POLITICAL EXTORTION UP NORTH

John Engler says he's just trying to keep Michigan out of financial
trouble, but his veto of $845 million in local-government funds
indicates that the outgoing governor is burnishing his political
legacy at the unnecessary cost of fiscal turmoil in every village,
city, township, and county in the state.

Mr. Engler, who has served three terms as governor after promising to
quit after two, seems obsessed with leaving the impression that he has
been a good fiscal steward, as if actions wouldn't speak louder than
words.

At every turn, Mr. Engler reminds the public that he is retiring with
a "balanced budget." However, he neglects to point out two things: 1)
A balanced budget is required by state law, so he has no choice, and
2) The only way the "balance" will be achieved is through an
Engler-engineered scheme to force Michigan taxpayers to cough up all
of their school taxes in a single June payment next year, rather than
the customary two installments.

Now the governor has vetoed the legislature's appropriation of
revenue-sharing money, throwing local officials into undeserved limbo,
with visions of draconian slashes in local services.

This has nothing to do with a balanced state budget, because even Mr.
Engler acknowledges that the budget would be balanced if he had not
vetoed the revenue sharing funds. His action is really a Machiavellian
attempt to extort local officials into helping him kill three
statewide issues on the Nov. 5 ballot. If those issues are defeated,
the governor says, he'll restore the money to local
governments.

Understandably, local officials - even Mr. Engler's fellow Republicans
- - are aghast at the governor's tactics. One of them, Sherri Meyer,
Bedford Township treasurer, put it this way: "I'm upset because I
don't know anything about these ballot proposals at this point either,
but now I don't have a choice. I'll have to vote against them just to
get that money back. It's not a fair thing to do."

Ms. Meyer is right. The governor has no business creating chaos in the
halls of local government for his own aggrandizement.

The three issues - alternatives to jail for drug-crime defendants, use
of tobacco settlement money for health care, and a guarantee of
collective bargaining and binding arbitration for state employees -
ought to stand or fall on their own merits.

Mr. Engler happens to be right about the drug-sentencing issue.
Similar to one headed for Ohio's fall ballot, the measure would impose
huge mandated annual costs on the state. It's a public policy issue
that should be settled by the legislature, not written into Michigan
law willy nilly.

Even so, the governor should not be blackjacking local officials into
doing his political bidding, especially since the money involved is a
routine appropriation.

Mr. Engler may be leaving behind the balanced budget he obviously
cherishes, but his legacy may not be as tidy as he thinks.