Legislation watch
2001 Senate Bill 463
Public Act 112 of 2001
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Harry Gast (R) on May 9, 2001, to dip into the state counter-cyclical budget and economic stabilization fund ("rainy day fund") in order to make appropriations at previously anticipated levels, despite a decline in tax revenue compared with amounts which had been projected earlier in the year. The bill authorizes expenditures of $77 million from the fund in the current fiscal year, and up to $155 million in FY 2001-2002.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 9, 2001.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 26, 2001, which reflects changes adopted following committee testimony and discussion. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 26, 2001.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Kenneth DeBeaussaert (D) on June 26, 2001, to withdraw an additional $175 million from the "rainy day fund" to maintain previously adopted school funding increases. The amendment failed 15 to 20 in the Senate on June 26, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on June 26, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 26, 2001.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on July 10, 2001, to cut the $155 million "rainy day fund" expenditure for FY 2001-2002 from the bill. The amendment failed 47 to 57 in the House on July 10, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered in the House on July 10, 2001, to authorize only up to $50 million in "rainy day fund" withdrawals. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on July 10, 2001.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on July 10, 2001, to limit "rainy day fund" expenditures for the current year, by deleting a section of the bill which provides a process for making such expenditures. The amendment failed 45 to 57 in the House on July 10, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Switalski (D) on July 10, 2001, to withdraw an additional $119 million from the "rainy day fund." The money would be used to maintain previously adopted funding for various "categorical" education grants, which had been reduced in order to allow continued funding of basic per-pupil school aid grant increases over the next three years, and for appropriations for certain state health programs. The amendment failed 47 to 56 in the House on July 10, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on July 10, 2001, to cut the $155 million "rainy day fund" expenditure for FY 2001-2002 from the bill. The amendment failed 47 to 57 in the House on July 10, 2001.
- Passed 34 to 0 in the Senate on July 11, 2001, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on July 11, 2001, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
- Passed 76 to 27 in the House on July 11, 2001, to dip into the state counter-cyclical budget and economic stabilization fund ("rainy day fund") in order to make appropriations at previously anticipated levels, despite a decline in tax revenue compared with amounts which had been projected earlier in the year. The bill authorizes expenditures of $77 million from the fund in the current fiscal year, and up to $155 million in FY 2001-2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. John Engler on July 27, 2001.
Comments
1) Rep. Jamnick's "no vote explanation" by Admin001 on October 17, 2001“Mr. Speaker and members of the House: During the 1999-2000 session, as a member of the House Tax Policy Committee, I repeatedly cautioned us about continuing to approve legislation which would have a negative impact on Michigan’s revenue stream. Late in that session both House and Senate Tax Policy Committee Chairs were cautioning about the ‘erratic receipts of Michigan’s revenues’. Here we are today being requested to approve transferring $77 million to the General Fund for our current fiscal year and $155 million for the next fiscal year and an additional up to $50 million for this current fiscal year if needed to ensure a zero balance in the General Fund. I question the priorities being funded through these transfers as well as a real opportunity for the minority caucus to have any fruitful input at this time. We should be coming together as a total legislative body to meet the needs of Michigan’s people. There is no fiscally responsibility to consider a withdrawal for the next fiscal year at this time as no consensus revenue estimates have been agreed to and the State’s economic condition could improve substantially over the next six months to a year.”
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted ‘no’ on SB 463, because I believe that the Michigan Legislature has not explored all sources of funding to address the budget shortfalls, nor have we had a thorough discussion of our funding priorities. We should consider a short term suspension of our previously approved tax cuts, our continuing to pour money into e-Michigan, and capital projects like the $100 million Supreme Court Building. We should consider the amount of revenues needed to fund our priorities, like early childhood development programs, educational programs, higher education, health care, environmental protection, and programs for our seniors and veterans. Then we need to consider how much is needed from the Budget Stabilization Fund, how much should come from suspension of our tax cut programs (should we suspend them for one year?), the transfer of unused funds in e-Michigan, and the potential suspension of capital projects. But those alternative sources of revenue were not looked at. Thus, I could not support this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House: We should not dip into the budget stabilization fund without exhausting every other means.This is a poor approach to balancing the budget. We should re-visit the SBT elimination.We should re-visit the personal income tax reduction schedule. We should back off the E-Mich program and stop the 100 million Supreme Court House. We need the BSF for true rainy days.”
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
