Confused State House Voter
Guest Opinion
I am trying to understand the facts to base my vote on for our District 103 Traverse City State House race, but I am totally confused. Maybe some of you can help me out.
It has been said that the top three issues for the 103rd district voter should be fighting inflation, bringing back jobs, and education freedom. Let’s take a closer look.
Starting with fighting inflation. State legislatures have the power to only affect state-funded initiatives. By law, they are required, with the governor, to balance the state budget every year, unlike the federal government, which has the ability to print money and manage the national money supply—hence their ability to choose (both parties are guilty here for many years) to run deficits and spend more than they collect.
A state legislator’s job is to prioritize the spending of the state funds based on what they believe their constituents believe the money should be spent on. If you don’t agree with how your legislator is allocating the state funding, it is your choice to vote them out. For the most part, I am fine with the current prioritization of state spending.
It is important to note that the state government has no significant tools at their disposal to “fight inflation” at the consumer level. Yes, they could lower the state tax on gasoline, or lower the state sales tax, but then they would need to reduce services somewhere in state spending. That would be decreasing spending on road repair, education, law enforcement—the list can go on and on.
So how can a State House Representative fight inflation? Some say that it is by “rebuilding our economy and restoring prosperity in our state.” What does that mean? How would that be accomplished? As a critical thinker, I have difficulty understanding these vague election year platitudes.
Let’s move to the second, bringing back jobs. I have heard it said that excessive government rules and regulations keep businesses, entrepreneurs, and communities from moving forward. What are specific excessive rules and regulations? Environmental rules? How well did those PFAS environmental rules work? How about those Flint Water rules?
My point is that smart government regulations are the guardrails of capitalism, so that companies—big ones down to startups—create safe and effective products, as well as pay their employees livable wages and provide safe work environments. I would argue that we need more, not less, smart regulation.
Under the current model practiced, states are competing with each other by enticing businesses to relocate because they have less environmental regulation (and associated costs) and lower labor costs (because they have lower investments in working class education, healthcare, and so on). This is not a long-term success strategy. Let’s focus on attracting the smart businesses to Michigan and leave the others for those states not investing in environmental protection, healthcare, education, etc.
Let’s now talk about education freedom. This is almost always code for implementing education voucher programs. Private/religious and homeschool families have been arguing for years that a portion of their state taxes go to paying for local public schools and they should have the freedom to use this money in ways other than funding public schools that they do not participate in.
This is fundamentally wrong as it relates to the founding principles of the United States. Thomas Jefferson believed only educated citizens could make the American experiment in self-government succeed. He proposed, fought for, and helped establish a system of broad, free, public education that was radical in his day, but he understood this to be critical in providing equal opportunity for all to achieve their personal dreams.
If those with their own specific personal and religious beliefs or those who have the excess wealth to send their children to private schools are interested in sending their children to schools other than public schools, they are currently free to do so. But they do not have the right to weaken public education by breaking this societal promise.
I say let’s over invest in public education so we raise the overall bar for all who seek education. Isn’t that what we should always be doing in life: clearing the bar, then raising it again, continually striving to get better? Let us all learn together in the same institutions so we help one another get better as a society. I believe educational vouchers will weaken our educational system over time and further a societal class divide.
Let’s stop falling for these vague platitudes by candidates designed to rile up false anger and divide us. Let’s demand specific, concrete proposed actions that move our state forward from all our candidates seeking to represent us in Lansing.
Richard Robbins is a recently retired resident who grew up in the Detroit area. He and his wife Barbara have lived all over the United States before selecting Traverse City for its beauty, culture, bike trails, and walkability.