Bejebus! Our Proposal 1 inbox is Smoking Hot This Morning

A reader sends this juicy morsel from Paul Egan a few days ago.

STOP-167■ Allow cities whose transit services carry more than 10 million passengers per year, which includes Detroit, to spend up to 20% of its share of Michigan Transportation Fund money on transit, rather than city roads and streets.

■ Add language to allow the Michigan Transportation Fund to receive money from any source, not just fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.


GasTaxRegistrationFreesHikeCan one say Regional Transit Authority? Us well-informed readers sure can. Matter of fact, there is a Tag for that, and we here will allow the missed it by 4% registration fee hike to remain in this Tag, here.

But, back to that RTA… isn’t it nice of the movers and shakers within SEMCOG to provide means of special assessments and property tax hikes by statute for the ongoing bailout of Wayne County? Gee, all of Michigan should thank, slick Rick and Lt. Calley, for that, no?

OABTW, did I happen to mention that I had the opportunity to shake hands with our beloved Republican governor on St. Patty’s Day? True story.

I was at a local convenience store reaching for my wallet and accidentally intercepted Snyder’s hand.
CamachoSnyderBecause every president really needs a *Smart Guy™*…

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(2)

  4 comments for “Bejebus! Our Proposal 1 inbox is Smoking Hot This Morning

  1. March 20, 2015 at 11:37 pm


    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Sue Schwartz
    March 22, 2015 at 7:53 am

    DANGER--DANGER--DANGER!!!!!!!! This whole scheme is a bait and switch to fund corporate welfare--taketh lots from the poor (and yes us middle class are the new poor) and giveth to corporations--and we'll throw in a bone to fund tax credits for welfare recipients--Tax credits on money we already fund. Has anyone noticed that the proposed amount to be generated in Prop 1-15, mirrors the amount now due an owing for the tax incentives (corporate welfare) Granholm gave out?

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Corinthian Scales
      March 22, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      Some of that but, it's really about the RTA, bond issues and that airport. Lose focus on the personalities and the Party's blend together.

      Just sayin'...

      You Betcha! (4)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. Jim Fuscaldo
    March 24, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    In the financial world leveraging of assets is a common practice to raise capital. Capital is what the state needs to fix the roads. The state has several significant assets in Interstates 94 and 69 that are part of the NAFTA superhighway. This is a planned project for MDOT. Interstate 96 is another significant asset. The legislature must evaluate leasing these assets to a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to raise capital to fund a permanent and protected “capital fund” for necessary road repairs throughout the state. We need leaders in Lansing with experience in creating complex financial partnerships to propose legislation permitting the use of PPP’s in Michigan.
    Twenty-four states have enacted legislation to allow PPP’s. Michigan has not. In 2009 House Bill 4961 was introduced to authorize MDOT to enter into PPP’s. It failed for good reason. It was built on the old model of pledging future toll revenue against debt secured by bonds. Lansing must divorce itself from the outmoded model that taxation and bond debt is the only way to fund government transportation responsibilities.
    There should be legislative efforts to call for a thorough unbiased financial and economic evaluation conducted by independent analysts of road PPP’s implemented in other states and foreign countries. This analysis should include a comparative review of all current models of PPP’s. The Pew Center on the States has identified ten different models.
    The analysts should not be an extension of MDOT or the Governor’s administration. Why? This leads to administrative bias and “sealed container thinking.” A reason why Pennsylvania’s proposed PPP failed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has prepared a toolkit for state legislatures on PPP’s for Transportation. The Pew Center on the States has prepared an excellent “Do’s and Don’t’s analysis for PPP’s based on a critical analysis of Pennsylvania’s failed efforts for a transportation PPP.
    Legislators and their staffs should review this material to understand the substantive benefits of PPP’s. They should validate their perceived negative aspects of PPP’s with facts based on analysis, not perceptions, rumors or heresay. If a legislator, a member of the administration or media can’t explain the legal and financial framework of the various PPP models, their criticism is “per se” illegitimate.
    Michigan should look to Indiana that raised 3.8 billion dollars with a PPP that covers 156.9 miles. Michigan’s road funding will not be resolved until we have creative financial leadership in Lansing. It will not be resolved by raising and / or shifting tax revenue or by dealing for votes to increase taxes by sharing the tax bounty with special interest groups that are unrelated to transportation needs.
    The use of creative financing based on private investment alleviates the need for federal funding. As a result “prevailing wage laws” required by the Davis Bacon Act can be avoided. Tolls and fees collected by a PPP is taxable income to the private investors thereby generating available tax revenue to the state. Legislation must be introduced to repeal Michigan's "prevailing wage law".
    Voters must reject the proposal. This is a mandatory “do over” for Lansing.

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *