- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 38 of 2009
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) on February 17, 2009, to provide a template or "place holder" for a potential supplemental multidepartment appropriation for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 17, 2009.
- Reported in the House on May 21, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 21, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that includes actual appropriations of federal "stimulus" money. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Dudley Spade (D) on May 21, 2009, to spend $300,000 on "outreach efforts" aimed at getting more low-income families on food stamps and other government food programs. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2009.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 17, 2009.
- Passed 81 to 27 in the House on May 21, 2009, to appropriate $194.1 million for additional spending, almost all of which is federal "stimulus" money. Among the spending items, $74 million is for new unemployment insurance benefits (see House Bills 4785 and 4786), and $108 million for various energy efficiency projects.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on May 26, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on May 27, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on May 27, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that adds $24.5 million in "stimulus" money for school "technology" spending. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 27, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2009.
- Passed 32 to 4 in the Senate on May 27, 2009, to appropriate $218.1 million for additional spending, almost all of which is federal "stimulus" money. Among the spending items, $74 million is for new unemployment insurance benefits (see House Bills 4785 and 4786), $108 million for various energy efficiency projects, and $24.5 million is for school "technology" spending.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on May 27, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Lee Gonzales (D) on June 3, 2009, to add $30.4 million in federal "stimulus" money for spending on "airport improvement programs". The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 3, 2009.
- Passed 93 to 15 in the House on June 3, 2009, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, after adding $30.4 million in federal "stimulus" money for spending on "airport improvement programs".
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 4, 2009.
- Passed 32 to 5 in the Senate on June 4, 2009, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on June 9, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4308 (Appropriations: Supplemental budget ) by Admin003 on June 5, 2009
Senators Switalski and Sanborn, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House amendments to the Senate substitute to House Bill No. 4308.
Senator Switalski moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Switalski’s statement, in which Senator Sanborn concurred, is as follows:
I just want to reiterate that the House amendment did not fix the fundamental flaw in this bill, which is basically that the federal formula leaves Macomb County getting hosed (“mistreated”: Senator Sanborn) by about $2 million. So I can’t in good conscience vote for it. I understand that it is a bigger bill, it has a lot of good stimulus things in it, and members may want to vote for that. I appreciate that, but I must register my protest at the treatment of my county by the federal formula. So I will be voting “no.”
Reply
Senators Switalski and Sanborn, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4308.
Senator Switalski moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Switalski’s statement, in which Senator Sanborn concurred, is as follows:
I rise to speak and give a “no” vote explanation on this important bill. This supplemental is a very important bill. It has a lot of good things in it, but, for me, it has one fatal flaw. That is a federal formula that establishes the distribution for the energy-efficiency community block grants. We had a lot of discussions about this in committee, and as it turns out, the way the formula works, the county that I hail from, Macomb County, suffers grievously under this distribution formula.
Let me just outline how it suffers. In monies to counties, Wayne County gets $4.9 million, Oakland gets $4.9 million, Ottawa County gets $2 million, Genesee gets $2.6 million, and Kent County $2.7 million. As the third-largest county, you would expect Macomb to come in at around $4 million, maybe $3.8 million—some high threes somewhere in there. But Macomb comes in at $746,000. How can this be? I share the same reaction as you, Mr. President. How can that be? How can Macomb be the third-largest county and get $700,000 while five other entities—three of whom are far lower in population than Macomb—get over $2 million.
Well, there are vague reasons, the formula, such that if you have some significantly-sized cities in your county, those are subtracted out. But let me just say to you that looking at the dollars that go directly to cities in Wayne County, the cities are getting $13.7 million; the cities of Oakland County are getting $6.4 million, and the cities of Macomb County are getting $5.5 million. It’s a fair and equitable distribution, in my opinion. But when you put the two together, how can the counties of Oakland, Wayne, Kent, Genesee, and Ottawa be getting $2 million and $4 million and Macomb only gets $700,000?
Well, Macomb happens to have some large cities that get subtracted out, and it turns out to negatively impact the county amount. Now is that fair? Is that equitable? I would say it is random and makes no sense at all and is completely unfair; just because Macomb has two of the largest cities in the state—Sterling and Warren. Is it better that other counties like Wayne and Oakland have a larger number of medium-sized cities? They are still getting more than us in city distribution. So it is random and unfair and arbitrary. That is not how a federal formula should work.
If it were in my power, Mr. President, I would change the federal formula by an amendment, but it is federal formula; we can’t change it. So I would only ask that the federal formula be changed to something more equitable, that if they are using it on anything else, they stop using it and that they come up with a better formula.
So as a protest to this unfair distribution, I must vote “no.”
Reply
Rep. Kurtz, 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:
While I support some of the needed programs in this bill I can not support the spending of stimulus money to prolong our structural deficit. Instead of fixing the problem at hand we are putting off fixing our state’s budget for another day. The ARRA money was intended to create jobs for American workers and portions of this bill will increase our dependence on government unemployment. The ARRA created long term debt and it should be spent on long term projects.”
Reply
View Full Conversation
