2007 Senate Bill 220 (Appropriations: Supplemental budget )

Legislation watch

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

Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on February 21, 2007, to provide a "template" or "place holder" for supplemental Fiscal Year 2006-2007 appropriations. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 21, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on March 22, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that inserts scores of budget cuts (see Senate-passed bill for a partial list.) The substitute also contains these provisions: The $40 million of the $400 million that was borrowed for the "21st Century Jobs Fund" in early 2006 that had not been spent before November of that year would be transferred back into the state general fund (where it can be used to pay for general government operations); some foster care and juvenile justice programs would be privatized, saving $4.6 million; and $2.5 million in new spending would be authorized to prevent the administration's plan to lay off 29 State Police troopers. It authorizes increased funding to prevent prison closures and prisoner releases recommended by the governor. The substitute (and bill) was passed on the same day that Gov. Granholm's budget cutting executive order was approved, which partially closes gap of $762.4 million between expected revenue and desired spending in the current fiscal year. That reduced spending by $344 million, most of which comes from accounting changes, and reducing deposits into government employee pension and post-retirement health care funds to the legal minimum (which is significantly below the actuarially sound minimum), but also included actual "hard" cuts. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 22, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on March 22, 2007, to eliminate a provision that transfers $6 million of the $400 million that was borrowed for the "21st Century Jobs Fund" spending back into the state general fund (where it can be used to pay for general government operations.) The $400 million was borrowed in early 2006, and all but $40 million was spent before November of that year. This amendment applies to an earmark in 21st Century legislation authorizing spending on forest product-related projects.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on March 22, 2007, to eliminate a provision that transfers $34 million of the $400 million that was borrowed for the "21st Century Jobs Fund" spending back into the state general fund (where it can be used to pay for general government operations.) The $400 million was borrowed in early 2006, and all but $40 million was spent before November of that year.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D) on March 22, 2007, to strip out a provision that would reduce state revenue sharing to local governments by $40 million, and another provision that would reduce by $18.4 million the spending previously authorized from the state convention facility development fund (funded mainly by liquor tax revenue).
- Amendment offered by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on March 22, 2007, to strip out a provision that would cut $11.8 million from day care subsidies to welfare recipients.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on March 22, 2007, to strip out a provision cutting community corrections programs by $3.8 million.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) on March 22, 2007, to strip out provisions cutting $7.5 million from Medicaid hospital spending and $7.4 million from Medicaid adult home health care spending .
- Amendment offered by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III (D) on March 22, 2007, to strip out a provision cutting $21 million from the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health system. Note: This is the amount that some estimate the system could save in administration expense if it were to become an independent authority separate from the county government.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on March 22, 2007, to reduce (but not eliminate) proposed cuts to Medicaid hospital and doctor spending, and strip out proposed cuts to Medicaid spending on hospice care, ambulances, "auxiliary medical services," and dental services.
- Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on March 22, 2007, to approve in a single batch all the amendments offered by Senators Cropsey, Scott, Anderson, Brater, Cherry, Thomas and Whitmer. The motion failed in the Senate (17 to 20) on March 22, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (20 to 17) on March 22, 2007, to cut approximately $250 million from government spending appropriated in scores of line items for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Among the cuts are approximately $65 million from the Department of Community Health (including Medicaid and $21 million for the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Board); $11 million in welfare spending; $40 million from state revenue sharing; $14 million in public transportation; $3.6 million in arts grants; money for community corrections programs, loans to parolees and a prison union leave bank; and many others. See also Senate Bill 221. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 27, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on April 17, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Motion by Rep. Kevin Green (R) on April 17, 2007, to amend the bill on third reading, which requires majority support. The amendment would have reduced state revenue sharing to local governments by lesser amount than the Senate proposed, but more than the final House version of the bill. The motion failed in the House (43 to 66) on April 17, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Failed in the House (49 to 60) on April 17, 2007, to cut approximately $250 million from government spending appropriated in scores of line items for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Among the cuts are approximately $65 million from the Department of Community Health (including Medicaid and $21 million for the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Board); $11 million in welfare spending; $40 million from state revenue sharing; $14 million in public transportation; $3.6 million in arts grants; money for community corrections programs, loans to parolees and a prison union leave bank; and many others. See also Senate Bill 221. [Vote Details and Comments]
Moved to reconsider by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on April 17, 2007, the vote by which the House did not pass Senate Bill No. 220. The motion passed in the House by voice vote on April 17, 2007.
Received in the House on April 17, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on April 17, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that that contains more accounting changes and fund shifts but less actual spending cuts than the Senate version. See House-passsed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 17, 2007.
Passed in the House (57 to 51) on April 17, 2007, to reduce Fiscal Year 2006-2007 by approximately $310 million, but enact less in actual program spending cuts than the Senate version of the bill, with the difference coming from accounting changes, and pushing various spending into the next fiscal year. The bill does contain actual cuts to state universities, and it cuts the amount paid to health care providers who treat Medicaid patients by 6.25 percent. Unlike the Senate version, the House does not cut arts grants, mass transit spending, community corrections programs, Medicaid coverage, the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Authority, revenue sharing to local governments, and more. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on April 18, 2007.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 38) on April 24, 2007, 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 House on April 24, 2007.
Received in the Senate on April 26, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

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