Panel debates solutions to Michigan’s fiscal crisis

MEA Communications Director Doug Pratt tells crowd that education is our best investment.

Where should Michigan put its resources? Do we need to raise taxes—or cut them? What do we want our state to look like?

These provocative questions spurred the debate at a panel discussion sponsored by the Center for Michigan in East Lansing on Tuesday. Panelists representing diverse interests, such as education, business and social services deliberated over how to cope with the financial emergency the state finds itself in.

“Michigan needs to make sure we put our money where it makes sense,” said MEA Communications Director Doug Pratt. “Education is the best investment we can make in Michigan’s economic future. Dollar for dollar, investing in public education has a greater return than any other economic development activity we can engage in.”

Audience members agreed, voting education as their highest priority in state spending.
Perhaps surprising in a difficult economy, the group also said they would agree to higher taxes and to broaden the sales tax to include services.

The event brought together people from across the state and encouraged audience participation through a series of votes and opportunities for those in the crowd to both ask questions and take positions on certain issues. Almost 200 people filled the room to standing room-only capacity, trying to find solutions and common consensus.

“All of these things (education, business and social services) are in intrinsically related,” said Sharon Parks, Michigan League for Human Services director. “We can’t solve one problem without taking the others into consideration.”

On several issues, there was room for consensus among panelists, which also included Michigan State University Economist Charles Ballard, Michigan Chamber of Commerce Director Richard Studley, Business Leaders for Michigan ECO Doug Rothwell, and Small Business Association of Michigan Director Rob Fowler.

Many on the panel echoed MEA’s call to evaluate each business tax incentive to see if it truly produces jobs. Several times, business sector proponents Studley and Rothwell agreed that targeted incentives don’t work.

“These tax incentives have questionable values by any reasonable measure,” said Studley.

The panel didn’t agree on everything. Rothwell argued for cutting public employee salaries and benefits. And there was a split on whether to institute a graduated income tax rate instead of the flat tax we have now.

But the general feeling was that there was plenty to agree on.

The big question at the end of the forum was whether this common ground could lead to real change. Did the fact that groups that usually oppose one another agree mean anything?

On that, too, there was consensus.

“I am optimistic we can get something done,” said Michigan Municipal League Executive Director Dan Gilmartin.

Updated: November 17, 2009