Proposal 4 debate heightens issue
The Nov. 5 election is quickly approaching, and the debate over Proposal 4 is heating up.
Proposal 4, a proposed amendment to the Michigan constitution that would annually allocate on a permanent basis 90 percent — about $297 million — of the 1998 state tobacco settlement revenue received by the state of Michigan from cigarette manufactures to health care.
Two-thirds of the money is used to plug holes in the state budget, as well as fund the state’s MEAP Merit Award Scholarships, with the remainder going toward health care.
“This is an interesting ballot issue because it pits two worthy public goods, health care and education, against one another,” said Doug Roscoe, political science assistant professor.
“As an educator, it is difficult for me to be unbiased; I would like to see the money continue to fund scholarships. On the other hand, there is a good case to be made that using the money from a tobacco settlement for health care is appropriate,” Roscoe said. “Ultimately, I think the outcome of this proposition will reflect the priorities of Michigan voters.”
The amendment that would be added to the constitution if the proposal passes is 1,354 words, and many say it is too long and confusing.
“This is your constitutional amendment. If you’ve ever seen an amendment so long and confusing, raise your hand,” said Sen. John Schwartz R-Battle Creek, co-chairman of People Protecting Kids and the Constitution, at a debate at Michigan State University last week.
Many CMU professors and students seem to oppose the proposal, as does the CMU Board of Trustees.
“Proposal 4 would rip a huge hole in the state budget, forcing major budget cuts in a wide range of areas,” said George Gostias, Livonia junior.
The current use for the funds produced by the tobacco settlement dollars for student scholarships, health care promotion programming and the proposed use of funds for specific health care programming are legitimate and important activities deserving of state support, said political science Professor Del Ringquist, director of development for the College of Extended Learning.
“However, I am in favor of constitutional amendments being general and brief with the legislature providing for the specifics,” he said. “This proposed Constitutional amendment has the practical effect of reordering state priorities by mandating expenditures without examining the entire picture of state needs. I believe this to be a poor approach to public policy-making.”
Cathy Jankowski, Dearborn freshman, said she is against the proposal.
“I am against it because it hurts the MEAP scholarship, and the MEAP scholarship gives people at least a shot at a year of schooling that they otherwise might not be able to afford,” Jankowski said.
National groups have supported the proposal.
Contributions aren’t required to be released yet, but both sides are rumored to be spending more than $1 million to promote their cause, and the Michigan proposal is hitting the national spotlight.The Associated Press contributed to this report.
