2007 Senate Bill 436 (Balance 2006-2007 budget with cuts, accounting shifts, and debt )

Public Act 17 of 2007

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

Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek on April 25, 2007, to provide a "template" or "place holder" for a potential supplemental multidepartment appropriation for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include some. This is related to closing a gap between spending that has already been appropriated and expected revenue for the year.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 25, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on May 16, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that contains a Republican plan to match current year spending with expected revenues, closing an approximately $722 million gap. This has most of the same cuts as Senate Bill 220; the per-pupil school aid cut would be $36 (compared to $122, which is the amount expected if no other cuts are made or taxes raised.) The bill also removes $294.5 million that has been allocated but not yet spent from the “21st Century Jobs Fund,” and removes smaller amounts from various other “restricted” funds, including $35 million from a state “convention facilities fund,” $70 million from a state underground fuel tank cleanup fund (target of a 2004 "fund raid"), $20 million from a “Michigan Conservation Corps Endowment Fund,” $70 million from the “Merit Award Trust Fund” that funds non-need based college scholarships with tobacco lawsuit money, and others. The bill also repeats and adds to the accounting changes proposed by Senate Bill 220, including reducing deposits into government employee pension and post-retirement health care funds to the legal minimum (which is significantly below the actuarially sound minimum). It contains additional cuts to higher education cuts, local bus subsidies, and revenue sharing to local governments. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on May 16, 2007.
Passed in the Senate (21 to 16) on May 16, 2007, to adopt a Republican plan to match current year spending with expected revenues, closing an approximately $722 million gap. This has most of the same budget cuts and accounting changes as Senate Bill 220. It would remove $294.5 million that has been allocated but not yet spent from the “21st Century Jobs Fund” and removes smaller amounts from various other “restricted” funds. See the May 16 Senate substitute for more details. [Vote Details and Comments]
Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on May 16, 2007, to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. The motion failed in the Senate by voice vote on May 16, 2007.
Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on May 16, 2007, to suspend the rules to permit reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was passed.
- Withdrawn by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on May 17, 2007, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Received in the House on May 17, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 17, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. George Cushingberry on May 25, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that embodies the May 25 agreement struck between the Governor, the House and the Senate, as described in the final House-passed and Senate-passed versions. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on May 25, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Steve Tobocman on May 25, 2007, to remove a "tie-bar" to House Bill 4500, which would increase the income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.6 percent. With the tie-bar the bill could not take place unless the tax hike also did. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on May 25, 2007.
Passed in the House (69 to 37) on May 25, 2007, to partially close the gap between previously appropriated spending and expected revenue in the current fiscal year budget (which has just four months remaining) by adopting some relatively modest budget cuts (but none to schools), postponing various payments until the next fiscal year, contributing less-than-actuarially sound amounts to pension funds, “raiding” several “restricted” funds for $167.9 million (only $30 million of which is from “21st Century Jobs Fund”), and borrowing. The bill actually increases welfare, Medicaid and prison spending. Government restructuring or additional spending cuts will be avoided by borrowing between $100 million and $600 million (depending on further negotiations); see House Bill 4550, see House Bill 4551, House Resolution 123 and House Resolution 124. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on May 25, 2007, to partially close the gap between previously appropriated spending and expected revenue in the current fiscal year budget (which has just four months remaining) by adopting some relatively modest budget cuts (but none to schools), postponing various payments until the next fiscal year, contributing less-than-actuarially sound amounts to pension funds, “raiding” several “restricted” funds for $167.9 million (only $30 million of which is from “21st Century Jobs Fund”), and borrowing. The bill actually increases welfare, Medicaid and prison spending. Government restructuring or additional spending cuts will be avoided by borrowing between $100 million and $600 million (depending on further negotiations); see House Bill 4550, see House Bill 4551, House Resolution 123 and House Resolution 124. Passed in the Senate (26 to 10) on May 25, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on June 6, 2007, which was to not accept a $5 million cut in state lottery promotional spending.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek on April 25, 2007. Passed in the Senate (21 to 16) on May 16, 2007. New Comment

1) Stealing from the future. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007]
The Detroit City Council did it this week. So did the Lansing Council. And now the State of Michigan will do the same: Maintain unsustainable levels of government spending by stealing from the future.

Borrowing. Debt. Ruin.

They use various fancy terms to cover it up - "securitize tobacco lawsuit revenue," "postpone pension contributions," "privatize bridge lease revenue," and more. All fancy ways of saying steal from the future.

This is the new game, folks. Congress has been doing it for several generations now, because they own printing presses that crank out as much funny-money as needed. It's a new thing at the state and local level, though.

This is the new game, and the citizenry is disarmed. Anti-tax groups that have risen the bar to tax hikes are flummoxed, because they don't know how to respond to this in a bumper sticker or 30-second robo-call. The privileged class of government employees and their protectors in the political class have done an end-around, and have an open field in front of them. Expect much more of this in the coming years.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Sen. Garcia's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 23, 2007]
Senator Garcia's statement is as follows:

I rise to express my thoughts about what happened last Wednesday in session--at the conclusion of session. I am glad that it took me several days before I had an opportunity to speak because it probably would not have been wise for me to say something that day. I've been in the Legislature now for over eight years and I don't think I have ever left a session more disappointed and upset than I was last Wednesday. I understand that there are a lot of conversations going on right now, but this matter, I guess, is for everyone involved here, whether it be staff, Senators, or people listening. The point is I was very upset last week because of what transpired.

We had before us Senate Bill No.436, which was a bill which had been described by my staff and I as "220-plus." It basically would cut government to make up the shortfall that we have for fiscal year '07. Among those cuts were a number of areas that I have a great deal of interest in, one of them being the 21st Century Jobs Fund, which I believe strongly in. I understand that there are some of my own caucus who don't agree with that program. I respect their views, and we can agree to disagree.

I also know that many of us in this chamber have voted for things that we have not wanted to in order to keep the process going, and that's why I voted for Senate Bill No.436. But I went to our leader last week and I said, "I have some very serious reservations about voting for this bill." He was gracious enough to let me vote "no" if the opportunity presented itself. Because of a mix-up, that opportunity did not present itself and I ended up voting for a bill I really didn't want to. Again, we have all done it; it happens and life goes on.

What really bothered me is what happened afterwards because I attempted to get that vote reconsidered so I could vote the way I wanted to and that's when the games began. We had one side trying to block the effort to reconsider the vote because they thought they were trying to prevent one of our vulnerables from getting off that vote. Now I went to our staff and I said, "Let me go over and tell them what is going on so that we can clear the air and just get this done. We won't have to play these games." "Well," they said, "No, don't worry about it; we will take care of it."

A long story short, most of you know what ended up happening is we ended up adjourning prematurely. We did not get to reconsider the vote, and I did not get to vote the way that I wanted to--which, in many cases, would have been the vote that those of you on that side of aisle would have wanted.

The point is we seem to be playing games here instead of getting down to the business of solving this year's and next year's budget problems. Now I know that there are some good-faith efforts being made by our leaders, but for whatever reason, it's not happening. I guess the only thing that I can conclude is that there is an element of distrust in this body, let alone this government, which prevents us from getting things done. Until we can reach across the aisle and learn to trust one another, we are not going to get things done.

Now I happen to know that there are several members of the other side of the aisle who I can work with--I worked with before and can trust. I have had them in my office, and we have reached common ground. Does that mean that we always agree with each other? Absolutely not. We have some fundamental differences in how we approach government, but there are common things that we can agree upon for the good of the people.

So I implore this Governor, this body, and the House to learn to trust one another and to work together because until that happens, we are going to fiddle around and Rome is continuing to burn.

To my colleagues on the other side, you know, every once in awhile, I believe that we are trying to do the right things. On this side of the aisle, we need to learn to work with the other side. That does not mean that we surrender our principles, but that does mean that we need to work with the other side.

Now, Lieutenant Governor, we should not have ever adjourned that session the way we did last week. I am disappointed in a lot of things that happened last week. As I said before, I come to Lansing to help people to solve problems. I guess it just frustrates me sometimes that we are playing these games. I am committed to working with my leadership, with this administration, and with the other side of the aisle to make sure that we get these problems solved, which means we will have to compromise if that is what it takes.

So, Mr.Lieutenant Governor, that is really all I have to say. I guess I am disappointed with what happened in session last week.

Reply New Comment

Line

3) Sen. McManus' "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator McManus' statement is as follows:

As I watch this body, it reminds me of a very familiar movie that I watched while I was a child. It was called "The Wizard of Oz." I'm sure you've heard of it. I'm sure you're familiar with it. As I watch everything that's been happening the last couple of months, I can't stop but to see some very familiar characters, characters in this room, characters in the executive branch, and certainly some characters in the House.

Now here in the Senate, we have the brains to pass a very reasonable package of spending reductions to balance this budget this particular year, not once but twice. In the House they haven't always seen the right path to make the best decisions, but certainly their hearts are in the right place because they've wanted to vote for different particular items that the Governor has put forth. Of course, then, there is the Governor. I won't characterize what particular character I think she could portray in "The Wizard of Oz," but I would only say that I would hope that she could find some courage in a decent amount of time to make the very tough decisions which need to be made for this state.

We are definitely in a budget crisis. We're in a challenging time in Michigan history. I think it is incumbent upon this Governor to make the tough decisions, to get in the room, and stop passing the buck.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) OZ [by family on May 31, 2007]
You comments speak to the very real problem. YOU and those like you. Your juvenile, pass the buck attitude.

Our legislative body has done a good job of dodging responsibility for the states problems that date much further back than our Governors tenure.

Maybe if you took the time to actually do your job, rather than sending your colorful scripts to the public, we would not be looking at these fiscal issues.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) i am doing my job, [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2007]
why aren't they doing theirs?

i can't defer my debts by simply waving a pen. and i can't increase my paycheck the same way.

are honesty and integrity too much to ask???

obviously so.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Sen. Jacobs' "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows:

I believe it was last week during my comments that I talked about the closure where some people feel might be taxed loopholes or at least the incentives that we give out to businesses in our tax structure. I don't think anybody here would want to eliminate many of the incentives that we give out to people who have businesses, whether it's manufacturers or farmers or the automobile folks.

We have put in a structure of tax incentives, and sometimes there are tax abatements as we go to local governments because we know that we have to be competitive with other states that are doing exactly the same thing. Again, while I believe there needs to be a fix where we need to eliminate this sort of cannibalizing of one state versus another. The fact of the matter is it's not happening; that's not going to happen because we know--one of the reasons Comerica left was because they were provided with such an attractive package over in Texas that we could not compete with.

Well, the money that is in the 21st Century Jobs Fund is money that we need to maintain this competitiveness with other states. So it makes no sense to me that we would continue to have a system where we provide incentives to businesses on one hand, but where we have the cash that has been securitized that we went to the people and said we are going to do this for a very specific reason, that we would take that money and violate, really, what I find is the public's trust of who we are and what our job is and what we promised them.

So I think we are really going down a very scary walk by doing this. How can we be competitive with the Texases of the world or the Georgias of the world when we are giving up the very money that these folks have; that their governments have as walking-around money to spread out to lure companies into their borders.

So I would ask you to seriously consider whether this makes economic sense for us at a time when we should be stimulating the economy in growing our businesses. I really urge my colleagues not to vote for Senate Bill No.436. This is really bad policy.

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Wrong [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
"the money that is in the 21st Century Jobs Fund is money that we need to maintain this competitiveness with other states."

Cut taxes in Michigan and watch the business start to fill the state. You can't buy jobs with our tax dollars. It never works long term. Cutting taxes and regulations will jump start our economy in short order.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Senator Jacobs response [by changeagent on May 18, 2007]
With all due respect to the Senator I have to wonder if she is stupid, a fool or a liar? Admittedly, those aren't very attractive choices but if she really thinks that Comerica Bank left Michigan because we didn't offer them enough incentives, she is an economic idiot. Comerica left Michigan because banks rely on a growing economy to thrive. Texas is growing, Michigan is shrinking. Stealing from one business in the form of high taxes in order to entice another business to stay will never work. David Littmann is the former economist for Comerica and he has been preaching this for years. Perhaps the Senator should listen to him. Who votes for these people?

Reply New Comment

Line

9) senator jacobs is a [by Anonymous Citizen on May 18, 2007]
democrat who believes that the world must bend to the wishes of the democrat party.

she believes that if she SAYS that business must stay in michigan, that they MUST STAY IN MICHIGAN.

she has no concept of the freedom of businesses to vote with their feet. that is to get up and leave.

her policies have pushed more than one business out of state, and will soon push them all.

it's already too late for this economy. our state is already ruined.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Sen. Cassis' "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

As we all know, the Senate Republicans have presented two responsible plans to balance the '06-'07 budget. Citizens of this state, these plans are being held hostage by a do-nothing Governor and the House Democratic leader. Why? Because the Governor and Speaker will only accept a tax increase. But do our citizens accept a tax increase as a lead solution to these problems? The answer is a resounding "no." If the Governor and the Speaker of the House are convinced otherwise, it's time for the House to put the tax increase up for a vote. Let's settle this issue.

Reply New Comment

Line

11) Thank you [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007]
It is refreshing to know that all of Lansing has not lost their minds. Thank you Senator Cassis for your light in a sea of darkness!
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Sen. Whitmer's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows:

You know, when people talk about the Capitol and they say Lansing is out of touch, I've always taken great umbrage with that statement because, well, this is my great city that it's my pleasure to represent. It's a city of progressive people and it's a beautiful city. It's you people who are giving my city a bad name because it's you who is out of touch.

A "yes" vote on this bill is a vote for our schools. Seriously? If you want to vote "yes" for our schools, you vote not to cut them. You vote to pay for our schools to live up to the promise which we made to every schoolchild in this state.

This is still a $36 per pupil cut. Money that ya'll patted one another on the back last fall and said, "Oh, we've got a great deal for our schools." Now you're taking that back. You say in negotiations the Democrats have reneged. You are reneging to the students of this state by passing this bill.

I saw everyone in this chamber stand up and give Governor Granholm a standing ovation at the State of the State when she said we must not cut our schools. Here we are today, for a second time, you're offering up to cut our schools. The only reason we're doing this is because of your inaction. Putting forward a bill you know is unacceptable just says you're going to continue to put politics over education in our state.

Make no mistake. By voting "yes" on this bill, you are voting to cut our schools.

Reply New Comment

Line

13) Sen. Sanborn's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Sanborn's statement is as follows:

You know, earlier in the speaking, one of my colleagues from the 1st District spoke about investing in Michigan's future. To him and all my colleagues, I say that if we invest this money into education for Michigan's children, we are investing in Michigan's economic future. Here's how. If we take the $290 million from the 21st Century Jobs Fund money that we're talking about, which includes $43 million that the administration tried to rush through earlier this year, if we put $140 million of that money toward the School Aid Fund, that would reduce the per pupil funding cut from the Governor's proposed $122.00; that would reduce it by $86.00 or to less than $36.00 per student.

If we are serious about funding education, this is how we can do it. Or if we use the $154 million of the 21st Century Jobs Fund money, that could be returned to the General Fund, we can reduce the Governor's proposed cut to Medicaid that was passed earlier in the House from 6.25 percent to less than 3 percent, which means that we wouldn't lose any of the federal matching dollars.

Governor, with this plan we can protect our state's most needy while having money left over--money left over that wecould use to keep the nearly 5,000 convicted felons that the Governor wants to release into our communities off the streets.

Now we have a reasonable solution here before us that protects Michigan citizens with no new taxes and without new threats. I urge your support for both these bills.

Reply New Comment

Line

14) Sen. Schauer's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:

We do have something very important before us, and I do want to thank the Majority Leader for recognizing the urgency of the situation that we have. I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, so I'm sure there will be some benefit for what we are doing; that we're trying to move the process. It's certainly an interesting way to do it, but I do appreciate the acknowledgement of the urgency that we need to move.

The problem is these two bills are not going to be enacted. They are another, I guess, one-party or one-chamber agreement. The point I want to make is that if we listen to our constituents, what the people want us to do, the people understand that we have a fiscal crisis in this state. What the people want us to do is to solve this problem in a responsible way through a combination of cuts--and they realize that some of these cuts will be painful--a combination of cuts and revenue increases that will fix our structural budget deficit. It's too bad that the Republican majority here in this chamber refuses to listen to the public and their wishes.

Colleagues, our state is in a real crisis; our economy is in a crisis. Although there are signs of improvement, and I see that even in my own district, our budget is in crisis, colleagues, because of historical tax cuts--ironically, over a billion and a half worth net over the last decade and also from the challenges of our economy. Democrats have proposed, including our Governor and, in fact, led by our Governor, and both the House and Senate Democrats have proposed a responsible comprehensive solution to our fiscal crisis--one that makes tough cuts, tough cuts. A solution is that which will enact real reform and would include revenues to protect what is important and would allow investments in what is important. That means our people, our children, and our critical institutions like our schools and our hospitals and also economic development in our economic future.

The Republican strategy is the strategy of disinvestment, and I want to be very clear that Democrats stand for investing in our state and in our future. These two bills make plain that the Republicans here in this chamber are committed to a strategy of disinvestment. That can't be made clear by this raid on resources that we bonded for to create jobs in this state. It is just astonishing that we would disinvest in our economic future in such a way that clearly puts our economy at risk. We know that Senate Republicans have favored a cuts-only solution. Well, this is worse than a cuts-only solution. This is a financing-borrowing-bonding scheme that, believe me, will make Wall Street's head spin.

Colleagues, these two bills before us--Senate Bill Nos. 436 and 437--are irresponsible. They are reckless. They put our state at risk. They jeopardize and mortgage our future. I will be voting "no" on these two bills. They are nonstarters. I look forward to working with the majority on a comprehensive solution that moves our state forward.

Reply New Comment

Line

15) Sen. Switalski's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Switalski's statement is as follows:

Well, Mr.President, thank you, and a cursory review of these bills indicates that we have a combination of General Fund and School Aid Fund cuts of, really, $370 million that we need to make because of the upcoming revenue estimating conference. These bills deal with this by taking $195 million for the School Aid Fund and $172 million toward the General Fund. If you look at it, I guess, nearly $300 million of this is coming out of the 21st Century Jobs Fund. There are other cuts in there; I haven't been able to see all of them yet, but there's revenue sharing cut--$16million, 4 percent; there's community college cuts, and there's probably a number of other cuts. But let me just speak to the idea of taking $300 million from the 21st Century Jobs Fund.

When we did that and set that fund up a year or so ago, we decided to securitize money out of our tobacco settlement. That is, taking money that comes to us each year from the tobacco companies and pulling a bunch of it forward and investing in our state--that was the argument. Many of us had great difficulties with the idea of pulling that money forward, securitizing that money, because it's, in essence, borrowing money from the future to pay for what we thought were generally current operations. That's the temptation of people when they are trying to solve a budget problem is to rob the future to pay for the present. But that securitization was roughly cut in half, and we were convinced to do that because it was an investment in the future of this state. I think even people who had a great deal of difficulty with the funding mechanism--and I include myself in that--went along with it in order to invest in this state and in jobs.

Look at what we are doing right now. We're taking that money and using it to pay for current operations. Now you could understand that if it was an immediate stop-gap and that you address the fundamental problem of our budget that we've had for five years now--six years. We've had a structural imbalance and pulling one-time money doesn't fix that, but that's exactly what we are doing here. We're using one-time money to pay for current operations and that is not fiscally responsible. That is why Moody's downgraded Michigan's bond rating on April 30th. Our bond rating is now near the bottom of all 50 states. They said that Michigan government is using accounting gimmicks instead of structural changes to address its many shortfalls. The report significantly attacked Michigan's response to balancing the fiscal year '07 budget. Analysts said that by adjusting pension and retirement benefits, pushing off higher ed payments, and debt restructuring are consistent with a below average credit quality state. That is exactly the approach that we're taking right now in these two bills. We're paying for current operations by borrowing from our future. It is not responsible and I cannot support it.

Reply New Comment

Line

16) Sen. Brater's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 17, 2007]
Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.436 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 Brater's statement is as follows:

I rise to set the record straight on a couple of matters that have come up in discussion this afternoon. There has been a lot of talk about what our Governor is proposing and what our Governor is not doing. I just want to stand here and go on record and thank Governor Granholm for the leadership that she has shown in this fiscal crisis which was not of her making, which is something that she inherited.

When I talked about this in the Senate Finance Committee, I was talking about the Governor's plan to provide revenue so we wouldn't have to cut health care; so we wouldn't have to cut education; so we wouldn't have to cut essential services and public safety and other areas. I was told let's not talk about yesterday; let's talk about today. I said well, I'm very happy to talk about today, but let's also talk about tomorrow. That's what Governor Granholm has been trying to do. She's been going all around this state with this message that we need to invest in tomorrow's economy and the 21st century economy. That's why she created the 21st Century Jobs Fund with all of our support. That is what the citizens of Michigan agree with her about. If you are reading any of the polls, you can see that she has convinced the citizens of Michigan that we need to support essential government services; that we can't solve this problem with cuts alone. Granted the public wants us to make some cuts and we have, but we must have three legs of the stool. We must have revenue, reform, and cuts. That is not what is before us today.

I do want to get into the record, as well, this reference to the Governor's cut of $122 per pupil. That is an inaccurate characterization. We all know that according to the state Constitution, when revenue in the School Aid Fund is projected to fall below the level needed to fund the per-pupil grant at the level that we budgeted, she must issue a prorated cut that would be equal per pupil to the amount of that shortfall. So to call that the Governor's cut is totally misleading. That is not what the Governor proposed. The Governor proposed a 2 percent sales tax on services that would have brought in $1.5 billion a year in new revenue. It was a very creative approach. It wasn't necessarily the end of discussion, but it was a great starting point. I think we need to remember and get a little reality therapy today about where we are and where we are going.

To talk about releasing people from the prisons as if this would be done indiscriminately. She was talking about looking very carefully at people who are medically fragile, at people who are deemed past their earliest release date and eligible for Michigan Prisoner Reentry, which is designed to help prisoners succeed in the community because we all know that these prisoners were not sent away for life; they are coming back to our communities. We do need to have funding for mental health care and substance abuse, housing and health care, everything that these prisoners are going to need when they come back to our communities. We know that there are 51,000 of them; most of them are coming back. We have to get serious about how we are going to address that epidemic problem.

Many of the people in this room are responsible for the structural deficit that we have today. Many of the people in this room were here in 1999 and voted to cut the income tax by 1/2 percent. That is costing us $900 million a year. That is a better part of the ongoing structural deficit that our state is facing. So to say that this is a matter of the declining Michigan economy is inaccurate. It is aggravated by the Michigan economy, but it was brought on--it was a self-imposed handicap that was intentionally meant to reduce the ability of state government to deliver essential services. That is exactly what has happened. That is exactly why when we all go back to our districts, wherever we come from across this state, that we are looking people in the eye who are saying to us, "What are you doing up there? Why don't you do your job and provide the funding and ask us for the revenues that we are willing to pay to provide essential state services?"

I'm very disappointed that we are wasting our time here today with this charade; that we're going through on a party-line vote, pass through this one-chamber solution. We should be at the negotiating table. We should have the House, the Senate, and the Governor together. We know we're going to do that eventually, so let's just get on with it.

Reply New Comment

Line

Received in the House on May 17, 2007. Passed in the House (69 to 37) on May 25, 2007. New Comment

1) Rep. Hood's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Rep. Hood, 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 no on SB436 because of the reductions and elimination of programs that are critical to the most vulnerable of our citizens. The cut to Community Colleges, where people go when they are unable to attend a University, is crucial. The institutions of higher learning provide a service when people have limited choices, because of finances, transportation, or health issues. The reduction in Community Health (61million plus) hits many of the programs that are needed. These cuts will cost us more in the long run because of the lose of prevent ional measures. When we talk about being Environmentally responsible, but turn around and cut over 310,000 dollars in our Environmental Quality budget, which is used for contamination cleanup, are we as really worried about our environment. When programs are cut out of this budget such as the Morris Hood diabetes center, located on the campus of Wayne State University, which serves people with diabetes, which is one of our leading contributors of death, all across this state with treatment and prevention is a disgrace."

Reply New Comment

Line

2) If You Can't [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
find 30% to cut in the first 20 minutes of looking then we need to find someone who can.
You say "These cuts will cost us more in the long run", I say bull. The only thing you are worried about losing are votes.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Rep. Leland's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Rep. Leland, 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 no on SB 436 because of the cuts to services that are critical to the most vulnerable citizens in my district and the state of Michigan as a whole. In particular, cuts to the Healthy Michigan Fund, which funds the Morris Hood Diabetes Outreach program, and minority health initiatives. Additionally, cuts to Arts & Cultural grants will cause devastation to important cultural tourism and local arts programs that are essential to the development and revitalization of our communities. Furthermore, because this bill is not tie-barred to a bill that provides additional revenues, it still leaves our state in a budget deficit after these draconian cuts."

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Rep. Elsenheimer's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Rep. Elsenheimer, 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 would vote for this bill if it did not include the cut to the Bovine TB fund. I have spent a great deal of time working to move toward several northern Michigan counties acquiring TB free status, and the loss of this line item will make that almost impossible. The resulting disruption to the sale and movement of beef cattle has the potential to affect millions of dollars in transactions in this industry, and will set back the advances being made to fight this devastating disease. There were several other areas inn the budget where cuts could have been made without raiding this fund.

Beyond the Bovine TB issue, I am not pleased that the bill was distributed to the minority only minutes before a vote was taken on the bill."

Reply New Comment

Line

5) Rep. Kathleen Law's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Rep. Kathleen Law, 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:

I voted no on SB436 because of the lack of a tie bar to revenue. While SB 436 does not cut medicade funding and funding for medical providers it does cut into the bone and sinew of the states citizens. Continued administrative shifts and deferrals will not solve our current crisis."

Reply New Comment

Line

Received in the Senate on May 25, 2007. Passed in the Senate (26 to 10) on May 25, 2007. New Comment

1) robinpetertopaypaul [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
When are our elected leaders going to get it? Securitization, revenue enhancements, new pension actuarials. It all a bunch of crap. They are robbing peter to pay paul. Take a look at the CAFO available on the State website, and see how we are really in deep deep trouble in the future, with how the governor and our elected officials have raided funds, or changed formulas to fit their terrible current spending habits. All of you, Democrat and Republican alike, need to stop taxing us, and quit stealing from our futures. Quit coming up with creative names for increasing taxes. Get a reality check on what we taxpayers want, and it is not new taxes.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) I so agree [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
I so agree
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Sen. Kahn's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Senator Kahn's statement is as follows:

It has been a long and tough day, tough for our people, tough for us here. This bill has flaws in it. I think we all recognize that. In my community, it, too, is tough on higher education. I've talked to the people in my education community and they are sorely disappointed. I've also talked to the chair of higher ed who I'm grateful to say will work hard to preserve the ability of each of our universities to have a floor under which will fund all students.

On the other hand, this bill preserves and protects revenue sharing. It preserves and protects fees paid to medical care providers, and I can tell you that the medical care providers have suffered long for many years. I will vote for this bill so that the process moves forward to providing us a balanced budget in 2007 and allows us to discuss where we are going to be for Michigan in 2008.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Sen. Hardiman's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 26, 2007]
Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows:

Mr.President, I just want to say that I really appreciate all the work that has gone into negotiating this bill and this agreement. There are many wonderful aspects about it, and I will support it. I do have a problem with the higher ed component of the bill. I think it treats those universities that are bringing in more students very unfairly, and the Governor has stated that she wants to double the number of college graduates. The universities that are working to do that are penalized under this bill, but there are so many other wonderful aspects and I do believe we need to come to some conclusion. I will support the bill. I, once again, appreciate those who have negotiated this.

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site