http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/11.aspxSchool Finance and Employees, Curriculum, Special Ed, Higher Ed, School ChoiceenCommunityServer 2008 (Debug Build: 30417.1769)http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/thread/283561.aspxWed, 11 Jan 2012 18:57:35 GMT85480579-cbb1-4596-8e66-ca77d6981342:283561BlueOak0http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/thread/283561.aspxhttp://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=11&PostID=283561If I understand this bill correctly, it is surprising to see it coming from a Republican since it is exactly the type of dumbing down/socialist action to be expected from a liberal politician. But seeing the location in the state where it originated, I guess this otherwise Republican Representative feels it is ok to throw out free market principles and apply the “Robin Hood” principles of the “99 Percenters”. In order to get “Proposal A” approved, high-performing district funding (higher funding that was generated LOCALLY) was protected under something called “20J” and “hold harmless”. Under “Proposal A” these districts were allowed to maintain higher funding (with a premium local property tax) and to in effect keep (via the state grant) a larger portion of what would have otherwise gone into the state till to subsidize ‘poorer’ districts. With Proposal A, keep in mind that these wealthier (higher consuming as well) districts were subject to a larger per capita sales tax increase when the rate increased from 4% to 6%. In effect, while most districts in the state saw their net tax load reduced under Proposal A, these “hold harmless” districts saw net tax increases in the interest of subsidizing the rest of the state. State Broken Promise 1: the 20J protection has now been eliminated. State Broken Promise 2: this bill equalizes the state grant to further subsidize outstate and poor districts in spite of most of that funding coming from outside those districts. BTW, there is another hidden subsidy of outstate districts: vacation homes and businesses pay premium property taxes while at least the vacation homeowners place zero load on those vacation home school districts. For an amazing example of this look at the Northport school district. The last time I looked, their funding was TWICE their per student spending! Try as they may, they cannot spend it all!<div style="clear:both;"></div>http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/thread/283560.aspxWed, 11 Jan 2012 18:25:13 GMT85480579-cbb1-4596-8e66-ca77d6981342:283560Votes Admin0http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/thread/283560.aspxhttp://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=11&PostID=283560Introduced in the House on December 13, 2011<br><br><a href='http://www.michiganvotes.org/2011-HB-5224'>Click here to view bill details.</a>