SHERRY ANDERSON: Writer responds to Potvin claims

To the editor:

On July 24, Lonnie Allen posted an article regarding Mr. Potvin’s “accomplishments” that warrant the voters returning him to Lansing for a third term.  While most of the article contained, in my opinion, objectionable statements, there are two main points related to the business tax cut and funding for public education that I have great objection to.

First, Mr. Potvin supported (he already did this) the proposition to remove the Michigan Business Tax which he claims will increase jobs.  We have been hearing this line from the Republicans for the last 20 years as an excuse for cutting business and corporate taxes.  Business and corporations are already paying less tax than any time in history, while the middle class is disappearing because of stagnant wages and loss of jobs.  

What increases jobs is people having more money due to decent wages, and then purchase what local businesses are making or selling.  Selling more creates more jobs.  

I repeat, we have been being told that tax cuts to business and industry creates jobs, but we haven’t seen it in 20 years.  Mr. Potvin is just selling the same old line.  Is this someone we really want to give another two-year term to?

Second, to Mr. Potvin’s statement of how he has increased money for our public schools I have much objection to.  Yes, it is true; there was a small increase for the 2014-15 school year.  What he doesn’t tell you is that $50 of the per pupil increase is a hidden method for the legislature to  pay back to Lansing the monies to fund the health insurance costs which Engler stopped paying in 1991 and turn those expenses back to the retirement system.  These monies do not go to increase school funding to current students.

At the same time, the Legislature, including Mr. Potvin, is responsible for more profit-making corporate charter schools in Michigan than any other state in the union.  None of these charter schools’ corporate offices are in Michigan, do not provide transportation for students (no buses) and can proclaim that they “do not provide special educational services”. 

The accountability of these charter schools is very weak.  There is no data that these charter schools perform any better than our local public school.  Yet, our local public schools have to complete with them.  Again, I ask the constituents of the 102nd district, should we allow Mr. Potvin another term when he has supported cuts to public education and supported the expansion of the charter school system?  

When your child is in a public school classroom with over 30 students due to public schools trying to save money from Republican backed school cuts, who should you contact for this?  

Contact Mr Potvin and suggest that he change his stance on the funding of our public school system.  

We deserve better in the 102nd district.  It’s time for a change.

Sherry Anderson, Ph.D.

Canadian Lakes

Leave a Reply