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 Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder discusses 2012 election and his stance on statewide ballot proposals

By Ryan J. Stanton

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to note that if Proposal 1 is approved, Public Act 4 would remain in effect and Michigan would continue to have its emergency manager law.

Michigan voters on Nov. 6 will decide on six statewide ballot proposals. Those deal with issues ranging from the state's emergency manager law to collective bargaining rights to renewable energy and a new international bridge from Detroit to Canada.

Gov. Rick Snyder is actively campaigning to defeat five of the six proposals. The only one he's in favor of is Proposal 1, which, if approved, would keep Michigan's emergency manager law.

Snyder sat down with on Monday to explain his positions on the proposals and discuss the 2012 election. It's campaign season and you don't have a re-election of your own to worry about. So tell me, how are you spending your time leading up to the election?

Snyder: There are a lot of important projects we have going in state government, so I continue to work on those as the top priority. In addition, one of the things I've been out doing a lot of is discussing the ballot proposals, really trying to help educate the public about it because there are so many misleading ads. It makes it very confusing. I just really encourage people to do their homework. Proposal 1 is a referendum on Public Act 4, the controversial emergency manager act you signed into law last year. What happens if the law is defeated? Will you take that as a message from the people of Michigan that they don't want the state interfering in local affairs?

Snyder: That's something that we'll just need to wait and see. I mean, that's a hypothetical. As a practical matter, Public Act 4 does a number of good things. It was an improvement. We've had an emergency manager law going back to Gov. Blanchard, Public Act 72.


Rick Snyder

Public Act 4 did two things. One is it put in an early-warning system so we can fully help avoid having an emergency manager, because I don't want to appoint one if I can help it. The second thing is it gave the manager more powers to get in and do their job, get done and get back out, because too often under Public Act 72 a manager could be there for an extended period of time. So I believe these are good improvements and we're seeing a positive impact from that. Proposal 2, which is being backed by labor unions, would enshrine in the state's constitution the right to collectively bargain. Why do you view this as a bad idea?

Snyder: It's really not about collective bargaining, in my view. I believe in collective bargaining. I've done it successfully twice with state employees. Federal law protects it in the private sector; state law protects it in the public sector. I call this the 'back in time' proposal because it would really take us back to a much more difficult economic environment. It would really say potentially 170 laws could be taken off the books, and just think about that. What amount of chaos would result simply in figuring out what laws are still around and what aren't? And how long might that take?

It also could be a huge cost increase for state and local government. We've done a lot of reforms to make things more comparable with the private sector and there are estimates that show this could cost more than $1 billion a year in additional costs to taxpayers. How much of this do you think is about the threat of right-to-work legislation? And would you sign right-to-work legislation if it came across your desk?

Snyder: I don't think this has anything to do with right-to-work directly. Again, this was about going back in time and essentially changing the rules to take 100-plus laws off the books that could go back to the '60s. I've been very consistent that I didn't want right-to-work on the table. Proposal 3 would require utility providers in Michigan to get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. That goes a step beyond the current standard of 10 percent by 2015. Proponents argue this would create jobs in clean energy and benefit the environment, and they argue new wind energy is cheaper than new coal. Are they wrong?

Snyder: Proposal 3 is terrible public policy for a couple reasons. One is we do have a 10 percent by 2015 standard and we're in the process of meeting that. But why don't we see how that continues to work out and really make a thoughtful assessment about what worked well with that, what didn't work well, how much it would cost to do the next steps, what are the values of the next steps?

Proposal 3 would embed the 25 by '25 standard in our constitution, which would be disastrous. For all those ads talking about other states having standards, those are all by statute. And one of the reasons you don't want it in your constitution is we lack federal energy policy. If you don't know what the federal government is going to do for the next 15-plus years, how are you going to be able to effectively build a standard that you're locked into? I'm a supporter of renewables as part of the portfolio, but let's do it in a thoughtful way that you can figure out how best to respond to a federal government that is erratic at best in terms of their federal energy policy. So would you support achieving the same goal of 25 percent by 2025 through legislative means?

Snyder: I can't say I would support that goal. I think we should have some new goal when we're done with the 10 percent by 2015, but I think that's when we should sit back and say what would be a good number and let's do it in statute and let's do it in a thoughtful, cost-efficient, scientific way. One of the ballot questions that's getting less attention is Proposal 4, having to do with in-home care workers. In your opinion, what are the implications here?

Snyder: If you look at the history of it and where the dollars came from to put that proposal on the ballot, it's really a case of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) trying to continue to collect $6 million a year from home health-care workers who are in many cases taking care of relatives. So essentially they're taking union dues away from a family that could otherwise use them to support their family. You're against Proposal 5, which would require that any future increases of the state tax rate or tax base be approved by either a two-thirds majority of the Michigan Legislature or a statewide vote. What are your main reasons for opposing this one? Do you have plans for further tax reforms that could trigger this requirement if written into the state constitution?

Snyder: This isn't just about tax increases. On the face of it, some people may think this is a good thing. But this really would impact many fashions of tax reform or actually tax reductions, because it talks about any increase in rate or base. To use one illustration, we would still have the Michigan Business Tax today, which I don't think anyone would want. That was a disaster. That didn't pass by a two-thirds margin, and this requirement would have applied because we replaced it with a 6 percent net income tax for corporations that was simpler, fairer and more efficient.

In terms of looking forward, I always hope to do better reforms, lower taxes for our citizens. I don't have anything immediately on the table. Proposal 6 is the big one we've all seen the ads about. A yes vote on this throws another hurdle in the way of building a second bridge to Canada by requiring local and statewide voter approval. Why not let voters have a say? Or is it more complicated than that?

Snyder: If you think about it, when have we ever said you need to go to a vote of the people for a bridge? Did we do that for the bridge over State Street here? No. This is part of a normal infrastructure investment and this is a case where this is a great opportunity that we had already done an arrangement with Canada where they're going to put up the money, so it's going to be Canadian investment paid for by tolls from the bridge. This doesn't actually require any Michigan taxpayer dollars, so you have to beg the question: If it doesn't require any Michigan taxpayer dollars, didn't require an appropriation through the Legislature, does it necessarily need to go to a vote of the people when it's just a project that's going to create a lot of jobs? Say that Proposal 6 does pass. What's the worst that could happen? Does this throw a significant hurdle in the way?

Snyder: It throws more lawsuits. And again, that doesn't help anyone. Wouldn't it be better if we got the bridge project going and actually started creating jobs? Because this is about 10,000 construction jobs and more importantly, long-term trade jobs that would be all throughout Michigan. So it's a great opportunity for Michigan, and the longer we delay, the likelihood is this project could end up going to New York, happening someplace else, and we'd lose that opportunity permanently. What are your predictions for the 2012 election as far as the state House goes? Are there any key races you're trying to lend a helping hand in?

Snyder: I'm trying to get around the state and make sure I'm communicating well what's gone on with the reinvention of Michigan, so it's not campaigning for candidates as much as really getting out there and talking about the progress we've made. We've a lot of progress, and that's why I encourage people to look at it. That's why I think it's important to maintain the Republican majority in the House. We've gotten a lot done, but our work isn't finished. The Democrats are trying to use to their advantage what's become known as 'Bolgergate,' the election scandal involving House Speaker Jase Bolger and Rep. Roy Schmidt. Do you think that's going to hurt the GOP's chances of keeping a majority in the House?


Check out the MLive Voter Guide

Snyder: I think it's an issue for those two individuals and people will make an assessment. I don't see why it should apply to any other representative or candidate running in the state. They weren't part of it. And in fact, Speaker Bolger has come out and apologized on the issue. If the Democrats do pick up the 10 seats they need to take back the state House, how do you see that impacting your agenda in the next legislative session?

Snyder: Again, it could slow down the reinvention of Michigan. We're making great progress now. We're the comeback state. I think that can be shown in several different dimensions, so I'm going to keep going and (a Democratic majority) could delay or stall that or take us backwards again. The Democrats are doing their best to remind voters of cuts in education funding that were made under your administration, including a 15 percent reduction for public universities. They're arguing those cuts were unnecessary and served to finance major tax breaks for businesses. Do you still think you made the right choices? And where do we go from here with education funding?

Snyder: Yeah, we made the right choices, because we had a $1.5 billion deficit and that's tough. We had to address that in some fashion, and in fact, when you look at our education overall, we cut K-12 much less than most any other field we had to cut, so we really prioritized education.

You keep on hearing people talk about 'education funding.' It's not about just spending money. I mean, that's the problem. It's not about spending money and just not about the adults. I'm focused in on the kids, the students. We have not done what we need to do in terms of student growth. So it's not about putting more money against something. It's actually designing a system to focus in on student growth, so our students can succeed. That's my top priority. The Democrats argue the cuts to K-12 and higher education have resulted in tuition increases and layoffs and larger class sizes. Are those outcomes you expected and are OK with?

Snyder: In terms of K-12, we only cut a couple percent, which was much less than we had to cut the whole budget. So that's dramatically different in terms of the way they explain it, so first they need to get their facts straight in terms of what the realities are. And secondly, if you look at it, we only had 17 percent of our kids come out college-ready from high school. That's a travesty.

And so spending more money to get it to 18 percent isn't the answer. It's more saying, how do we redo our system? Our goal should be 100 percent instead of adding just more money to a system that's not delivering the results the students deserve. I think we can do a lot more by being more efficient and coming up with ideas to deliver better results at a lower cost. You're nearing the end of your second year as governor. You have two more years starting Jan. 1. What are your latest thoughts on seeking another four-year term?

Snyder: There's a lot more I want to do, so I'm inclined to say I should keep going and that's the feedback I get from most people. I'm not formally announcing anything. You endorsed Mitt Romney in the U.S. presidential race. From your perspective, what does it mean for Michigan if Mitt Romney is elected versus Barack Obama?

Snyder: I think he would be a better choice. Washington is a mess. That's one thing everybody agrees on. The current Washington is unacceptable in terms of budgets, deficits, the need to pay down debt, and tax reform. Washington is one of the single-biggest things holding faster growth and better growth in Michigan back. In fact, I tell people we're the role model for what Washington needs to do. We've balanced our budget the fastest in 30 years, we're paying down our debt, we've reformed our tax system and we've got a lot of good things going on.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for Reach him at or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to's email newsletters.



Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.

I will be voting No on all but #1. I think they need to leave our Constitution alone! Check out the link below on Proposal #6 the comercials that have been running on TV are down right lies it has Nothing to do with "WE THE PEOPLE"

Randy Dieter

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.

I voted for Snyder for Governor. I think he is doing a good job. I think he knows what is best for Michigan. I will certainly pay attention to his comments when voting.

Kevin O'Rourke

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.

Proposal 3, Michigan's 25 x 25 renewable energy standard would help put the state on the right path to a clean energy future. The proposal would be an economic boon to the state as well, as local Michigan State University researchers have found that the Proposal will create thousands of jobs and result in $10.3 billion of new private investment in renewable energy projects. Additionally, Michigan has enormous renewable generation potential – especially for wind. According to a resource assessment from the National Renewable Energy Lab, wind could provide 160 percent of the state's current electricity needs. This potential has already drawn 5,000 construction and manufacturing jobs to the state. At the start of 2011, at least 31 businesses were manufacturing wind components, with another six announced. If Michigan wants to rebuild itself as a manufacturing powerhouse, there is no better way than encouraging the local development of renewable energy. A "yes" for Proposal 3 is a vote for new jobs, a cleaner environment, and a healthier Michigan.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

Wow, that's a major re-write. Headline was that Snyder was against all six proposals. Then article was re-written when it was pointed out that proposal 1 keeps the law in place, and the headline was redone. So did Snyder say he was against all of them, or was that just inferred incorrectly from his comments?

music to my ear

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.

I always love how already rich politicians ,make decisions about the tax payers money most retries have one foot out of the state of Mi already. leaving their money in Florida, or where ever they go for winter. we must try and protect ourselves as best we can.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 4:40 a.m.

I wish Snyder lost the election and the democrat candidate he ran against won instead. What WAS the democrat candidate's name anyway? I am sure whoever it was he or she was real visionary. A real up and comer. Someone the A2 dems could realy fawn over. Someone who could bring their own brand of Hope, Change, and federal handouts to Michigan. Let me know if anyone out there can remember the name.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.

Virg Bernero? What is he up to these days? If he debated Snyder, what could he have possibly offered? Championing the records of leading state democrtats Jennifer Granholm and Kwame Kilpatrick? I had no idea the lack of a debate turned the election in Snyder's favor.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.

oh,the man that Snyder avoided having debates with.....yeah I remember,Virg.

Basic Bob

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 9:41 a.m.



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 7:19 a.m.



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 1:48 a.m.

Snyder, "Proposal 2would really take us back to a much more difficult economic environment. It would really say potentially 170 laws could be taken off the books, and just think about that. What amount of chaos would result simply in figuring out what laws are still around and what aren't?" Oh, so now the anti-centralist, anti-big government Snyder is tell us that taking 170 laws off the books is a bad thing? What about the "chaos" those 170 laws is causing? Hmm? Seems there's some confusion on the actual issue: whether to give one side in the Eternal Battle between Management Types and Union Types any kind of edge. Basically, the record indicates that neither is entirely trustworthy or free of excessive self interest. But then it's so much more fun to spend the 4 weeks before the election confusing voters and obfuscating the real issues. We can't have, after all, anything as disastrous as an honest election.

Alex Franklin

Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:09 a.m.

The chaos that it causes is to send those 170 laws to be interpreted by the judicial branch of Michigan government. Let's get beyond the us v. them, management v. union, pub v dem that was indicative of the 20th century. Vote no on 2. It is a terrible law.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.

I am definitely voting no on Morooneys whacked out thought that our taxes will pay for it when Canada has already funded most of it to get it started once this hurdle is out of the way. I am voting no on all of it. Too much government and people trying to get our hands on our constitution. So no to any amendments.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:53 a.m.

I'm voting NO on proposal 1. We will still have an Emergency Manager law, the State will revert to Public Act 72. The HUGE difference between the old and the proposed act, for me, is that in the new proposal permits the Manager to abolish union contracts at will. The old law, PA72, allows the Manager to renegotiate the contracts. Which seems much fairer.

Alex Franklin

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.

Let's focus on the facts: FACT: No other state has a constitutional amendment like this. FACT: Between 100 and 170 laws will be invalidated because of the passage of 2. FACT: The Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Battle Creek Enquirer, the Livingston Daily County Press & Argus, the Michigan Sheriff's Assocation, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, and the Michigan Association of School Boards have come out against Prop 2. Join us against Proposal 2 in Michigan. Like us at No corporate funding, no attack ads, just concerned citizens that think this is a very bad amendment.

Alex Franklin

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.

Which bill was the "crush middle class" bill?

The Black Stallion3

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:19 a.m.

That horse is running dead last Tom

Tom Todd

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 11:10 p.m.

laws Snyder in-acted, to crush middle class folks, in Municipalities to gain more service contracts for the rich.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

A lot of negative things here about Snyder but nothing to back it up.....just gibberish.....I will vote "yes on 1" and "no on the rest".

Tom Todd

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 10:56 a.m.

I work, to support the 47%


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.

@BS3: Agree with your votes.

John Q

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.

Wait until next April when you get stuck with the tax bill from Snyder to pay for his business tax cut.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 11:58 p.m.

Are you willing to work TT or not?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.

Absolutely agree -- Yes on 1, no on all the others...

Tom Todd

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.

@BS3 Where are the JOBS

John Q

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

Snyder is the role model for Romney. Snyder cut taxes for businesses while he raised taxes on the middle and working class taxpayers of Michigan. He also cut funding for education and local communities. A President Romney would do the same at the federal level. Too bad that Ryan didn't call Snyder out of his sleight-of-hand attempt to justify raising taxes and cutting funding by using the excuse of the state's deficit but he still managed to find even more than that amount for a tax cut for businesses.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 5:27 a.m.

Michigan was ranked at the absolute bottom for tax favorability to small businesses due to the tax structure. Would you want to start a business here under those circumstances? As you can see, few do.

Tom Todd

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.

voting yes on 2! due to our reverse robin hood governor.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:59 p.m.

The governor & legislature were the impetus for these reactionary ballot proposals as the only measure to challenge their dictatorial agenda: Taxing retiree's pensions, eliminating tax credits, tax breaks to business CEO's, cutting school funding, back room behind-the-back bridge plans, under-cutting elected municipal governments, weakening worker's rights to bargain collectively - on & on. We are a government of all of Michigan's citizens, not an oppressive monarchy that only favors the privileged few.................


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 5:25 a.m.

How would you balance the budget?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.

Don't even think about messing with the CONSTITUTION!

Robert Gordon

Wed, Oct 31, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.

Why do you and others think our state Constitution is Holy? It was written in the 1960's, and been amended over thirty times. It is subject to being rewritten once every 16 years. Some of the Amendments have dealt with marriage law and tax issues; others have been for such minutia as to change "handicapped" to "disabled" in the 1990's I agree with the governor on 5 and 6, but he is a typical reactionary republican on 1 - 4.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.

Prop 6 is pushed, in all sorts of misleading ways, by the owners of the Ambassador Bridge (opened 1929), in order to head off the competition of a new bridge (which would be essentially free to Michigan, since the Canadians want it badly enough to pay the cost of building it). The wording of the proposal shows how overreaching it is. It would require both a statewide election and one or more local elections "before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels". Note the word "designing". If this passes, the state can't can't spend dollar one is considering the possible design of a new bridge, with first holding those elections. But of course how can you put something coherent in front of the voters without having thought about its design, location, etc., with the assistance of engineers, surveyors, lawyers, finance experts, etc.?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.

That was supposed to be: "the state can't spend dollar one IN considering the possible design of a new bridge, WITHOUT first holding those elections."


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:02 p.m.

Should anyone be surprised that the Republican Governor supports Republicans running for office? I agree with him about the bridge. Michigan taxpayers won't be paying for it, which is what the Moroun ads imply. The only thing Michigan taxpayers won't get is the toll receipts for several years, but we don't get them from private owner, Maroun anyway, so even that's not a loss to taxpayers. I think he underestimated the effects the education cuts had and may have misrepresented the ballot initiatives regarding union member protections.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.

At least Snyder has the guts to go against the legislators who have been bought by Matty Maroun. It's unbelievable that a billionaire can buy off the legislature so he can prevent the bridge the Canadians are going to fund for Michigan, just so he can build a second bridge next to his and maintain his monopoly. Vote "No" on Matty Maroun's Proposition 6. The Dems, Repubs, business, and labor all say vote "No" on billionaire Maroun's Proposition 6.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

I think the rush to add the proposals to the constitution has been in part a response to the irresponsible and radical behaviors of the current legislative body in Lansing. Too many bills have been rushed through into law with little public discussion. These bills have not necessarily reflected the will of the citizens of Michigan or are even in the best interests of Michigan overall. The Emergency Manager law needs to be repealed and taken back to the status it was prior to Gov. Synder's version. It goes too far, it prohibits our democratic processes and to date it does not seem to have been effective. Yes, there are cities in Michigan who have horrendous problems including the competency of the elected persons but this is not the way to solve the problems and they haven't. Union busting is a big time enterprise these days with lock outs, firings, moving jobs to china, etc. etc. Workers need somebody on their side and if it can only be attained through a constitutional amendment, then so be it. The other proposals also reflect the lack of trust in our current state administration except for the bridge proposal. I do agree with Gov. Synder on this one. This is a blatant example of moneyed special interests trying to compel our state to go against its best interests and the interests of Canada as well.

music to my ear

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

yes b Harding I soooooo know how she feels. at will workers, are basically told hey we are given you a job be grateful.but those pretty girls usually do not last long at a job, they get bored and move on. and they are usually not good workers, pretty or not, at will workers have no security. but then again, I have been union before and all they did for me was take my dues.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 1:28 a.m.

Cinnabar, Be careful what you wish for. My sister works in a non-union shop in South Carolina. Her seniority means nothing. She has to work nights and weekends while new hires, especially pretty ones, get their choice of shifts.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.

"Irresponsible and radical behaviors of the current legislative body." I cannot believe you would print that. You obviously have a computer. Look online for the states that have the best economic environment that are attracting jobs. You will see they have followed this course, many even further. You can write "Union busting" I call it job creation. Look up where auto factories are opening in the US. The EML is a far better process than the previous law or bankruptcy. To oppose it is silly. I always challenge anyone opposing it to offer up an alternative. No responds other than one brave individual who admitted he did not have an alternative, he just didn't like the law. That is going to really help cities who can recover with this law.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

seasons, I'm a union member and believe me the unions are only interested in protecting themselves. I've seen employees harassed for years, with only hand wringing from the union. The first chance I get I'm voting them out of my work place.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.

Don't like it, vote them out. Democracy....get your self some.

Top Cat

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.

The Special Interests over reached as they usually do and they will sink themselves on Nov 6. Because there are so many of these proposals, people smell a rat and will vote them all down.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.

That is why it's so unfortunate that Prop 1 was allowed to be worded the way it was.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.

Most importantly vote no on 2

Top Cat

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

Prop 3 is the most economically destructive as it locks us into inefficient and expensive energy.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.

Bravo. Finally someone with intelligence, who thoughtfully thinks through the ramifications. Not simple a "free ice cream for everyone mentality"...kind of like Democrats used to be in the 60's and 70's. Refreshing. And, we elect these officials to make decisions whether you agree or not. Why would we EVER want to put Union rights in our constitution? INSANE!


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.

Snyder's comments sound like they were written by the Romney/Ryan staff. Ask a straight forward question and he responds with a roundabout answer.


Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.

Fire Rick, I do not understand how your post is valid. So he does not answer the question, is that good or bad? Wouldn't you be more upset if he said, "Of course I would." Not saying he would means he has no opinion on it. Also to be trusted you have to source your post. Where did you get this from? If I can't read it myself I won't consider it a valid statement. So I looked it up. Contrary to what you post, he seems to think it is not appropriate: Personally, I would prefer he supported it. Like I have posted many times, the states doing the best economically (jobs) are doing just that.

Fire Rick

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.

Mick 52 - One example: Snyder was asked, "And would you sign right-to-work legislation if it came across your desk?" And Snyder responded, "I don't think this has anything to do with right-to-work directly. Again, this was about going back in time and essentially changing the rules to take 100-plus laws off the books that could go back to the '60s. I've been very consistent that I didn't want right-to-work on the table." Snyder has been asked repeatedly whether or not he would sign right-to-work legislation and he's NEVER directly answered the question. Since he already signed PA 53 (right-to-work for teachers only) on 3/16/12, I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't sign full-blown right-to-work if it crosses his desk.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 7:09 a.m.

It depends


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.

I think his answers are on spot. Please give examples of "roundabout" answers. Perhaps you just do not understand?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

Proposal 1 approves the 2011 law. Wouldn't Snyder want the proposal approved?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

As the retirees move out of state because of the pension tax who will baby sit the grand kids?


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 5:15 a.m.

To what state, Goodphotographer? Most states tax pensions. Those that don't can be counted on one hand. As to why some were exempted, it's because they had no chance to prepare for the taxes that are now being imposed. Their retirement was based on circumstances as they were at the time. Most have no way of returning to work. The youngest would be around 67, I believe.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.

If these proposals go other than what the Gov explains, a lot more people than those with taxed pensions will be leaving Michigan.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.

I feel special... they should change the rule for everyone not just younger/newest retirees. Check it out. Some got hit others did not. Depended on when you were born. What makes those that did not so special. I can only guess it's those who started getting pensions first?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:14 p.m.

excuse me? Anyone with a 401k is taxed already after retirement. Why wouldn't you pensioners be taxed as well? What makes you so special?

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.

There's a link to the actual ballot wording for all six proposals in the first sentence of the story

Stephen Landes

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.

Ryan -- Thanks for following up. Proposal language is often twisted to where yes means no and vice versa, so your revision is critical for public understanding.

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.

Thanks for the catch. The story has been corrected to hopefully make that clear.

Stephen Landes

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.

Yes, but the way you have worded the article you state that GOV Snyder opposes Prop 1. In order to uphold PA 4 we need to vote FOR Prop 1, right? Why are you writing that the Governor is opposed to all 6 proposals when he favors 1 and opposes 2 through 6?


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.

Snyder needs to be VOTED OUT!


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

Oh please. Like we should believe this NERD now. After all of his lies and his stealth campaign, his results based on radical right wing philosophies like Pledges in the schools, weigh ins while there, Emergency Managers allowing the voiding of contracts and other legal agreements, canceling Domestic Partner Benefits for State and local employees and their families while MANDATING autism coverage because his Lt Gov has a child with that disease, cuts to education, cuts to safety net programs, increased taxes on retirees incomes, etc. etc. PLEASE ... vote in a Democratic House to bring some balance back to Lansing in November !!!


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 7:05 a.m.

Michigan Republicans are against Obamacare Mandates, yet add an autism mandate to Michigan plans. The Lt Gov has a child with the disease. I believe it should be covered as it will be under ObamaCare, but I also see that Michigan Republicans are hypocrites on this issue of health mandates!

The Black Stallion3

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.

Some facts please Sparty.

Basic Bob

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 12:38 a.m.

Sparty, we know you're voting for the Democrats. That's not the issue. Unless you move to the red part of the state, your vote doesn't matter because nearly everyone here votes for the Democrats. We can vote 100% for Democrats, and still only send ONE State Rep and ONE Senator. This is not a political position, it is reality. It doesn't help that we send Democrats who are too busy posturing to be of any value expressing our needs and views. But it makes for great Youtube video. Please consider the values of these proposals, they are far more important than your "Straight Party Ticket" ballot.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.

Please tell us one lie. Also explain the facts of how you know that the mandated autism coverage is due only to the Lt Gov's child.


Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.

The headline is misleading, and it would have been useful to include the actual ballot wording. Proposal 1 requires a 'yes' vote in order to keep PA 4.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 5:18 a.m.

Why so many errors on This one is substantial.


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 5:02 a.m.

Why so many errors on This one was substantial.

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Oct 15, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

It's been fixed. Thanks!