Proposal 1 addresses years of underinvestment in roads, schools and cities

Even some supporters of Proposal 1, which would raise $1.3 billion a year to fix Michigan's horrendous roads, say it's a flawed, malodorous proposal.

Backers and opponents alike acknowledge the May 5 ballot proposal is maddeningly complex and goes far beyond just raising more money to upgrade roads and bridges.

"Hold your nose and vote yes," one of my friends who favors the proposal wrote on Facebook.

That's wrong. Go ahead and breathe deeply in the voting booth. It's a good plan that begins to address years of underinvesting in transportation, communities and education.

Proposal 1 asks voters to raise the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent. It would exempt fuel purchases from the sales tax and allocate the new revenue, about $800 million, to schools and local communities.

The proposal would replace the retail gas tax with a wholesale tax adjusted annually for inflation, resulting in a 10-cent-per-gallon increase for motorists at the current fuel prices, according to the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan.

The proposal also would increase vehicle registration fees, and expand competitive bidding and warranties for road projects.

Finally, Proposal 1 would boost the earned income tax credit for low-income families from 6 percent to 20 percent of the federal credit, restoring it to the 2011 level.

Yes, the ballot measure is complex. But if you expect Lansing to come up with a simple solution to a big problem that's been ignored for years, you'll be waiting until all our roads return to gravel.

Many residents are annoyed that lawmakers didn't have the gumption to raise other types of taxes to fix the roads themselves and instead asked voters to approve a sales tax increase, which is required under the state constitution.

And lawmakers also didn't pass a backup plan that will take effect if voters defeat Proposal 1.

But the proposal also represents a compromise among Democrats and Republicans in which both sides got things that were important to them.

That should please many citizens who say they are sick of partisan gridlock.

There's also the argument that the sales tax is regressive and raising it will hurt lower-income people who spend a bigger share of their income than those at the top of the income sale.

It's a good point, but at least the boost in the earned income tax credit will help offset the bigger sales tax bite for many low-income families.

We have terrible, unsafe roads and bridges because our elected leaders spent more time over the past several decades figuring out how to cut taxes than they did in taking care of our transportation needs.

Proposal 1 isn't perfect, but it's a viable plan to improve Michigan's quality of life.

Email Rick Haglund at