Michigan Tax Hike Could Sting Romney In Michigan?

Among the very few Republicans who voted for the largest tax increases in Michigan's history this week: two endorsers of ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney.

They are: State Sen. Valde Garcia, a member of Romney's mid-Michigan leadership team, and State Sen. Ron Jelinek, a member of Romney's West Michigan leadership team.

Presumably, these two state senators would have been called to campaign for Gov. Romney in Michigan... but if the tax hikes prove unpopular with conservatives -- and, here's a guess -- they will -- you may not see Jelinek or Garcia on the trail with Romney.

Note, too, that the next Republican debate will be held in Dearborn and will focus on economic issues. Michigan's 11.5 percent income tax hike and its sales tax extention will almost certainly be the subject of a question or two.

At least one of the Republicans on the dias -- ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, agreed to tax increases in order to fund education and road programs in his state. And Romney raised "fees" to help close a budget deficit. As Grover Norquist would tell you, Republican governors face enormous political pressure to avoid cutting spending without increasing revenue somehow. Governors who do -- think of Bill Owens of Colorado -- tend to become personas non gratas with their state parties, which is controlled at the grassroots level by moral conservatives and rapid anti-taxers and is funded by corporate interests who seek tax breaks for their profits.

Comments

I don't think calling it a "11.5% income tax hike" is correct.

The tax went from something like 3.9% to 4.35% ( http://hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/NEWS12/710040783/1029 ).

That may technically be an increase of 11.5%, but that is a percentage of a percentage. I think that most readers will think the income tax in Michigan increased by 11.5%, which it didn't.

Posted by Nolan | October 4, 2007 11:28 AM

I don't think calling it a "11.5% income tax hike" is correct.

The tax went from 3.9% to 4.35% ( http://hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/NEWS12/710040783/1029 ).

That may technically be an increase of 11.5%, but that is a percentage of a percentage. I think that most readers will think the income tax in Michigan increased by 11.5%, which it didn't.

Posted by Nolan | October 4, 2007 11:28 AM

Agreed; I think this will have little to no impact on how Michigan voters view Governor Romney or how they'll see him in the debate.

Posted by Joseph Antley | October 4, 2007 11:32 AM

Romney is the most deceptive and opportunistic politician in the history. This smart-as* hikes taxes and calls it "increasing fees". This flipflopper will go down in flames.

Posted by patrick | October 4, 2007 11:35 AM

Apparently patrick is a Dumb-as*. Fees are charged to pay for specific government services received. When fees are set too low then all taxpayers end up subsidizing those few that are using the government service. Without a detailed analysis of the fees Mr. Romney raised in Mass. there is no way to determine whether he was protecting taxpayers from subsidizing users of services or taxing specific users of services to pay for general government operations. Without such a detailed anaylsis we can only rely on the fact that most of these fees had not been adjusted for many years thus increasing the likelyhood that taxpayers were subsidizing the users of those specific services. In this case, Romney is a hero of the taxpayers!

Posted by Howard Headlee | October 4, 2007 12:19 PM

Howard Headlee:

Fortunately a list of the fees Romney proposed is online here, so we don't have to guess what they were. In fact, he was taxing specific people to pay for general government operations.

He added a $60 million dollar "petroleum delivery fee." Most people call that a "gas tax." There was no government service involved. The only purpose of the fee was to raise revenue every time someone bought gas.

He proposed a new charge for certification of blindness PLUS a fee for photo identification cards for the blind.

He increased the "gun ownership fee" (read "Gun Tax") to $75, much higher than the cost to the government of gun registration. Then he also increased the cost of firearm identification cards, application fees for a license to carry firearms, and gun dealer fees.

He also bumped up the fee for getting married to well over the government's cost of processing the license. (He also raised tuition at state colleges by 63%. This one was a reduction in a subsidy).

I don't see how he's a "hero of the taxpayers" for increasing the gas tax, marriage tax, gun tax, and blindness tax. Call a tax a "fee" and it's still a tax.

He did not lower any taxes. Not one single tax was lower at the end of his term. There's a reason the aggregate tax rate increased from 10% to 10.6% of income during his governorship: multiple tax increases with no tax cuts.

Posted by Joe | October 4, 2007 9:29 PM

Does Your Candidate Have Plan to Save U.S. Manufacturing?

For the October 9 Republican debate in Dearborn, the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) urges Michigan voters to challenge their presidential candidates regarding America’s manufacturing crisis.

The United States racked up a $763 billion trade deficit in 2006, and more than 40,000 U.S. factories have closed since 2000. Michigan has lost more than 279,000 manufacturing employees. These lost factories, and our enormous trade deficit, do not happen by accident. U.S. manufacturers face ongoing, unfair competition from overseas. For example, China employs currency manipulation—a practice deemed illegal under international law—to artificially lower the cost of their goods while raising the price of U.S. exports. China also dumps product in the U.S. and illegally subsidizes its manufacturing. In the past five years alone, China’s state-run economy has poured $52 billion into its steel production, a serious challenge to private American steel producers.

We believe it’s high time that our presidential candidates address this illegal competition confronting American businesses, and offer concrete solutions about how to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.

At the Dearborn debate, and elsewhere, ask your candidates to explain how they’ll stand up for American manufacturing. Ask them directly:
1. What specific policies will you support to strengthen the American manufacturing base, which is vital to our economic and national security?
2. What steps will you take to enforce our trade laws and hold cheating countries like China accountable?

These are serious questions—ones that deserve forthright answers.

##

Posted by Steven Capozzola | October 5, 2007 11:21 AM