2005 Senate Bill 272 (Appropriations: 2005-2006 General Government budget )

Legislation watch

Public Act 146 of 2005

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 2, 2005, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 General Government budget, which funds the Attorney General, Civil Rights Department, Civil Service Department, Executive, Legislature, Department of Management and Budget, Department of State, Department of Information Technology, and Department of Treasury. This appropriates $2.648 billion in unadjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $2.597 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $336.2 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $335 million. Another $1.674 billion is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, compared to $1.633 billion enrolled last year, which is a $41 million increase. $1.121 billion of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 2, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 14, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 16, 2005, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 16, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schauer (D) on June 16, 2005, to add additional funding to pay for the 60 additional tax auditors proposed in the Senate substitute version of this budget. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 16, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 2) on June 16, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 General Government budget, which funds the Executive, Legislature, Secretary of State, Department of Treasury, and several other agencies. This appropriates $2.654 billion in gross spending, compared to $2.597 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $334.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $335 million. Another $1.668 billion is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue. $1.114 billion of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 21, 2005.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 21, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on June 28, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 28, 2005, to replace the Senate-passed version of this budget with one that “strips” all actual appropriations. See House-passed version for explanation. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 28, 2005.
Passed in the House (102 to 0) on June 28, 2005, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations, leaving it in its original form as a "template" or "placeholder." This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 35) on June 30, 2005, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 13, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 2) on September 20, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 General Government budget, which funds the Executive, Legislature, Secretary of State, Department of Treasury, and several other agencies. This appropriates $2.914 billion in gross spending, compared to $2.597 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $596.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $335 million. Another $1.687 billion is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue. $1.114 billion of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments. Note: $256.0 million of the general fund increase is because debt service on state buildings was tranferred to this budget from the Capital Outlay budget. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
Passed in the House (94 to 12) on September 21, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 General Government budget, which funds the Executive, Legislature, Secretary of State, Department of Treasury, and several other agencies. This appropriates $2.914 billion in gross spending, compared to $2.597 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $596.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $335 million. Another $1.687 billion is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue. $1.114 billion of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments. Note: $256.0 million of the general fund increase is because debt service on state buildings was tranferred to this budget from the Capital Outlay budget. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 28, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Gosselin's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 22, 2005]
Rep. Gosselin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against the 2005-2006 General Government Budget, SB 272, because it exceeded inflationary factors, increasing 6.2% from last year's budget. This increase is over and above the rate of inflation, which further taxes workers and families during already tough economic times.

Additionally, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify two past budgetary votes. On September 20, 2005, I voted no on HB 4831 and yes on HB 4887. However, my intent was to do the reverse.

I intended to vote yes on HB 4831, which provided funds to the school aid budget. This budget is a separate entity that is calculated without consideration for inflationary factors, and I wholeheartedly support it.

I intended to vote no on HB 4831, the house Omnibus budget bill, because it exceeded the overall rate of inflation. Fiscal conservatism is key to effectively managing the public's money, and the careful use of public funds ensures the trust that Michigan citizens have placed in this legislative body.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide clarification on the record."

Reply

Line

2) Sen. Cassis' "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 21, 2005]
Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the first conference report on Senate Bill No.272 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

At times there are certain ironies in any budget process and in terms of the general government budget, in particular, I need to mention one. On one hand, the Governor has been proposing personal property tax credits to relieve the tax burden on many, many of our industries, especially in the manufacturing sector. On the other hand, there is an attempt to increase collections through personal property tax auditors.

About one year ago, the Governor vetoed a bill that I sponsored that would have reduced the increase and the higher penalties on those businesses for one reason or another and made a mistake or an error in their personal property tax filings. The bill would have removed retroactivity. The Governor vetoed this for businesses.

In summary, our Governor is sending mixed messages to the business community at a time when small and large businesses alike are struggling; when bankruptcies are on the increase. There is no question that businesses want and will pay their fair share, but they don't need Treasury's intimidation to do so, especially at a time of economic hardship.

I will be voting "no" on this general government budget this year. I urge my colleagues to consider this budget very carefully in light of some of the facts that I have just brought forward.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation