Legislation watch
Most Recent Comments
1) Sen. Cassis' "journal statement" [by Admin003 on June 29, 2007]Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:
My comments take a different approach. The supplemental before us is an increase in funding; it's overspending almost $74 million. We all have said that reforms are needed in this great state, but when do we start? Like a diet, we are very similar to a diet; it's easy to put off until tomorrow starting that diet. Let's eat the cake today; we will worry about starting the diet tomorrow. Or while I do want to reform and make savings to programs--certain programs--there are other ones I simply don't want to touch.
So today my vote is to begin the reforms and to contain overspending.
Reply
Senator Scott's statement is as follows:
I rise to comment on two issues as it relates to this supplemental. First, I am happy to know that we were able to reach an agreement on the Morris Hood Diabetes Outreach program, a program that provides critical diabetes outreach services for children all across this state. Because of the $25,000 included in this bill and with a commitment from the department to fund the remaining balance, the program will be fully restored at $100,000.
It is unfortunate, however, that we have to spend so much time on such an important program that costs the state so little, with 60 percent of these funds going out-state. Children from Marquette to Alpena to Traverse City to Port Huron to Detroit are able to be tested, treated, and screened for this increasingly-diagnosed disease in our young children.
Secondly, I want to state my disappointment that we were not able to maintain the executive house recommendation to include a $100 authorization allowing Wayne County Community College to begin planning for a new instructional facility and renovations of its existing buildings. It is important to note that Wayne County Community College had never had a capital outlay appropriations in its 40-year history. The state has continued to put them on hold the better part of three years. It is my hope that as we continue our work on this '08 budget that this project will be given top priority.
Reply
Senator Basham's statement is as follows:
This is the bill that actually robs Peter to pay Paul. It robs $70 million from the revolving petroleum fund. We talk about health care. One of the previous speakers, the doctor, was talking about health care. I think certainly you can talk about cleaning leaking underground storage tanks as being a health issue in the state of Michigan, when, in fact, we are one of the worst states in the country to have leaking underground storage tanks not being cleaned up. As a matter of fact, we are cleaning up so few leaking underground storage tanks that we are losing federal money as a result of it. So we actually should be putting more money in the revolving petroleum fund. We should be putting, more money in that barrel--no pun intended--in that fund actually to clean up more leaking underground storage tanks, not taking more money out of them.
And if you talk about a health care crisis in this state, certainly, the more rural areas in this state will be affected quicker than the urban areas because they use city water, like in southeastern Michigan. But if you have a well, it won't take too long to realize that you have a problem if you got gas stations or abandoned gas stations or abandoned tanks from a number of factories.
Some of my colleagues might not want to listen to this, but I think it is important. I think when we rob Peter to pay Paul, I just want to know who this Paul is because, certainly, he is getting all the money, and the money is not going to the revolving petroleum fund that we should be adequately funding, And if not this year, then we should absolutely guarantee that that money goes back in next year.
I would ask--you know, this mentality of robbing Peter to pay Paul in taking money out of funds like this is the wrong thing to do.
Reply
View Full Conversation
