So would the Snyder pension taxes.

From Wiki

Romney worked to overhaul the state's financial and revenue structure, culminating in Michigan's first state income tax, and greatly expanded the size of state government.

Friday, Sept. 20, 1963

Michigan's Governor George Romney last week faced without flinching his state's tax mess. At the same time, he laid his political future on the line.

Romney appeared before a special session of the legislature to present a tax reform program that included a flat 2% personal income tax, a 3½% corporate profits tax, and a 5½% income tax on financial institutions. It was a tough plan and by no means popular. But upon its success or failure may rest Romney's chances for the G.O.P.'s 1964 presidential nomination.

Bluntly charging the often recalcitrant legislature to act,...

How much history does one need to learn that Progressives in the GOP will screw you?

I'm going YES on 5, and 6.  May go YES on 1.

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to limit the enactment of new taxes by state government.  (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 9, 2012.)

This proposal would add a new Section 26a to Article 9 of the State Constitution to read as follows:

Section 26a.  No new or additional taxes shall be imposed by the state government, nor shall it expand the base of taxation, nor shall it increase the rate of taxation unless:  (a) by the vote of two-thirds of all the elected members of each branch of the Legislature; or (b) by a statewide vote of Michigan electors at a November election.  This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this constitution.

. . . so that's that for that.  Reduction of state taxes still requires only a mere simple majority of the elected legislators present and voting (assuming a quorum in attendance), and those taxes protected under Headlee still are, and must therefore be put on the ballot for the state electorate to decide.  Raising taxes not protected under Headlee require a full 2/3 supermajority of each chamber, whether the individual legislators are "present and voting" or not.

As for the governerd's argument-in-opposition that:

"It means that special interest groups and even a small group of lawmakers could stop our ability to make the necessary policy changes we need in Michigan.  It means that it would be more difficult for us to pay for our schools, fix our roads, or make sure that our law enforcement officers have the tools they need to protect us.  Also, it will be viewed as negatively by bond ratings agencies which could raise our interest costs and make us look less attractive to job creators."

. . . well, that's just to goddamned bad for you, you progressive milquetoast pile of rhino dung.  How about you and your legislative cronies do what the hell you were elected to do, and actually make some substantive cuts in the actual waste in the state's budget.  Anything (program, executive agency, or whatever have you) that isn't a bona fide function of state government ought to have its budget zeroed out and its doors closed . . . period.  If you don't like that, then feel free to resign your office so we can replace your sorry ass with someone a bit more useful.