Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2007 Senate Bill 220: Appropriations: Supplemental budget

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

Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Warren's "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on April 18, 2007 
Rep. Warren, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Thank you for this opportunity to explain why I am voting against these proposed budget cuts.

While I was on the campaign trail running for office this summer, I would inevitably get asked the question that I am sure many, if not all of you, have had to answer: why?, why would you want to run for office when our economy is so bad and Michigan is confronting so many challenges? For me the answer was clear. I ran for State Representative because I feel that although we are in an unprecedented budget crisis, we are also facing an incredible opportunity to create long-term reform that will invest in the extremely talented people of Michigan and move our state forward.

It is no secret that these are tough times. Our citizens are scared and they are frustrated. They are looking to us for a plan, and most importantly, they are looking to us for hope. I do not believe that these cuts represent that hope, but rather an admission of defeat, a concession that we cannot recover and grow stronger from this crisis.

Like many of you, I fought hard to stand here today as a State Representative for the good people of this state and I did so with the promise that I would fight just as hard when I got here - for education, for health care, for local government and critical public services, and for the programs that make Michigan a unique and great place to live. That is why I cannot, in good conscious, vote today to cut these programs and in essence pass the buck to our local elected officials, our school personnel, our public servants, and our citizens. That is why I cannot vote today to concede and to move our state backward.

I understand that this vote is but one of many that we will take on the budget, that it is just one part of the negotiating process that will continue to take place as we work through this crisis. As we stand here today taking this vote, however, I believe that we must be mindful that we are already forcing citizens to live without heating assistance during an usually cold Michigan April because we have exhausted the utility assistance fund, and that we are already forcing schools to increase class sizes and cut vital programs due to possibility of the reduction in state aid.

I am not interested in playing politics with our citizens' quality of life, nor will I stand idly by as Michigan enters a race to the bottom. It is time for a comprehensive plan that raises revenue for the programs that invest in our children and protect our most vulnerable citizens.

Ultimately, as State Representatives I believe that it is our responsibility to take our charge seriously and to lead in times of crisis, to take the hard votes when the choices are not easy and to stand up for the people who cannot. It is not a duty that can be shirked in times of trouble for it is how we handle these challenges that truly define us, as leaders and as a state; not just for tomorrow's five o'clock news or the next election cycle, but for the generations after us who must live with the decisions we make today and in the days ahead.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Michigan is waiting."

Reply

Line

2) Rep. Hoogendyk's "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on April 18, 2007 
Rep. Hoogendyk, 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 could have voted for these painful cuts to get this state's budget in order, but I could not support the political stunt that was pulled by leadership to substitute the bill and then tie-bar it to a large business tax increase. Tax increases should be voted on their own merits."

Reply

Line

3) Rep. Agema's "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on April 18, 2007 
Rep. Agema, 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 could vote for this bill except it is a stunt to raise taxes by a tie bar. This bill in it's original form was passed nearly unanimously in Approps this morning- this doesn't even resemble the original. This is a good example of true partisan politics. This is not good government policy."

Reply

Line


View Full Conversation