Discussions with our Congressional Delegation: Not what you might expect

Senator Debbie Stabenow (right) with SEMCOG officers

Last month, the National Association of Regional Councils held its annual meeting in Washington, DC. SEMCOG uses this event to schedule meetings with the eight members of Congress who represent the Southeast Michigan region, as well as our two US Senators. We entered each office with our newly adopted policy platform prepared to discuss the issues that impact our region.

What surprised me most was the relative lack of gloating or moaning about our recent election. Instead, there was a distinct focus on what Congress needed to do over the coming month. Obviously, the concerns were very different from office to office. However, every office was expressing what they wanted to accomplish.

Those who were serving in the majority position tended to focus on three subjects: health care, tax policy, and infrastructure. From SEMCOG’s perspective, we were glad to join in the conversations about tax policy and infrastructure issues. The main concern over any tax policy debate was centered on how changes in tax law could impact local government operations. As an example; there have been discussions about eliminating the tax exempt status of municipal bonds.

As we talked to our congressional delegation, we focused on the ties between tax exempt bonds and the probable need to bond for many of the needed infrastructure upgrades. We expressed concerns that the cost of financing infrastructure projects would increase substantially if our financing instruments were no longer tax exempt. Why put more money into infrastructure if all of the new money is used up in interest payments on the bonds? We received very uniform acceptance of that concern during our meetings.

The issue of being able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes on individual income tax returns was also brought up in our meetings. If new homeowners are not able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes on their federal tax forms, it could mean that they will need to scale back on the purchase price of a new home. This would have a significant impact on local government operations in our state that are dependent on property tax revenues for the vast majority of our operations. If these current tax deductions were eliminated, this could depress sales prices on homes, and that translates into reduced property tax revenues. Again, this impacts local governments’ ability to finance needed infrastructure improvements, a point that was not lost on our elected officials in Washington.

The issue of infrastructure funding lacked specifics in most cases. While there was support for additional infrastructure spending, there was no general agreement on how to fund additional projects. There was a lot of discussion regarding public/private partnerships, but the discussions were often necessarily vague in nature. It was difficult to identify specific examples in how public/private partnerships would have a significant impact on our infrastructure system in Michigan. The key element that was lacking for such an endeavor: the revenue stream that would allow for any project to take place.

Of course, we had a multitude of issues to discuss in each office. Each member of the delegation had their unique perspective on the issues, but each was very supportive of any effort to move our region forward.