Reply #5: Leaning Yes, No, No, No, No

[Strawman]

Proposal 1: Leaning Yes. This is tough because while I oppose the idea of tying the hands of legislators in terms of budgeting (which I think Proposal 5 does), I also place some value in the idea of fiscal equity and the spending of money from fees corresponding to the way they were raised. In particular, when I go to a state park and pay $5 or whatever to get in, I understand that I am paying that fee to maintain that state park, not to balance the state budget because our legislators don't have the political will to raise taxes in a more transparent manner. If I'm paying $5 or $10 bucks just to drive through the park gates, I don't want to see those parks go to shit because even though they're raising more than enough in fees, the Republicans decide to repeal the SBT or roll back the income tax.

Proposal 2: No. I believe in affirmative action and despise whiny racists who want to blame "quotas" for their own personal failures. If anything affirmative action doesn't go far enough. I'd like to see it expanded, not restricted. Any white person who honestly thinks that there's a social advantage to being black in Michigan or in America due to a handful of weak government efforts to promote equality ought to have their fucking head examined.

Proposal 3: No. Just out of spite for any asshole that thinks blasting a pigeon from point blank range with an Uzi is somehow sport. I don't have a problem with hunting, but I don't think our laws should cater to psychotics who want to just blow helpless creatures' heads off for the "fun" of it. To me, this isn't hunting, it's indulging a loud obnoxious faction of homicidal maniacs. It's not a practice that the larger community of sane individuals ought to endorse. if I honestly believed there were a mass of hungry Michiganders just waiting to fill their freezers with morning dove meat, I might feel differently, but that is just pure nonsense.

Proposal 4: No. I'll admit up front that I don't know a whole lot about this proposal, but in general it seems to me this would hurt the City of Detroit in their efforts at development and tearing down abandoned and condemned buildings. And as posted up thread, I don't see any need to change the current law. They need to knock down more abandoned homes and buildings in Detroit and the last thing they need is another legal hurdle. It's easy to be a property rights absolutist if you're not living next an abandoned building that's a dangerous haven for crime and drugs and a blight that ruins your property values. And I don't have alot of sympathy for speculators who buy some old building, do nothing with it and hold development hostage to try and extort as much money out of the city as they can. I think this is more common than the sympathetic old lady who doesn't want to move being pushed out for economic development.

Proposal 5: No. Education might be the most important expenditure in every budget but I oppose tying the hands of the Governor and the legislature in this manner as a matter of principle. I can understand why the MEA would want to do this. If they get their cut, who cares about anyone else? But it's a bad, undemocratic way to make policy. If it's a good idea for education, why not come up with a formula for the entire budget and offer that as a referendum? We can formulate our own governance and the governance of all Michiganians that follow in perpetuity. Problem solved. :sarcasm: