Debunking the deceptive ads about the ballot proposals

There is more to this election than deciding whether or not Obama gets a second term. In Michigan, voters will be faced with six state ballot proposals and, depending on where in Michigan they live, a potential slew of county and city proposals. There have been ads on TV for five of the six proposals, and a lot of those ads are filled with lies. Here now I try to debunk some of those lies.

Proposal 2 aims to protect collective bargaining, and has been described by opponents as "forced unionizing." One of the opposition ads claims that with Proposal 2, a teacher can be caught drunk on the job five times before getting fired. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything at all in the ballot proposal language that tells me "teacher has five chances to be drunk on the job."

Another item with a number brought up by anti-Prop 2 ads is that Prop 2 would jeopardize 170 laws. I don't dispute the count of the affected laws, since the ballot proposal language does reference "future and existing" laws. But what I wonder is this: why are those laws worth keeping intact? The ads don't say.

Proposal 3 would require energy companies in Michigan to use at least 25% renewable energy sources by 2025. Predictably this scares energy companies, which have put out ads claiming Proposal 3 would hike a customer's energy bill up to $2,511.40. Given that the average energy bill is $72.00, the $2,511.40 figure sounds very scary. But the ballot language explicitly puts in a 1% cap on rate increases. The $72.00 bill would go up to $79.20. Oh my God, the humanity. There are actually good reasons to reject Proposal 3, but the energy companies have insulted the intelligence of the voters by employing scare tactics and lies instead of simple, logical arguments.

The only Proposal 4 ads I've seen show seniors and medical professionals expressing their endorsement of the home care amendment. I can't really object to that, though I plan to vote no on the measure.

I've only seen one ad about Proposal 5. The opposition ad tells it like it is: the initiative is from billionaire bridge owner Matty Moroun, who is determined to reduce his taxes to $0 if at all possible. The measure would require a 2/3 majority of the state legislature or a statewide vote at a general election to raise any tax by any amount for any reason. It's hard to know how many state legislators have been bought and paid for by Moroun, but my guess is more than a third. Therefore, the effect of Proposal 5 would be to effectively kill any future tax increases, no matter how necessary for a state that already takes in less in taxes than what it needs to provide vital services.

But the proposal that is nearest and dearest to Scrooge Moroun's heart is Proposal 6, which would  require the people to vote on any international bridge project. The ads in favor of Proposal 6 are outrageous lies in service of Moroun's short-sighted greed. But a lot of people have been fooled, making me want to scream: CANADA IS PAYING MICHIGAN'S HALF OF THE BILL!!! And if they renege, we can invade their country.

By ignoring the inconvenient little fact of the agreement with Canada, ads in favor of Proposal 6 then go on to raise the question of how is it possible for there to be money for a new bridge but not money to pay police and firefighters (some localities in Michigan have had to drastically cut back their first responder staff). Let me scream again: FEDERAL MATCHING ROAD FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ROAD PROJECTS, AND NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. If Michigan doesn't do a road project for something like the bridge, then the federal matching money goes to another state.

Do we really need a new bridge? That's a valid question. Moroun's deeds have told the truth where his words have not: If you drive on Fort Street by St. Anne, you will see that Moroun started construction on a new bridge right next to his Ambassador Bridge. But since neither the American nor Canadian governments gave him permission to do this, Moroun's new bridge stops well short of the Detroit River.

Be sure to vote this Tuesday. But first be sure to educate yourself on the difference between the proposals' stated intentions and their true consequences if enacted.