Comments on: Michigan’s Budget – The Numbers http://www.grpundit.com/2007/10/03/michigans-budget-the-numbers/ Politics | Economics | Society | Grand Rapids, Michigan Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:32:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rollnggrnade http://www.grpundit.com/2007/10/03/michigans-budget-the-numbers/#comment-56 Rollnggrnade Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:24:48 +0000 http://www.grpundit.com/2007/10/03/michigans-budget-the-numbers/#comment-56 If the government has to scale back planned outlays - that still constitutes a cut. The costs of maintaining current policies are outpacing economic growth. For example, healthcare and prison costs are skyrocketing at the same time the state is bringing in less money combined with cuts from the federal government. Plunking down the SAME amount of money amounts to a cut because the demand/costs has/have dramatically increased. This is the same shell game the Bush administration is playing with the VA system; they've increased funding to the VA - but not nearly enough to keep pace with the new demand for its services (courtesy of the two wars we're currently fighting), so it amounts to a de facto cut. Funding to Michigan's infrastructure was cut under the previous administration (along with many other things) - and now it's time to pay the piper. In addition to all that - the situation would be more dire, but we've been dipping into one-time funds (basically our savings in the form of the general fund surpluses, tobacco settlement money, employee wage concessions, temporary federal aid, the Medicaid benefits trust fund, etc.) to balance the budget. Further - your analysis doesn't appear to include the School Aid Fund, which is larger than the General Fund - and which has had hundreds of millions of dollars cut out of it. That's probably one of the other areas the Granholm administration is referring to when it touts its $3 billion in cuts since taking office. $150 tax increase per person? Maybe if everyone sent balloon-o-grams to every relative for every holiday. Not in practicality. If the government has to scale back planned outlays – that still constitutes a cut. The costs of maintaining current policies are outpacing economic growth. For example, healthcare and prison costs are skyrocketing at the same time the state is bringing in less money combined with cuts from the federal government.

Plunking down the SAME amount of money amounts to a cut because the demand/costs has/have dramatically increased. This is the same shell game the Bush administration is playing with the VA system; they’ve increased funding to the VA – but not nearly enough to keep pace with the new demand for its services (courtesy of the two wars we’re currently fighting), so it amounts to a de facto cut.

Funding to Michigan’s infrastructure was cut under the previous administration (along with many other things) – and now it’s time to pay the piper.

In addition to all that – the situation would be more dire, but we’ve been dipping into one-time funds (basically our savings in the form of the general fund surpluses, tobacco settlement money, employee wage concessions, temporary federal aid, the Medicaid benefits trust fund, etc.) to balance the budget.

Further – your analysis doesn’t appear to include the School Aid Fund, which is larger than the General Fund – and which has had hundreds of millions of dollars cut out of it. That’s probably one of the other areas the Granholm administration is referring to when it touts its $3 billion in cuts since taking office.

$150 tax increase per person? Maybe if everyone sent balloon-o-grams to every relative for every holiday. Not in practicality.

]]> By: Nick http://www.grpundit.com/2007/10/03/michigans-budget-the-numbers/#comment-55 Nick Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:04:27 +0000 http://www.grpundit.com/2007/10/03/michigans-budget-the-numbers/#comment-55 Great analysis piece! Even with the $1.7 billion "deficit" they just "solved" that included hundreds of millions in NEW SPENDING. These $400 million in cuts they're talking about now... they're cuts to the rate of increase in spending. Only in Lansing. Well, and DC. --Nick www.RightMichigan.com Great analysis piece!

Even with the $1.7 billion “deficit” they just “solved” that included hundreds of millions in NEW SPENDING.

These $400 million in cuts they’re talking about now… they’re cuts to the rate of increase in spending.

Only in Lansing.

Well, and DC.

–Nick
http://www.RightMichigan.com

]]>