on the early speculation of a 40 percent cut.

"Over half our revenue sharing is statutory, which is about $1.6 million, so 40 percent of that would be $640,000," he said. "We'd be looking at a 5 percent cut on top of the 10 to 12 percent reduction we're already seeing in property tax reductions. So it's piling on."

Snyder hinted in his State of the State address last month at rewarding jurisdictions that consolidate services. It's expected he'll announce details in March about how revenue sharing might be distributed competitively among communities.

Kirk Profit, a consultant who lobbies on behalf of Ypsilanti Township and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti in Lansing, said he's going to wait and see what Snyder proposes today.


"If it's shared sacrifice, then fine. Everybody can share," he said. "But the question is — are we sharing equally or is somebody carrying a bigger burden?"

Profit noted many communities across the state are stressed financially and further cuts to urban communities could have devastating consequences.

"You have to look at where statutory revenue sharing goes. It goes to pretty much the urban core," he said. "The question is — why would you devastate the urban core?"

Profit noted nearly $180 million of the state's statutory revenue sharing goes to the city of Detroit. Rustem told The Detroit Free Press that the city will have to get tough about legacy costs and end some of its current practices related to pensions and health care.

In addition to revenue sharing, local governments face further threats from business tax proposals coming out of Lansing. The Senate Finance Committee is debating legislation that would eliminate the personal property tax that businesses pay on equipment.

Snyder's budget is not expected to deal with that issue, but his administration has said the tax needs to be repealed because it makes the state less competitive. It's estimated that local governments could lose as much as $800 million if that happens.

In Washtenaw County alone, it could mean the loss of $45 million to $50 million, including $6 million used to run county government, said Raman Patel, the county's equalization director.

"You're talking about a big loss," Patel said. "And it's not just the county — cities and townships, they all depend on that, too."

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for Reach him at or 734-623-2529.


John Q

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.

"I want Michigan to be a productive state, not a state that acts as a parasite and transfers money to entrenched interests such as state workers." This is pretty funny. I'll give Snyder credit for highlighting how the tax system is set up to reward those who have with tons of exemptions and completely exclusion from paying tax on income and property. We'll see how many Republicans support the elimination of these tax breaks.

John Q

Sat, Feb 19, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.

"You would be correct that all income earners in the state pay a fixed tax rate. BUT higher earner pay more as a gross amount. " Nice dodge. According to you, the millionaire paying 4.25% pays more in taxes than the person with a $40,000 income earns in a year so I should feel sorry for the millionaire? Please. Individual income taxes only account for 45% of the total federal budget. The percentage is so high for those in the top percentile because they have the highest percentage of wealth. Over the past 30 years, their share of the total income has soared while the working and middle class have watched their shares fall. But we're supposed to feel bad for the rich. Right.


Sat, Feb 19, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.

John Federal Money was used to plug the State budget hole last year. Federal Money permeates through the state budget. You would be correct that all income earners in the state pay a fixed tax rate. BUT higher earner pay more as a gross amount. The federal govt. collects money through FICA, Medicare etc. The operating budget and services are paid through income tax (and massive loans from countries like China). The top 10% of earners pay for 70% of these services. The top 25% of earners pay for 86% of these services.

John Q

Sat, Feb 19, 2011 : 4:50 a.m.

Please pay attention. We're discussing the state tax system. As for your claim about federal taxes - it's wrong. The federal government doesn't operate on federal INCOME taxes alone.


Sat, Feb 19, 2011 : 4:10 a.m.

Well you would be wrong. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of federal taxes. Please explain where the breaks are.. Thus a small minority of people shoulder the burden to pay most of the federal services. that all benefit from.

John Q

Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.

"People earned the money in the first place. It was not given to them. You act as if people are entitled to the money that other make." Who said that? I pointed out that the tax system is set up to provide the maximum number of breaks to those who have the most money, contrary to what was claimed.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

State workers should be at will employees. (just like private companies) They can leave when the want and the state should be able to le them go when it makes sense. They should not be "entitled"to jobs no matter "WHAT"

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

braggslaw, I agree in part. But state workers earned what the state agreed to just as much as anyone else. It seems that it is Snyder (and the right wing generally) that views shaking down the people who actually run government as a money tree. That said, Snyder is basically acting like a Clinton Democrat. I'm not saying things would have been much different with a Dem in office.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

People earned the money in the first place. It was not given to them. You act as if people are entitled to the money that other make. There is no magical State money tree that we can shake when we need to fund state govt. That money comes from real people paying a fixed %.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

The state of Michigan should be declared a state of emergency. The last thing we need is cuts and municipality job cuts. We elected Snyder to create jobs. WE NEED JOBS, JOBS AND JOBS. NOW NOW NOW.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

@braggs Yeah, I guess. Only the USA gives away it's natural resources to corporations. All Canadians collectively own their resources and the Canadian government legally controls and has domain over those resources. Here in the USA we give our natural resources away for pennies on the dollar to corporations who rape the land, pay little if any taxes, then take the profits and put them out of reach of the rightful owners of those resources.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.

The mineral resources that lie under the privately owned property in Canada are regarded as the property of the crown. That is spelled out in the Mineral Resources Act of every province and denies private property owners the right to the resources that lie under their land. The crown asserts a right to sell those mineral rights to persons other than the landowner and without advising private landowners of its intentions in this regard. Landowners who live west of Ottawa recently became aware of this after they discovered prospectors' markings on their property. They discovered that they did not own the resources under their land and had little recourse under Canadian law to keep outsiders off their land. I find it interesting that the state can sell the mineral rights out from under a private land-owner.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.

At almost ten million square kilometers, Canada is the second largest country in the world and home-base for 60 percent of the world's mineral exploration and mining companies. Canada leads the world in gold, nickel, copper and an additional 14 of the 60 commodities produced in 115 communities across the country. In 2005, more than C$1 billion was spent by companies in search of new Canadian mineral deposits. In most cases, mineral rights may be purchased or leased from the Crown. If the Crown holds mineral rights to your real estate, a prospector may stake a claim on these rights. Prospectors have an obligation to negotiate an agreement with the surface rights owner who may set some of the terms and negotiate the amount of royalty, but does not have the right to refuse permission for oil or mineral exploration and extraction.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.

The same place you get yours... out of thin air. LOL! In Canada, property owners do not have mineral rights to what lies beneath their property. The Canadian government, acting in the interests of its citizens, control all mineral rights in Canada, even those under private property. We all know that that is not the case in the US. If you don't believe me, find the "facts" that support your own argument.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.

The canadian govt. is selling their interests in mining companies. (due to conflicts inefficiencies etc.) As one example the primary shareholder of Petro-Canada is Capital Research and Management. Petro-canada employs people, invests capital etc. just like any other business in the world. Where are you getting your facts?


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

Canada's wealth is based on it's gift of natural resources. Oil, Coal etc. They simply draw money out of the ground. The U.S. and Canada have similar Median (not mean) incomes in the neighborhood of $50,000. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.

oops Top 25% pay 86%


Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.

So let's update the numbers The top 1% pay 38% of the taxes The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes The top 35% pay 86% of the taxes This about dollars and income. I will simply point out that the top 10% of people are paying to take care of the super majority of people. Defense, Federal Programs, etc. are financed by a very small minority of people. The people who use federal services are being subsidized by the top income earners. When we talk about &quot;our&quot; tax dollars, we are talking about the tax dollars of the top 25% of earners as the bottom 50% do not pay in.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.

What is there to Admit? The Canadian govt. collects a small royalty on the mineral rights from a private company. The company invests capital and I assume there is a return on capital. The Company pays its employees who pay income taxes. People get taxed on their income taxes at a higher rate than the U.S. Canada is not Shangri-La, I have no idea what our point is. Is it that the small royalty collected by the Crown is somehow evenly distributed to its population? That small royalty is dwarfed by the capital investment of the company, salaries that the company pays out, and of course profits earned by the company. the key is economic activity and the wealth created by the enterprise, not the small royalty. I guess I don't understand this Shangri-la of the north.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.

What braggslaw doesn't know or want to admit is that the Canadian government taxes those resources when they are removed from the earth and uses that money to support ALL it's citizens, not just the CEO's and corporate shareholders. This is completely different from the USA who gives away land and tax breaks to speculators so they can enrich themselves with our nation's natural resources that are owned by all of us.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.

Semper fi For the benefit of everyone? 1. The Canadian govt. sells the rights from under you to a private company. 2. That company drills on your land (does not need your permission) 3. That company generates profits from the rights it bought from the Canadian govt. and pays its profits in dividends to its stockholders. It does not sound that different from the american system other than private land-owners can't prevent tractors from showing up on their property


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.

@semper fi My point exactly.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

So, explain why the natural resources of the state and nation shouldn't belong to every citizen, instead of those that already have the resources to extract them. The reason Canada has profited from it's natural resources is because they are considered to belong to everyone and the wealth from them is disbursed throughout the population.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.

Well Rusty, I was born lower middle class... and all I could see was opportunity in this country. My sibling who worked hard are doing great, the ones that were lazy are doing horrible. That is America.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

I guess we just see things in a fundamentally different way. Where you see &quot;picking winners and losers,&quot; I see equality of opportunity through guaranteed quality health and education and retirement. I feel that in the U.S., we effectively pick winners and losers based on one's parents. If you're born into an upper class family, you'll be fine. If you're born to a poor one, you might still do well, but the chances are much lower. Increasingly the &quot;middle&quot; class is being pushed downward, not upward. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the general trend. Interestingly, in Canada, even the majority of conservatives do not question the legitimacy of their social programs.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.

So, Canadian natural resources good for Canadians, but Canadian Health Care, at least partially funded by corporate taxes on those natural resources... bad?


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.

Disagree with your metric argument. The cost of capital is lower in the U.S. and the cost of starting a business is lower. I also dislike the &quot;nanny&quot; state in Canada which picks winners and losers. Canada because of its vast natural resources will be fine into the next century but after that they will need to start baking the bread. I would much rather be in the U.S. than Canada. If people like Canada they should feel to emigrate. Per Capita GDP in the U.S. is much higher than Canada. What that says (including the median income measurement) is that there are more rich people in the U.S. but the average person in both countries makes the same amount of money.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.

And I'm not arguing Canada is perfect or anything silly like that. Just--pretty indisputably according to virtually every international metric--that they have a much higher quality of life than we do. We have more really really rich people, but the average person there is undoubtedly better off.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.

Yes, but Canada and the US have chosen to use their respective wealth much differently. There is no inherent connection between natural resources and just economy (just ask the Arabian Gulf states).


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.

Don't the taxpayers pay for the state govt.? (and of course the salaries and benefits for state workers) Don't the taxpayers have a right to determine what the taxes are used for? I for one want to reduce the cost and number of state workers. I don't think the state can afford you. Didn't the taxpayers/voters elect Snyder and give him the direction to cut state govt.? Snyder won by a landslide, he is simple executing the will of the (super) majority of people. I want Michigan to be a productive state, not a state that acts as a parasite and transfers money to entrenched interests such as state workers.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.

How did Obama get linked to the state budget discussion? If you would like to discuss Obama we can start a separate thread. We are talking about state govt., taxation etc. Don't try to change the discussion because you have lost the argument.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.

When you tell us that Snyder won the election by a &quot;landslide&quot; you fail to recognize that President Obama won by a similar &quot;landslide&quot;, yet you fail to give Obama his due while lauding Snyder as Michigan's savior. The people spoke in 2008, Obama won by a landslide and yet people fight him tooth and nail, condemning everything Obama does to help our nation out of the Republican created economic devastation. if you want to claim Snyder won by a landslide and deserves cooperation, then you have to admit that Obama won similarly and deserves the same respect and cooperation.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.

So somehow all this money forces people to vote against their interests? The most pivotal governor's race in decades was one by Snyder (in a landslide). I believe human beings voted in this election. I assume that you are saying that these voter were under the control of the corporations and were voting against their interests? Good for you.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.

It got changed in the SCOTUS Citizens United decision that allows unlimited amounts of undocumented corporate donations to candidates and PACS. Do you really think that your measly $100 personal donation has as much influence as million $$ corporate donations? Corporations vote every day with their unlimited secret donations that buy influence and dominate the airwaves and the debate. We're only allowed one vote in the booth every couple of years.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.

How did Obama get involved with the Michigan budget?


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.

Yet you fail to give President Obama his due after winning an election with the highest national turnout ever, beating McCain by almost 10 million votes, more than 8% of the total.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.

when did one man.. one vote get changed in the constution? Last I looked Snyder won by an enormous landslide.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.

The SCOTUS has essentially put corporations on the same constitutional footing as citizens. Our social, legal and political systems, by way of highly paid lobbyists, influence legislators to pass laws favoring business and corporations over the interests of people. The deck has long been stacked in favor of business. There is no balance.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:41 p.m.

Bug, you have the bill of rights on your side. Go and argue your points in the arena of ideas. I don't agree with you but others might.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.

I guess that doesn't include &quot;entrenched&quot; corporate interests. Nah, nothing like that... LOL!

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.

Meanwhile, 50 miles to our east, they enjoy retirement security, strong, free public education and health care, and an unemployment rate 2.5% lower than here. How are we so different from Ontario? Let's stop pretending a good quality of life for all is a silly dream. It's been done, over and over. Just not here. Why not? Why do we keep squeezing the poor and working class for the screw ups of the rich?


Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.

I guess I would replace privilege with hard work And the question of fairness is relative. I am simply pointing out that &quot;our tax dollars&quot; are really the tax dollars of a small minority of people . Those few people pay for the services that everyone uses. You can decide on the fairness and the motivation to succeed or punish those who succeed through grit, hard work and vision .

Stupid Hick

Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 3:39 a.m.

In America, the top 20% control more than 80% of the country's resources. Is it not fair for the rich to pay proportionally more to sustain the system that recognizes and protects their privilege? This should be simple enough for even the stupidest of hicks to understand: if you have two acres and I have eight, is it fair that you should pay half the total cost of police, fire, water, and other services that protect and sustain all ten acres?


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.

80% of the taxes collected by the federal govt. are paid by the top 20% of earners 45% of people do not pay federal taxes. So I ask... who is really paying for the services for everyone?

Atticus F.

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.

No we dont want things we didn't earn bragslaw...We want to live in a society in which the working poor and middle class are not paying bearing the brunt of the tax burden. And where basic human needs are taken care of for people who are unable to take care of themselves.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.

sounds like you want things you did not earn for yourself.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:38 p.m.

But I want to live in this country. I just want this country to be better for everyone.

Atticus F.

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.

He shouldn't have to cinnabar... Our leaders should be seeking the same prospreity for us.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.

You are free to relocate.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.

Snyder's like the school yard bully. It's easy to intimidate and hurt the weak and poor. It's easy to get money from the defenseless. It takes a real leader to bite the hands that feed them. Everyone should sacrifice, but like all Republican politicians, he's too busy kowtowing to his benefactors and golf buddies. Snyder's budget is cowardly.

John Q

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.

&quot;Mr. Snyder is demonstrating responsible leadership that is long overdue in Michigan and sadly lacking from our President.&quot; Typical Republican talking point. The President has shown more responsibility than any Republican in Washington DC. The Republicans talking today about reigning in the deficit are the same ones who voted for fantasy world budgets where war time spending and Medicare benefits were funded by adding to the national deficit.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

I think the budget proposals I have heard are well balanced and rational. When the majority of your population begins to reach 65 and no longer pays in ,but uses the most services, readjustment is necessary. I am getting old so I don't have a problem with this. Michigan needs businesses and middle aged productive workers... we have seen a tremendous migration of both from the state. I don't want to leave my children and grand-children with my generation's debt. It is immoral. Let's stop fighting over the crumbs and start baking the bread.

Atticus F.

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.

Florida seems to be getting by, and they have alot more retirees per capita than us.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!! We've got to stop them—SOMEHOW!!!


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

The Nerd doesn't have the guts to spread the pain to his rich buddies and corporate sponsors. I'll start to believe in his plans when he steps up to the plate and asks for sacrifice from rich people and corporations instead of going after the least powerful and the poor in Michigan


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.

I am very excited that my wife and I will pay taxes on our meager pensions so that Mr. Snyder can give tax breaks to businesses. The idea to shift the tax burden from businesses to senior citizens is a long time coming. The only thing I'm disappointed that Mr. Snyder didn't propose was a plan to make Michigan a leader in the production of soylent green.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

&quot;disappointed Mr. Snyder didn't propose a plan for making Michigan the leader in production of soylent green&quot; Well hang on... that might be his next start up business once his term in office is over. He's laying the foundation now.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.

Crawford:&quot;Snyder's budget could include up to a 40 percent cut to the statutory portion of revenue sharing — the portion that the Legislature has discretionary control over.&quot; Crawford's fear-producing statement ignores that most of the revenue sharing payments to Ann Arbor are required by the Michigan Constitution, and will continue. The 40% cut refers to the small portion of funds that is discretionary with the legislature. These discretionary cuts were expected long ago. There are no surprises here. The only true surprise is that the city keeps funding unneeded capital projects such as Fuller Station . . . or frivolous projects such as folly fountains.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.

Compassionate Conservative. <a href=""></a> This man will now receive a 100% tax increase for staying in Michigan to give his money to corporate Michigan in tax cuts.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

Start a graduated income tax. People who make more than 3 times the median wage in the state should pay a higher tax rate. They can afford it, and I'm sick of all of the pain falling on the working class and schoolchildren.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

No one quoted in the article has seen the budget, no one has agreed to any provision in the budget. So all of this is speculation. Gov. Snyder said he would restructure revenue sharing to encourage consolidation, that is all we know for sure. Once his budget is presented, then we have the house and the senate in Lansing that get their shot and the lobbyists too (including all the union paid lobbyists). We have no clue right now what the budget will look like. Only rumors. I for one can wait a couple of days to get the actual budget. Then I will read it for myself.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

Bruno - The unions don't have anything to do with the lack of consolidation. In fact we have worked hard on coming up with a good plan. The problem is that when you send an AA fire engine to Ypsi to fight a fire and then that AA fire engine is needed back in its area it can be real bad. Why would a fire engine that AA tax payers be tied up in ypsilanti and then be unable to respond to calls that the people that actually pay for it.

zip the cat

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.

Its a proposal,his so called wish list. Nothing is agreed upon and will probably will not. Not many elected officals going to vote on taking away from seniors,if they want to stay in office


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:24 p.m.

Everyone knows that things need to change in Michigan. However, I cannot support reducing funding to the citizens of Michigan when one of the first thing Gov. Synder did when he was in office was increase the salaries of people in his cabinet such as Mike Finney. Now I know that increasing their salaries by a few thousands relative to a billion dollar deficit is pennies, but it doesn't look good and does not compel me to truly get on board with &quot;reinventing&quot; Michigan. In addition to taxing pension and reducing salaries of state employees, reduce the salaries of your friends (i.e. Mike Finney) in your cabinet, then maybe...we can talk.

Dr. Rockso

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.

Tricky Rick is a thief in the night robbing almost ever working and old person in the state to pay off his rich friends.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.

And were do you think the money is coming from? Let me tell you, we are stealing it from our kids and grand kids. But I guess stealing from kids is OK with you?

Top Cat

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.

Mr. Snyder is demonstrating responsible leadership that is long overdue in Michigan and sadly lacking from our President.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

&quot;Hieftje noted that Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero is advocating a 4-mill property tax increase as his city struggles with declining revenues and a $15 million deficit.&quot; Unbelievable, just after posted today that hundreds of more homes are in foreclosure in Washtenaw county and another 30 million dollars in unpaid taxes has hit us. Thank God the Rickster won and not Bernero. I get on my knees every night , thankful that Mr. Snyder is attacking these issues. I could not be happier or more hopeful for a new beginning for this state . Get the lipo machine out and cut the fat. Good Day No Luck Needed


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.

consolidation still being dangled 20 years after it was suggested that communities start doing...ahhhh unions, when will you come to your senses.


Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.

yeah!!! its like a snow day for us Michiganders who are not teachers and have been waiting for the broken system to find solutions. Cut, cut cut!!!!