Hey, I can propose a solution to everything!

The Sunday Free Press (their nickname is the Freep, which they use as their web domain name) has given its endorsements for the state and county proposals on the ballot two weeks from now.

Proposal 1, a referendum on the Emergency Manager law.

The Freep says to vote yes. There needs to be a way out of financial problems and the previous EM law could come up with solutions either convoluted or unable to be implemented.

I disagree because the law gives too much unchecked power to the EM who too often uses that power to protect the 1% at the expense of the city employees. Negotiation is not a bad thing.

Proposal 2, an amendment to the state constitution to protect collective bargaining.

The Freep says to vote no. Background, drug testing, and criminal checks would be subject to negotiation instead of state law. A great deal of Michigan and state law would be up for litigation. In addition, state and federal law already protects bargaining rights.

I disagree, mostly because of the last point. State and federal bargaining rights are under assault. Just ask Indiana, which cut union power when it became a Right to Work state. And the Michigan legislature was itching to get its hands on that issue when the Gov. told them to cool it. Alas, the Gov. has refused to promise to always veto such bills. Freep columnist Brian Dickerson does a good job of explaining why the unions thought the amendment is necessary, though he is against it.

Proposal 3, an amendment to establish a standard for renewable energy -- 25% by 2025.

The Freep says no. It's a great, well written law, but shouldn't be in the constitution.

I disagree. In that I'm joined by Brian Dickerson. If we can put something as foolish as a ban on gay marriage in the constitution, we can put something as noble as a push to renewable energy.

Proposal 4, an amendment to establish collective bargaining for in-home care workers.

The Freep says no. Again, lots of good things in the proposal, but inappropriate for the constitution. The purpose is too narrow. In addition, it would do little for the workers or the patients and would be a windfall for the union that collects the dues.

I agree.

Proposal 5, an amendment to require a 2/3 majority to raise any tax.

The Freep says no. This would freeze the current tax system. It isn't perfect enough to not need tinkering. Supporters say it would encourage bipartisanship. But it would more likely encourage paralysis.

I agree. California enacted something similar and all that has done is stymie the legislature in trying to get anything done.

Proposal 5, an amendment to require public votes for any international bridge or tunnel.

The Freep says no. This is all about the current bridge owner maintaining his monopoly.

I completely agree.

In summary, I'm voting:
Proposal 1: no.
Proposal 2: yes.
Proposal 3: yes.
Proposal 4: no.
Proposal 5: no.
Proposal 6: no.

On to the county proposals. The Freep understands why the county commissioners created them -- too many scandals around the county executive. However, the proposals were written in haste and all contain flaws. It is better to vote no on the whole batch and ask the commissioners to take the next two years to come up with something better.