For generations, Hillsdale County has stood as a symbol of an older American spirit, a place where personal liberty, private property, and limited government are not talking points, but lived convictions. That heritage is not partisan, it is cultural. It reflects the founding ideals that shaped the country long before modern politics twisted everything into teams, colors, and slogans.
In that tradition, every Hillsdale conservative, understood not as a party label but as an American who values self-government, carries a simple belief: a free people should not fear their government, and a just government should never fear letting the people decide.
The AxMITax constitutional amendment speaks directly to that principle.
Returning Power to the People, Where It Belongs
One of the most enduring themes of early American governance was the idea that taxation is only legitimate when it flows from the consent of the governed. The colonists did not rise up over the size of a tax, but the manner of its imposition.
AxMITax’s requirement that local tax increases be approved by the people reflects this founding principle. The petition does not abolish government, and it does not dismantle essential services. What it restores is the old idea that government must ask before taking, must justify its decisions openly and cannot use the force of government to extort Americans.
This is not a modern political idea. It is one of the oldest American ideas there is.
Protecting Property, the First Duty of a Free Society
Private property is more than a financial asset. From the Founders onward, it has been understood as an essential pillar of liberty. Madison wrote that government’s first responsibility was “to protect property of every sort.” Jefferson warned that when taxation becomes unpredictable, liberty becomes insecure.
AxMITax reinforces those protections by limiting how fast taxation can grow at the state level, requiring clear public approval for local tax changes, and directing tax revenue toward essential, not political, purposes.
Rather than uprooting Michigan’s property tax system entirely, which could create chaos that undermines both liberty and community stability, AxMITax takes a constitutional approach that preserves public services while preventing the excesses that have eroded trust in government.
It is measured stewardship, not radical action.
Restoring Accountability in an Era of Unaccountable Governance
For decades, citizens across Michigan, especially in rural counties like ours, have watched local and state government drift further from transparency and accountability. Decisions are made in back rooms, budgets inflate without explanation, and taxes increase through mechanisms most citizens never voted for.
AxMITax answers this drift by placing government back under clear constitutional constraints. It requires elected officials to justify their spending, seek approval for new taxes, prioritize essential services, and operate within boundaries that cannot be manipulated through administrative creativity.
A government confined by rules is a government worthy of trust.
Reviving Michigan’s Economic Strength, the American Way
When Michigan’s businesses leave, whether factories, small shops, or young entrepreneurs, they leave because uncertainty kills investment. High taxes, unpredictable assessments, and opaque fiscal practices drive away exactly the kind of people who built this nation.
AxMITax introduces clarity, stability, and predictability into Michigan’s revenue system. These principles align with the economic philosophy that made America prosperous: low barriers to entry, predictable tax environments, respect for private capital, and governments that compete to attract, not extract, growth.
This is not politics. It is classical American economics.
A Return to the Citizen-Led Model of Government
The founders believed that power should rise upward from the people, not downward from the state. They believed in local control, informed consent, and the idea that free citizens are fully capable of self-governance.
AxMITax follows that design by decentralizing taxing authority, strengthening local control, ensuring accountability to the community, and reaffirming that no government has the right to take without asking.
These are not partisan positions. They are the bedrock assumptions of the American Republic.
The Myth of “Lost Services,” and Why It Does Not Hold Up
Opponents of AxMITax have increasingly relied on arguments crafted to provoke fear rather than constitutional clarity. We have heard claims that AxMITax would “give more power to Lansing,” “strip local communities of essential services,” or “defund police and fire departments.” Yet a straightforward reading of the petition, along with a basic understanding of Michigan’s constitutional structure, shows these warnings rest on political anxiety, not legal fact.
From a Hillsdale conservative perspective grounded in limited government and self-rule, it is important to separate constitutional reality from political fear-mongering.
I. The Claim That AxMITax Gives More Power to the State Is Not Supported by the Text
A direct reading of the petition shows the opposite. The proposal places strict limits on state taxing power, including a constitutional cap on state tax growth, a prohibition on raising state taxes beyond a 0.1 percent revenue increase over five years, and a ban on expanding taxes without broad public consent.
Constitutionally, restricting a government’s taxing authority does not grant it power, it removes discretion. A government cannot become “more powerful” by having its ability to tax curtailed. The amendment reads as a restraint on Lansing, not an expansion of its reach.
Critics reverse this logic not because it is correct, but because it is persuasive.
II. Locally Controlled Essential Services Are Not Threatened
A central misconception in the “lost services” argument is the assumption that AxMITax removes revenue from local governments. The actual text does the opposite. The measure increases state revenue-sharing to municipalities from 15 to 20 percent, increases revenue-sharing to counties from 10 to 20 percent, and constitutionally requires that these funds be used for essential government and infrastructure services.
That language appears directly in the petition.
Under standard constitutional interpretation, this creates a protected funding floor for police, fire, EMS, courts, roads, and core municipal infrastructure. By legally restricting these funds to essential services, the amendment strengthens public safety funding by increasing the revenue source and prohibiting its diversion to nonessential uses.
Essential services are protected, not threatened.
III. The “Lost Services” Warning Is Political, Not Legal
Fear over losing police or fire funding follows a familiar rhetorical pattern used whenever tax authority is challenged. The script is predictable: suggest government cannot adapt, assume taxpayers will refuse all support, predict that essential services will be cut first, and warn of collapse unless the status quo is preserved.
This argument surfaced during the Headlee debates in 1978, during TABOR arguments in Colorado, in California’s property tax cap battles, and in multiple states during millage reform discussions. In each case, the legal structure funded essential services first.
AxMITax explicitly prioritizes essential services. That is the opposite of defunding.
IV. Claims of “State Power” Ignore How Michigan Law Actually Works
Local governments derive their revenue authority from the Michigan Constitution, the General Property Tax Act, the Home Rule Cities Act, and their own charters approved by voters. None of these authorities are expanded by AxMITax. All are either restricted, conditioned on voter approval, or made more transparent.
The amendment does not centralize budget authority in Lansing, transfer local decision-making to the state, or give the state control over local services. These claims contradict the principle of textual supremacy, the rule that the plain meaning of constitutional language governs over political interpretation.
V. The “Lost Services” Argument Fails Under Constitutional Prioritization
Opponents often overlook that the amendment mandates increased revenue-sharing be spent on essential services. Legally, this does three important things. It creates a constitutionally protected minimum funding level for public safety and infrastructure. It prevents local officials from using police and fire departments as political leverage when budgets tighten. And it ensures that local control remains intact, because local communities still determine how their departments operate and what their priorities should be.
Nothing in the amendment transfers those powers to the state.
VI. Why These Arguments Fit the Definition of Fear-Based Rhetoric
In legal commentary, rhetoric is considered fear-based when it describes worst-case scenarios unsupported by the text, relies on speculative collapse rather than evidence, attributes powers not present in the law, or assumes citizens will refuse all funding regardless of need.
Opponents’ warnings fit all of these criteria.
Constitutional interpretation requires evaluating what the law says, not what political actors fear it might do.
A Constitutional, Not Political, Understanding
From a Hillsdale conservative perspective grounded in constitutional restraint, citizen oversight, property protection, and responsible local governance, the text of AxMITax does not support the widely circulated fears of lost public services or expanded state authority.
Instead, the amendment reflects a longstanding American belief that government should be limited by constitutional rules, taxation should be based on consent, essential services should be protected, and citizens, not politicians, are the ultimate stewards of their communities.
Those principles are not partisan.
They are foundational.
What AxMITax Actually Does, According to the Petition Itself
Much of the debate around AxMITax has taken place in the realm of speculation, what critics imagine could happen, what officials fear they might lose, or what various institutions warn could be taken away. Very few of these claims deal with the actual language printed on the petition. When you read the text itself, without the political noise surrounding it, a far clearer picture emerges.
Here is what the amendment actually does.
It removes the authority to levy property taxes and replaces it with a different constitutional revenue structure.
AxMITax changes Michigan’s tax framework in a fundamental way. Instead of relying on annual property taxation, millage increases, and fluctuating assessments, the amendment ends the system of recurring property taxes and replaces it with a statewide revenue model set in the Constitution.
The petition language makes this explicit. The authority to impose property taxes is removed, but the amendment simultaneously installs a replacement system so that essential functions can continue. This does not leave communities without funding or without a legal structure. It replaces one constitutional model with another.
It prevents fiscal collapse by raising and protecting guaranteed funding for local governments.
Critics often argue that removing property taxes will starve local governments. The petition says something very different. It increases the constitutionally mandated revenue sharing that flows from the State to local units.
These increases create a predictable funding base that does not depend on fluctuating property values, millage renewals, or yearly tax campaigns. Rather than sudden revenue loss, the amendment builds in a constitutional floor that ensures cities, townships and counties, do not experience the fiscal shock that a repeal without replacement would cause.
It restricts statewide tax growth to protect homeowners and avoid state-level tax offsets.
One of the longstanding fears when any local tax power is removed is that the State may compensate with new taxes of its own. The petition addresses this directly by imposing a constitutional limit on how fast statewide taxes may grow. It states that the State may not raise any tax that increases total tax revenue by more than 0.1 percent over a five year period.
This limit prevents Lansing from replacing property taxes with broad state increases. The amendment does not eliminate taxation, but it ensures that the power to increase taxes is restrained and predictable.
It protects essential public services with constitutionally earmarked funding.
One of the loudest warnings surrounding AxMITax has been the prediction that police, fire, EMS, and core infrastructure will be gutted. The petition directly contradicts this fear. It states that the increased revenue sharing must be used exclusively for essential government and infrastructure services.
In constitutional terms, this creates a protected funding channel that cannot be diverted, reallocated, or used for unrelated projects. Instead of jeopardizing essential services, the amendment gives them priority status under the new revenue system. Public safety becomes a secured obligation rather than a bargaining chip in millage campaigns.
Schools retain their funding mechanisms. Cities and counties continue to meet debt obligations. The amendment removes the recurring property tax model but does not erase the legal framework necessary to honor long-standing commitments.
It establishes transparency and restores the citizens’ authority over when and how taxes may be created or expanded.
For decades, property taxation in Michigan has grown through indirect means such as assessment drift, revenue neutral roll-ups, special taxing authorities, and statutory workarounds that increase the tax burden without explicit voter consent. AxMITax ends these practices by making all new taxes and all expansions of taxing authority subject to citizen approval.
The amendment does not forbid taxation. It forbids taxation without clear public consent. This is not a restriction on government services, it is a restoration of a foundational principle.
The Bottom Line
Reading the petition itself, rather than the fears built around it, reveals a constitutional restructuring rather than a collapse. The amendment replaces Michigan’s property tax model with a statewide revenue system that uses guaranteed distributions to local governments, prioritizes essential services, limits arbitrary tax growth, and restores citizen authority over taxation.
AxMITax does not remove government responsibility, it requires government to justify itself within clear constitutional boundaries. It does not threaten essential services, it gives them protected status. It does not create chaos, it replaces one system with another that is defined, predictable, and constitutionally anchored.
Most importantly, the amendment restores a civic principle that Michigan has drifted away from for decades, the idea that taxation should follow the consent of the governed, and that the people, not the bureaucracy, retain the final say over the direction of their communities.
For those who value constitutional restraint, citizen oversight, the protection of private property, and community self-governance, these are not new ideas. They are the principles on which Michigan, and the nation itself, were originally built.
Written in collaboration with Karla Wagner
in liberty,
The Hillsdale Conservatives
Leave a Reply