In Fact Sheets, Reports

Ask Your Candidates 2022

 

As we approach election season, it’s important to engage with candidates and find out what they think about the issues that matter to you. Our analysts put together this set of questions that will help you discover your candidates’ positions. Click below to easily access the issues that matter most to you and your community.

Taxes and Revenues
Help for Struggling People and Families
Addressing Child Poverty, Education, and Abuse and Neglect
Jobs and the Economy
Healthcare
Immigration
Criminal Justice Reform

 

TAXES AND REVENUES

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a significant poverty reduction tool that increases labor force participation and injects money back into local economies. However, because Michigan relies on federal eligibility guidelines, many workers are left out. Workers without qualifying children receive only a very small credit and those below age 25 or over age 65 without children receive no credit at all. This leaves out a number of vulnerable workers, including youth exiting the foster care system, youth who are homeless, certain immigrant workers and elderly workers.

Would you support expanding the state EITC to workers who are currently excluded?

 

Michigan’s tax structure is “upside down,” meaning families with the lowest incomes pay a higher share of their income in taxes compared to high-income families. We can make Michigan’s tax structure more fair and equitable by adopting a graduated income tax which, like the federal system, would increase the tax rate as income rises. Changing our income tax system will take a constitutional amendment.

Would you actively support a constitutional amendment to change Michigan’s income tax structure from a flat income tax rate to a graduated one?

 

Sales taxes are typically considered to be a highly regressive type of tax, costing individuals earning low wages a larger proportion of their income compared to wealthier individuals. Modernizing the sales tax to apply to services can serve to both increase revenue and make the sales tax less regressive. Even still, the sales tax will remain regressive, which is the reason some states offer sales tax credits to provide relief for individuals who earn the least.

Would you support extending the state’s sales tax to services with a sales tax credit for filers with low wages?

 

While Michigan’s actual tax revenues have grown year after year, when adjusted for inflation, 2019-2020 General Fund revenues were below 1968 levels and the School Aid Fund was below levels set in 1995. At the same time, the costs of providing Michigan residents the most basic services have grown, increasing pressure on our budget. This has meant that funding for one program comes at the expense of others, furthering Michigan’s disinvestment in its communities, education and other services on which its residents and businesses rely.

Would you support exploring new revenue sources or expanding existing ones (for example, eliminating outdated and unnecessary tax exemptions or credits) to fund vital state services?

 

Michigan’s personal income tax contributes over $10 billion to our state coffers annually, representing the largest single source of state tax revenue. Some lawmakers have proposed steep cuts to our state income tax rate, putting at risk billions of dollars that are currently used to invest in our schools, infrastructure, healthcare and public safety. On top of limiting our ability to invest in the things we all rely on, income tax rate cuts disproportionately benefit high-income earners while providing little to families with low incomes.

Would you oppose efforts to cut or roll back Michigan’s income tax rate?

 

Despite benefiting from state goods and services, like safe roads and good public schools, wealthy corporations in Michigan are not paying their fair share of taxes. The state is spending more each year on tax credits and business incentives even as corporate taxes continue to decline as a share of revenue, leaving little to invest in schools, roads or communities. Large tax incentives for wealthy businesses increase pressure on the state, which must make up the revenue through taxes on workers and families.

Would you oppose new tax credits and business incentives for wealthy corporations?

 

Michigan’s constitution prohibits the use of public dollars to fund private schools. However, special interests are attempting to push through legislation that would allow taxpayers to claim a credit for donations made to scholarship-granting organizations that can be used for private school tuition. The proposal would both harm Michigan’s public schools and the state budget while giving substantial tax breaks to wealthy individuals and businesses–up to $500 million annually. 

Would you oppose spending public tax dollars on private school voucher programs?

 

A triggered income tax rate reduction was implemented as part of the 2015 road funding plan. Starting in 2023, income tax rates will reduce if state General Fund revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation (the law puts in place a General Fund cap that is calculated by adjusting base year revenues by 1.425 times the cumulative inflation; General Fund growth above this cap would trigger an income tax rate reduction). Triggered rate reductions may ultimately hurt Michigan’s economy, budget and residents because we do not know whether they will be affordable once triggered, they can trigger during economic downturns or other times when revenues are badly needed, they primarily benefit the top 1% of taxpayers, and they enable policymakers to claim credit for cutting taxes while avoiding accountability for the consequences.

Would you support repealing the triggered income tax cuts and instead look at tax policies that encourage economic growth and help families with low incomes make ends meet, such as a graduated income tax or restoration of the Earned Income Tax Credit?

 


HELP FOR STRUGGLING PEOPLE AND FAMILIES

Since the Great Recession ended, housing prices have risen much more quickly than incomes. As a result, many families—especially those who rent—have to forego other necessities like healthcare and food, experience significant disruptions in school and work due to frequent moves, or become homeless. The shortage of affordable housing has a broader impact on the state and local economies, too—in some communities, employers report difficulty filling open positions because workers can’t afford to live within a reasonable distance of the job. 

The Legislature created a state housing trust fund—the Michigan Housing and Community Development Fund (MHCDF)—in 2008 but, until recently, allocated only two rounds of one-time, limited funding to it. Funded projects, which included construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing for older adults, people with disabilities and people experiencing homelessness, attracted as much as $11 in new investment for every $1 of MHCDF money and created thousands of jobs. In 2022, the Legislature allocated $100 million in federal ARPA funds to the MHCDF: $50 million targeted at housing for families disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and $50 million for “missing middle” housing (families with incomes between 185% and 300% of the federal poverty level). This historic investment, while critical, will only begin to backfill the resources needed to address Michigan’s shortage of available rental units affordable to families with very low incomes, which currently stands at nearly 366,000.

Would you support the creation of a dedicated, continuing source of revenue to fund the MHCDF?

 

Federal rental assistance is provided primarily through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, under which private landlords receive direct monthly payments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to offset rents for tenants with low incomes. Many landlords, however, will not accept HCVs as a form of payment or include them in calculating whether a tenant has enough income to qualify for a lease. Some landlords similarly discriminate against families with other legal sources of income, such as veterans’ housing vouchers and Social Security.

Would you support a law protecting tenants or prospective tenants from discrimination based on their source of income? 

 

Nearly 200,000 eviction cases are filed in Michigan every year–1 for every 6 renter households. These filings are public records that landlords use to screen prospective tenants. The mere filing of an eviction case can lock families out of rental housing indefinitely, regardless of the circumstances or whether the case actually resulted in an eviction order. The majority of cases are dismissed or settled before an order is entered, and in some cases the court finds in favor of the tenant. Nonetheless, the existence of any history in housing court creates a stigma that may push families into unsafe homes or homelessness.

Would you support a law to provide for the sealing of eviction records under certain conditions in order to strike a better balance between landlords’ right to know about prospective tenants and renters’ need for safe, stable housing?

 

Given the high cost of child care, without assistance many parents find themselves in the difficult position of relying on unstable or even unsafe arrangements for their children or placing their jobs in jeopardy. And, we now know that high-quality child care can help children develop and be more ready for preschool and ultimately for school success. The number of families receiving child care assistance has dropped dramatically in Michigan in part because of state-set eligibility rules and because payments to providers are low. Due to a historic influx of federal aid, the state was able to expand child care eligibility rules and increase reimbursement rates paid to providers. However, this funding is set to run out after the 2022-23 budget cycle, putting at risk the expanded eligibility and some of the increased rates, among other changes.

Would you support the use of state and available federal funds to continue the improved child care eligibility requirements and increased payments and even support the use of additional funds to continue to improve the quality of child care?

 

Children in families that must rely temporarily on state income assistance live in increasingly deep poverty as a result of the very low payments provided by the state (a maximum of $492/month for a family of three). Michigan provides a one-time payment of $267 for all school-age children in families receiving FIP so children can start school with at least a decent set of clothes, but with current prices this doesn’t carry children far into the school year.

Would you support an increase in the annual school clothing allowance to ensure that children can purchase the clothes needed for school, and support expanding the allowance to all ages rather than limiting it to only school-age children?

 

ADDRESSING CHILD POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND ABUSE AND NEGLECT

More than half (54.9%) of Michigan third-graders did not demonstrate proficiency in English Language Arts (reading and writing) in 2018-19. There are significant disparities in outcomes by income, race and ethnicity with higher rates of children of color and children in families with low incomes scoring “not proficient.” Current state law requires that third-graders who are not proficient in English Language Arts, as measured by the state test, can be retained to repeat the grade; however, if the student is proficient in other subjects, then instruction for those may be given in a fourth-grade classroom. Alternate tests and portfolios may be used to document reading skills and some good cause exemptions are provided; however, the school superintendent would make the final decision. The law also outlines interventions and steps that schools must take to improve third-grade reading proficiency.

Would you support adequate funding to support the implementation of the law with targeted efforts in areas with the most need?

 

Numerous studies of school funding in Michigan have shown that the state is failing to provide the resources needed to guarantee a high-quality education for all students, and particularly for students in low-income schools, English language learners and children with disabilities or special needs. COVID has had a disproportionate impact on communities of color and high-poverty communities, and this disproportionate impact has extended to schools. A recent study by the Education Policy Innovation Collaboration at Michigan State University found that kids who had been underserved by school funding policies before COVID, including Black, brown, and economically disadvantaged students, were the ones whose learning was most negatively impacted by the pandemic, increasing educational disparities. Under a weighted funding formula, the state would set a base per-student payment amount (e.g., $10,000) and then would add weights to that base payment for kids who are English-language learners or economically disadvantaged or who have disabilities.

Would you support moving toward a weighted school funding formula, in order to provide all kids with equitable access to the same education? Absent a weighted school funding formula, would you support fully funding the At-Risk school aid program, targeting funding to economically disadvantaged students, and increasing funding for English-language learners and students with disabilities? 

 

Michigan has been a leader in investments in preschool programs for 4-year-olds, but funding for families with infants and toddlers living in poverty or near poverty has not kept pace—despite scientific evidence that the first three years of life are when children’s brains are growing most rapidly, affecting their lifelong development, learning and achievement.

Would you support additional state funds for proven programs for parents of very young children, including home visiting, parenting programs and Early On?

 

The rate of children confirmed as victims of abuse and neglect remains high: nearly 28,000 minors were confirmed victims in 2020, and another 10,000 were placed in out-of-home care. Children of color and young children are at higher risk of being confirmed as victims and being placed in out-of-home care due to abuse or neglect. The trauma experienced can impact child development, health, and education outcomes, and youth transitioning out of foster care face additional challenges. 

Would you support state investment to prevent child abuse and neglect and comprehensive strategies that have shown to reduce abuse and neglect, including an expansion of home visiting programs? Would you ensure youth transitioning out of foster care receive adequate support? 

 


JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

By partially replacing wages that have been lost due to a layoff, Unemployment Insurance (UI) not only helps workers who have lost their jobs, but also helps local economies by enabling those workers to continue to purchase necessities from businesses in their communities. However, the coronavirus and the resulting necessary closing of businesses revealed the weaknesses in Michigan’s current Unemployment Insurance policies. Michigan’s maximum weekly benefit of $362 has not been updated since 2003 and covers far less of a worker’s wages than the standard of 58% of the average weekly wage that was in Michigan law until the late 1990s, or the 2/3 wage replacement standard recommended by experts. It is much lower than the maximum benefit in other Midwest states.

Would you support increasing the maximum weekly UI benefit to at least 58% of the average weekly wage?

 

Michigan is one of very few states that allows unemployed workers to receive up to only 20 weeks of Unemployment Insurance (UI) while they look for jobs—nearly all other states have a maximum of 26 allowable weeks of UI. While many or most unemployed workers find another job within 20 weeks of becoming unemployed, it is important that those who cannot find work have additional weeks of UI up to the full 26 weeks to prevent further family disruption. (The 26-week maximum was restored during the coronavirus emergency, but reverted back to 20 weeks in September 2021.)

Would you support permanently reinstating the 26-week maximum for unemployed workers to receive UI while they look for work?

 


HEALTHCARE

There are a number of established programs that help moms and babies thrive. Home visiting is a highly successful strategy to improve the health and overall well-being of pregnant and parenting families. Family planning programs support the health of all women—mothers or not—across their life course. Building on the success of last year’s Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies initiative—which supported the extension of Medicaid postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months, an increase in home visiting capacity by 1,000 slots and improved access to behavioral health services—this year, Gov. Whitmer proposed to expand Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies to provide professional doula care services to high-risk pregnant women, new mothers, and their families. In addition, the governor proposed initiatives to reduce health disparities, including increasing access to Centering Pregnancy and healthcare workforce diversification.

Would you support Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies and these proposed initiatives?

 


IMMIGRATION

Under the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), states can eliminate the 5-year waiting period for Medicaid and CHIP to extend healthcare coverage to lawfully residing children sooner through the Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act (ICHIA) option. 35 other states and Washington, D.C. have taken up the ICHIA option to provide consistent and quality care through Medicaid and CHIP to more children without a 5-year wait. In Michigan, this option would extend coverage to up to 4,000 lawfully residing children and cost approximately $2 million in new state funding, thanks to substantial federal support. 

Would you support taking up the ICHIA option and appropriating state funds to extend Medicaid and CHIP coverage to more children?

 

1 in 10 Michiganders over 5 years old speaks a language other than English, and while a majority also speak English “very well,” language access remains an issue for many immigrants and refugees in the state, in particular. Lack of language access protocols limits equitable access to state services and programs. Michigan does not have a statewide Language Access Plan program, which would not only ensure residents with more limited English proficiency have reasonable access to the same state services as more fluent English-speaking residents but also would bring Michigan into compliance with federal law.  

Would you support funding and implementing a statewide Language Access Plan program to provide equitable access to state services and bring Michigan into compliance with federal law? 

 

Until 2008, all Michigan residents could obtain a driver’s license. Yet, current Michigan law requires all applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification to provide proof of “legal presence” that must be verified by the Department of State. Lack of access to driver’s licenses means that many immigrants who cannot prove legal status cannot insure or register their vehicles. In addition to providing access to amenities and opportunities beyond one’s immediate community, a driver’s license can provide security if one is stopped while driving to work, school or the grocery store, preventing arrest for driving without a license or even deportation. Access to driver’s licenses would provide social and economic support to immigrant communities and would make all Michigan roads safer because more drivers are tested and more vehicles are insured.

Would you support restoring access to state IDs and driver’s licenses for all Michigan residents, regardless of immigration status?

 


CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

An estimated 20-25% of prisoners have been diagnosed with severe mental illness and many more with mental health problems. Nine of every 10 prisoners with severe mental illness also suffer from substance use disorders, and upwards of 65% of those with mental health symptoms do not receive treatment. Michigan has recognized the need for alternatives to incarceration for those suffering from behavioral health issues by implementing mental health courts and substance abuse programs for those serving time and on probation and parole.

Do you support diversion programs and improved mental health and substance abuse treatment programs within prison facilities to expand access for incarcerated people?

 

In Michigan, courts often require people who have been arrested and are awaiting arraignment or sentencing to put up cash bail before releasing them from jail–ostensibly to ensure that they will show up for required court dates and will not endanger others or commit further crimes prior to their hearings. Unfortunately, too many of those arrested for nonviolent crimes and who pose no threat to society needlessly stay in jail. Of the people in Michigan in jail on any given day, half are awaiting trial, having not yet been convicted of a crime. While some of those are kept detained because they are ineligible for bail due to a safety or flight risk, many remain incarcerated simply because they do not have the means to put up cash bail—including individuals later found to be innocent of the crime for which they were arrested. This practice disproportionately punishes people of color and those with low incomes, while having no benefit to the communities in which they live.

Do you support pre-sentencing reform policies that would limit (with certain exceptions) the time that individuals are detained as they await trial and would restrict cash bond to only those individuals who have been deemed by the court to be a safety threat or a flight risk? 

Leave a Comment