Public Act 156 of 2005

      Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on March 2, 2005, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This appropriates $1.476 billion in unadjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $1.241 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $73.8 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $94.5 million. 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 by voice vote in the Senate on June 16, 2005.
• Passed 34 to 2 in the Senate on June 16, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This appropriates $1.389 billion in unadjusted gross spending, compared to $1.241 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $87.7 million will come from the general fund, compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $94.5 million, and another $429.7 million from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, up from $290.5 million the previous year. the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This appropriates $1.389 billion in unadjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $1.241 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $87.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $94.5 million. Another $429.7 million is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, compared to $290.5 million the previous year. $70 million of the increase is from a proposed $1 billion bond proposal for “competitive edge technology” enterprises selected by government committees.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• 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 by voice vote in the House on June 28, 2005.
• Passed 101 to 0 in the House 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
• Failed 0 to 35 in the Senate 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on September 13, 2005.
• Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on September 21, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This appropriates $1.273 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.241 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $70.3 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $94.5 million. Another $329.8 million is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, compared to $290.5 million the previous year. The budget does not contain $70 million from a proposed $1 billion bond proposal for “competitive edge technology” enterprises selected by government committees, but similar proposals are likely. Among many other things the bill cuts the Michigan Economic Development Corporation funding by $3 million, and prohibits the department from developing mandatory ergonomic rules.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
• Passed 106 to 1 in the House on September 27, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This appropriates $1.273 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.241 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $70.3 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $94.5 million. Another $329.8 million is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, compared to $290.5 million the previous year. The budget does not contain $70 million from a proposed $1 billion bond proposal for “competitive edge technology” enterprises selected by government committees, but similar proposals are likely. Among many other things the bill cuts the Michigan Economic Development Corporation funding by $3 million, and prohibits the department from developing mandatory ergonomic rules.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 29, 2005.