Michigan’s current Emergency Manager law, Public Act 72 (PA72) provides for an emergency manager to step in and prevent a financially at-risk municipality from going bankrupt. Emergency managers may not be a perfect solution, but when finances are in a shambles, they’re the only viable one. Here are a couple Michigan success stories:
 

 
In 2011 the legislation was amended to give the emergency managers the ability to undo labor contracts (Public Act 4). Naturally, this doesn’t make the unions happy – but if the contract costs for retirement and health care are simply unsustainable, there may be no other solution.
 
A “No” vote would mean repealing PA4, would probably reverse any of the actions that have been taken to stabilize local economies – and render the original PA72 unclear.
 
A YES vote ensures that the law remains in place as is.

Should be called “Let the Unions Hijack our Constitution” or “Protect our UNION jobs until the end of time.” Proposal 2 is the worst of the worst.
It would amend the Constitution to allow public sector employees to dictate the terms of their employment to “we the people” – their employers! The misleading ads in support of Prop 2 are saying it gives unions collective bargaining – but they already have that in their individual contracts. Personally, I think “Protect Our Jobs” is a panicked attempt to forever prevent reforms like those enacted by Governor Walker in Wisconsin; reforms that put that state on the road to fiscal recovery.
 
If we want to grow Michigan’s economy we need to be moving toward “Right to Work,” not locking in permanent union control.
 
Prop 2 means higher taxes for everyone. It would kill new business development and, to paraphrase the Detroit Free Press, “would seal Michigan’s fate as an economic backwater.”
 
Just vote NO!

“Mandate?!” Exactly. This proposal would enshrine the idyllic Green agenda into our Constitution. Mandating the impossible – and charging taxpayers for the futility.
Michigan already has an energy target goal of 10% renewables by 2015. This proposal would mandate 25% by 2025. Not practical, not cost effective – and not necessary.
How’s that wind thing working out??
Prop 3 is totally unrealistic – and “energy costs would necessarily skyrocket.”
 
Say NO to the mandate.

This is another union (SEIU) power grab disguised as improving the quality of home health care. Again, it would amend the Constitution, establishing a “Quality Control Council” to which all home health workers will be subject.
It would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues.
Proposal 4 is a scam –

almost completely funded by the Service Employees International Union, trying to ensure the forced unionization it orchestrated that takes $6 million a year from the disabled and elderly in Michigan continues. ~ Michigan Capital Confidential

 
Vote NO on this proposal that will do nothing to actually improve the quality of in-home health care.

Would amend the Constitution to require either a 2/3 majority vote in the state house and senate; or a statewide vote in a November election, to impose new taxes or expand the base of taxation. It would also would strengthen the state’s existing Headlee Amendment, which limits state revenues (including taxes and fees) to 9.49 percent of total personal income in the state.
Opponents argue that this would make the budget process more difficult and prevent lawmakers from eliminating loopholes (why haven’t they done that already?). I say anything that makes it harder for Lansing to raise taxes is good for business –and good for Michigan ~
 

 
Vote YES to control tax increases.

OK – If anyone can clearly and succinctly explain the pros and cons on this one I’d be happy to listen. As it stands, it’s almost impossible to sort the facts from the rhetoric – on both sides of this issue.
I basically agree with the Michigan Independent Tea Party Patriots on this one:

This doesn’t belong in the constitution, and NO vote keeps it out. A YES vote will require that any decision on an international bridge or tunnel must be approved by a direct vote of the people.”The Bridge” has been a very visible, hotly debated issue for some time, basically arguing over whether a new international bridge is needed, and who should pay for it and own it. It is very difficult to sort through the competing claims, as very few clear facts have been presented…
…We generally prefer the use of private funds rather than taxpayer funds to pay for a bridge, if a bridge is needed. That would place the risk, and the potential rewards in the private sector. It is not clear that having the public vote on a project of this type is an improvement.

 
I’m going with a NO. We just shouldn’t amend the Constitution without fully understanding the implications.