Peter Ruark

Most of what we’ve been writing about Unemployment Insurance in the past 18 months has centered around misguided proposals or legislative inaction that have made it more difficult for laid-off workers to receive benefits as they look for work.

Today, however, there is some good news. The Senate Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing Committee passed out a bill  introduced by Sen. Bruce Caswell (R-Hillsdale) that would institute a work-sharing program for Unemployment Insurance. Similar bills were introduced several months ago by Sen. Vincent Gregory and Rep. Jim Ananich, who are both Democrats and support the Caswell bill. Work sharing was part of Gov. Rick Snyder’s agenda for workforce development in Michigan, and the League published an op-ed in several Michigan newspapers  urging Michigan to adopt the program.

It’s not hard to see why the idea enjoys support across the political spectrum.

Work sharing, also called short-time compensation, provides an alternative to layoffs for businesses that need to reduce their payroll hours due to reduced demand for their products or services. It allows qualifying employers to reduce the payroll hours of a large pool of employees by 20-40% rather than eliminating some workers altogether. Each employee would be eligible for a proportional percentage of the UI benefits he or she would receive if laid off entirely.

Workers benefit from work sharing because they will have less disruption in their household income than if they were laid off. While UI benefits never replace 100% of lost wages, the wage loss is lower for workers with reduced payroll hours than for those with no payroll hours at all. For some workers, it will mean not getting laid off. For others, it will mean “sharing the sacrifice” through a reduced income so that their coworkers will not be laid off. Workers also benefit because it means they can keep health insurance and other benefits, an important part of minimizing the disruptions to their household economic security.

Employers benefit from work sharing because it enables them to keep their skilled workers rather than having to search for, hire and train new workers when business improves. This reduces unpredictability, administrative costs and training costs.  It can also help maintain positive morale in the workplace, as workers are likely to prefer spreading the sacrifice around rather than fearing the loss of their jobs entirely.

We’ll keep you posted on how this proposal fares in the legislative process.

– Peter Ruark

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Health Care, Workforce Development | Tags: unemployment, unemployment insurance, work sharing

Jane Zehnder-Merrell

This week the U.S. House of Representatives voted 232-190 to eliminate all funding for the American Community Survey — the bedrock of a substantial body of information about child well-being, as well as overall population characteristics for every place in the country.

Five of the 10 key indicators monitored annually by the national KIDS COUNT project to evaluate child well-being in the states come from this survey. The survey collects data about poverty, employment, education, family status — many of the indicators used by communities to evaluate social and economic well-being. This information would no longer be available to track outcomes, guide public policy and assess community needs.

The vote was essentially along party lines, with all but 11 Republicans voting in favor of the amendment and all but four  Democrats voting against. (Michigan’s delegation voted along party lines.)

The amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill was sponsored by Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla. It would also make response to the ACS voluntary by prohibiting the Census Bureau and the Justice Department from using funds to enforce penalties in the Census Act that make survey response mandatory. This policy would seriously undermine the reliability of the data. The Senate is expected to take up the FY2013 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill next week. Our senators need to know how much we care about keeping the ACS funded. (Click here to email Sen. Stabenow and click here for Sen. Levin.)

The ACS represented a huge step forward in making current data more readily available to decision makers at the local, state and federal levels. In 2010 the ACS replaced the traditional census “long form” previously distributed to a sample of census takers at the time of the decennial census. Previously the social and economic data from the long form was available once every 10 years, but the ACS is ongoing—administered every month to a sample throughout the nation.

As of 2010, the ACS data has been released annually for places in every corner of the nation–providing vital information about the fast-moving changes in our country and communities. The implications of eliminating such a resource are troubling. We all have a huge stake in this decision.

As all successful business leaders know, good data are key to making good decisions. Why should government be any different? In fact, business leaders also use census data to gauge social and economic trends to make decisions about location, product development and marketing.

As we move into the 21st century, we need to capitalize on its technology and tools to inform and strengthen the efficiency and capacity of our public institutions to improve the lives of our families and children. Without a solid base of information, how can we as citizens and our representatives in government be held accountable for the outcomes of public policy decisions?

– Jane Zehnder-Merrell

Comments (1) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Census, Events, Health Care, Human Services, Kids Count, Racial equity | Tags: budget, Census, child welfare, children and families, data, Department of Human Services, health disparity, homelessness, Kids Count, revenue, transparency, vulnerable families

Jan Hudson

Mother’s Day is the perfect time to celebrate the Affordable Care Act’s gifts to mothers.

The Act provides more affordable and comprehensive coverage for women as well as peace of mind that both they and their children will have access to healthcare coverage throughout their lives.

This law’s benefits are particularly critical to women because they:

• Use healthcare services more frequently than men,
• Have more chronic diseases than men,
• Are likely to use prescription medications,
• Are likely to make the healthcare decisions for their families,
• Are more likely to have dependent coverage and so are more at risk of losing coverage if they get divorced or their spouses lose their jobs or have their benefits reduced,
• Are more likely to be discriminated against in the individual insurance market, being charged more in premiums for comparable coverage than a man, or charged more if they have had a C-section,
• May not currently have the comprehensive coverage that they need, such as maternity coverage.

Implementation of the ACA has begun and many benefits are already available to women to make their healthcare more affordable and secure. A few of the benefits include: continuing coverage if they become sick, without fear of cancellation of their coverage; seeing doctors they choose without prior authorization requirements; receiving proven preventive healthcare services, including immunizations and mammograms, without cost sharing; and no longer needing to worry about exceeding limits set by the insurance company because lifetime coverage limits are now banned.

Full implementation of the ACA in 2014 will provide greater security and even more benefits through the expansion of Medicaid, including coverage of childless adults; banning insurance companies from charging higher rates to women for comparable coverage provided to men; ending insurance company denials for pre-existing conditions; implementing health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where affordable, quality coverage can be purchased if affordable employer coverage is unavailable; shrinking the Medicare Part D donut hole (more than half of those who reach the donut hole are women), to name a few.

For children and young adults, so much has already been gained since initial implementation in September 2010. Children cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or have specific conditions, such as asthma, excluded from coverage; and lifetime limits on benefits have been eliminated, ensuring children will have access to needed medical care now and in the future. Young adults, up to age 26, can remain on their parents’ employer-sponsored insurance without being a student, an IRS dependent, or even living with their parents, allowing them to maintain regular medical attention and needed care. This provision is critical to America’s young adults who previously had the highest rate of being uninsured of any age group and the lowest rate of access to employer-sponsored coverage. However, the future of the ACA is contingent on the upcoming Supreme Court ruling,  likely in June, which will determine the constitutionality of all or parts of the law.

Because this expansive, complex law was over 100 years in the making , the Supreme Court decision is momentous and historic for all Americans, particularly women. This decision will determine whether we continue to move forward or return to the dysfunctional, broken system that discriminates against women.

For Mother’s Day 2012, the ACA is the law of the land, providing health security for moms and their families – what better gifts for Mother’s Day. Celebrate the ACA!

– Jan Hudson

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Health Care, Human Services | Tags: Affordable Care Act, children and families, health disparity, health insurance, vulnerable families

Joanne Bump

Following a parade of representatives from local government and business weighing in on the impact of the proposed cut to the Personal Property Tax on businesses, the League testified last week before the Senate Finance Committee, calling for replacement revenue from the business community.

The  plan, which is now on the Senate floor, cuts $470 million in business tax revenues, on top of the $1.6 billion business tax cut passed last year.  It’s another tax shift from businesses to individuals, but the transfer to residents is better disguised than the last. In the 2011 tax package, taxes were shifted to individuals when business tax cuts led to a $1.4 billion increase in taxes on individuals.  As a result, 51% of Michigan residents will pay more personal income taxes after FY 12.

The proposed legislation leaves many unanswered questions about the impact of cutting revenues for local governments and schools. While specific cuts to the business PPT are described with certainty in the legislation, the replacement revenue is obviously missing.  When fully implemented all of the industrial PPT and three-quarters of the commercial PPT payers will be eliminated.  Supporters of the change say that most of the revenues will be replaced but evidence shows a big gap with only a fraction of the replacement revenues really available.

The replacement revenue  is not named in the legislation.  The proposal says only that it is the “intent of the Legislature” to use expiring credits to replace funding.  The bill establishes a shell mechanism that Treasury could use to distribute funds to locals if an appropriation is received.

Replacement revenues should not rely on cutting local services or shifting taxes onto individuals who are already paying more.  (See the League’s report on the PPT.)

What are the consequences of erasing something as important to our daily lives as local funding without nailing down a specific replacement fund? Without it, cuts to local services will require taxpayers to make up the difference as individuals.  Or, the local taxes left will be shifted to fund what the PPT once financed. Replacement revenue will come from individuals if businesses are not specifically assessed.

Businesses need to pay for the public services they use and continue to pay the same amount of taxes they do before the PPT is reduced.

– Joanne Bump 

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Human Services, Tax Policy | Tags: budget, revenue, safety net, tax

Gilda Z. Jacobs

One thing most of us can agree upon is that good jobs are the key to Michigan’s economic recovery.

As a former local government leader –  I served on the Huntington Woods City Commission and the Oakland County Board of Commissioners –  I’m alarmed at the proposal to dramatically reduce the Personal Property Tax on businesses, which helps pay for public safety, education and other local services.

 The plan is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, threatening to kill jobs even as it bills itself as a job creator. The PPT changes will pare an additional $470 million in business tax revenues. This comes on the heels of the $1.6 billion tax shift from businesses to individuals in last year’s business tax reform.

Without full replacement revenue from the business community, we’re looking at a loss of jobs as the ranks of firefighters, police and teachers are reduced. The intended or unintended consequences are that this tax cut will impact our local governments, schools and the quality of life we enjoy. Our communities will suffer. (See our report on the PPT.)

In my current position as the president & CEO of the League, I’m worried about how these policy changes will impact Michigan’s overall tax structure. The League supports changes to the tax structure that ensure tax equity. This business tax cut is not good tax policy for our state. This plan gives another large tax break to businesses while tuition is raised, our classrooms are overcrowded, and our public safety is weakened.

The theory behind this tax cut is to encourage job creation. An ordinary consumer is far more of a job creator than another business tax cut. When people have more dollars in their pocket because they are not paying additional taxes, they will spend more money in their communities. This translates into more jobs.

Let’s put jobs and our economy first. Businesses use services and they should help pay for them. Every business owner I know fully expects a police car or fire engine to show up if they dial 9-1-1. If the PPT is a bad tax, let’s find a way to replace that revenue from the business community in an equitable way.

 – Gilda Z. Jacobs

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Health Care, Human Services, State Budget, Tax Policy | Tags: budget, children and families, First Tuesday, tax equity, tax policy

Jane Zehnder-Merrell

In the space of a year most infants go from being wide-eyed babies who must be carried with care to children running about on their two feet. But some infants do not survive that first year; in fact, the majority of infant deaths occur within the first week of life.

Michigan has an infant mortality rate higher than most states and persistently higher than the national average. The state’s infant mortality rate for African Americans is triple that of non-Hispanic whites. The latest report from Kids Count in Michigan tracks eight maternal and infant indicators that place babies at risk for infant mortality. To begin to address infant mortality, we must start by reviewing trends in key factors that put babies at risk of an unhealthy birth.

The Right Start in Michigan 2012 report shows how risk varies by geography, race, ethnicity and socio-economic status. It ranks counties on each measure as well as providing an overall ranking. County profiles show the trends between 1998-2000 and 2008-2010, as well as how the county compares with the state average on each measure.

In general, roughly half of the infants who die were born weighing less than five and one-half pounds—the lower the weight, the more the risk. Babies born too small or too soon start life at a disadvantage, and although most survive, they are more susceptible to developmental delays and chronic disease during childhood.

Babies born to African American women suffer double the risk of low-birthweight compared with non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women (14% vs. 7%). Roughly 10,000 babies are born in Michigan each year weighing less than five and one-half pounds.

The percentage of low-birthweight babies increased by 7% in Michigan between 1998-2000 and 2008-2010, and births to unmarried women rose by 22%. Michigan improved on the other three key indicators where trends could be assessed: the percentage of births to teens, repeat births to a teen parent and preterm births.

Right Start data are also available at the KIDS COUNT Data Center for all 69 Michigan cities/townships with population over 25,000.

– Jane Zehnder-Merrell

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Health Care, Human Services, Kids Count, Racial equity | Tags: Affordable Care Act, cash assistance, children, health insurance, Kids Count, medicaid, poverty, racial disparity, revenue, safety net, vulnerable families

Peter Ruark

Our friends at the Community Economic Development Association of Michigan  started the Michigan Foreclosure Task Force in 2007 to address foreclosure problems in Michigan.  The task force is focused on reducing the number of foreclosures, keeping families (both homeowners and renters) in their homes and softening the impact of foreclosures on communities.

The task force informs us that in the past four years, Michigan has ranked in the:

• Top 10 states for numbers of foreclosures;
• Top five states for a decline in property values (estimated at a more than 25% average loss in property value);
• Top five states for mortgage fraud and foreclosure rescue scams; and
• Top five states for percent of homes “underwater”—owing more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth (estimated to be more than 35%).

The task force just released a toolkit to help Michigan residents address issues related to foreclosure in their communities. The Community Foreclosure Response Toolkit  is intended to be used by elected officials, neighborhood groups and individuals facing foreclosure.

Along with providing information such as how to prevent mortgage disclosure  and tax foreclosure, it includes links to useful data, such as foreclosure in Michigan by county.

There’s some good work being done in Michigan to address the foreclosure crisis. If you have friends who work in real estate, social services, zoning or neighborhood economic development, pass this resource on to them.

– Peter Ruark

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Human Services | Tags: CEDAM, foreclosure, housing

Jan Hudson

Recent actions by Michigan policymakers are indeed troubling.

If the state is really concerned about controlling Medicaid costs, it would seem that repealing the requirement that motorcyclists wear crash helmets, requiring only that operators/riders carry a $20,000 insurance rider (reduced from the original $100,000) would not seem to be the best strategy. In the analysis of the helmet bill both the House and Senate Fiscal Agency analysts noted that Medicaid costs would likely increase as the result of more serious injuries. Yet, to date, no funding has been recommended to cover the potential increased costs of this law.

Indeed, senators on the Appropriations subcommittee on Community Health have made few decisions on the Medicaid budget, and the Community Health budget overall, declining to fund key policies and instead recommending $100 “placeholders” to keep programs and policies “under discussion.”  The subcommittee document included 27 decision items, with 24 “decisions” being $100 placeholders.

While it is good that important programs and policies are still under discussion, we would hope that discussions and final decisions would be made openly with public input and participation. 

An example of “placeholder” funding is autism coverage. On the same day that the bills mandating autism coverage in private insurance plans and Medicaid were passed by the Senate, the Community Health subcommittee declined to provide funding in the Medicaid budget, recommending a $100 placeholder (the governor recommended $34 million to fund this mandate).  This is troubling.

Also on the same day, the subcommittee recommendation was reported out, a FY 12 supplemental appropriation for the Department of Community Health was approved by the Senate. Restorations included in the supplemental, such as Medicaid chiropractic services and graduate medical education, were not funded in the FY 13 subcommittee recommendation; rather, $100 placeholders were included. We are concerned that chiropractic services could be restored for six months then eliminated again, and graduate medical education could be dramatically reduced. This is troubling.

It is very difficult to understand what’s driving policymakers’ actions at this time.

Hopefully, they will step back and make sure they are acting in the best interest of those they represent by appropriating the funding for:

• the expansion of Healthy Kids Dental ($25 million),
• implementation of autism coverage in Medicaid ($34.1 million),
• retaining graduate medical education funding (reflecting the FY 12 supplemental and making the FY 12 one-time funding ongoing funding) at least at the FY 12 level of $162.4 million,
• expansion of home and community based waiver slots ($11 million),
• restoration of chiropractic and full vision benefits for adults,
• staff and funding to implement the Integrated Care for Dual Eligibles initiative as well as needed technology funding, to name a few.   

– Jan Hudson

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Health Care, State Budget | Tags: budget, Health Care, health insurance, medicaid, revenue

Karen Holcomb-Merrill

Let’s play Jeopardy!

The answer: good roads, clean water, services for our seniors, strong schools and safe communities.

The question: What do our taxes fund? Tuesday was Tax Day, a day often filled with grumbling about having to pay taxes. But let’s remember the upside of taxes (pdf) in the Mitten. It’s easy to take for granted much of what our taxes fund (pdf).

But imagine what a day might look like without those tax-funded services. What if you didn’t have clean water to shower and brush your teeth in the morning? What if there were no traffic lights on the way to work? What if there were no sidewalks for your kids to walk on to school? What if you couldn’t be sure your food was properly prepared at lunch? What if you had to call 9-1-1 and no one came? Those are just some of the ways taxes fund health and safety protections.

What about our kids? They need good schools, licensed child care, programs for young children, community libraries and strong colleges and universities. Our taxes help make all of these possible. And then there are those nice “extras” that improve our neighborhoods and communities and enhance our daily lives: parks, bike paths, clean beaches, nature trails, dog parks. They, too, rely on our taxes.

Taxes are an investment. An investment in our people, in our communities and in our economic growth. Thank you for your investment!

 – Karen Holcomb-Merrill

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Human Services, State Budget, Tax Policy | Tags: children and families, education, higher education, revenue, tax

Judy Putnam

Michigan’s slow recovery from a painful recession could soon hit a stumbling block: federal budget cuts.

A new report from the League and the Washington D.C. –based Coalition on Human Needs details the potential loss of needed programs and services that threaten to undermine our still-fragile economy.

At the top of the list – early childhood education, the one thing nearly all of us agree is needed to invest in our children’s futures and in our own economic survival.

The automatic cuts from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Remember the Super Committee? This is the fall-back plan when the congressional committee failed to reach a consensus) would mean that next year there would be nearly $21 million less in Head Start in Michigan and $5.5 million less for early care and education. And, at a time when we know that we need a more highly educated workforce, we’re looking at $42.1 million less for K-12 education, $31.2 million less for special education and $8.8 million less for vocational rehabilitation.

Nationally, it would mean an estimated 75,000 preschoolers who would not be able to attend Head Start, 25,000 children who could not attend safe and educational child care and 1.5 million low-income students in elementary and secondary schools who would lose programming designed to help level the playing field.  There would be 12,500 special education staff cut. The list goes on.

In 2014, cuts will be much deeper.

Things could careen further downhill if the Ryan budget plan (named for U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan) gets enacted — potentially reducing Michigan food benefits by more than $5 billion over the next decade, impacting 2 million state residents on food assistance. Modifying the Budget Control Act to protect the military could further harm needed programs.

And in what environment is this happening?  As the report points out, Michigan’s unemployment peaked at 14.2% in the summer of 2009. Thankfully, the rate has dropped but it’s still pretty high – 8.8% in February. And when you add in those who have given up and those who don’t have the hours they want, it jumps to 19.2%. One in six in Michigan and more than one in every five kids live in poverty ($23,050 for a family of four).

Too many people are already suffering. Taking away educational opportunity and basic supports such as food assistance will not allow us to invest in our people and our state. That’s what is truly needed at this juncture.

– Judy Putnam

Comments (0) |  Print This Entry |  Email This Entry
Categories: Blog: Factually Speaking, Human Services, State Budget, Tax Policy | Tags: budget, children and families, food assistance, poverty, revenue, safety net, tax