Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Gosselin's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 22, 2005]
Rep. Gosselin, 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 against the 2005-2006 General Government Budget, SB 272, because it exceeded inflationary factors, increasing 6.2% from last year's budget. This increase is over and above the rate of inflation, which further taxes workers and families during already tough economic times.

Additionally, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify two past budgetary votes. On September 20, 2005, I voted no on HB 4831 and yes on HB 4887. However, my intent was to do the reverse.

I intended to vote yes on HB 4831, which provided funds to the school aid budget. This budget is a separate entity that is calculated without consideration for inflationary factors, and I wholeheartedly support it.

I intended to vote no on HB 4831, the house Omnibus budget bill, because it exceeded the overall rate of inflation. Fiscal conservatism is key to effectively managing the public's money, and the careful use of public funds ensures the trust that Michigan citizens have placed in this legislative body.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide clarification on the record."

Reply

2) Sen. Cassis' "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 21, 2005]
Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the first conference report on Senate Bill No.272 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 Cassis' statement is as follows:

At times there are certain ironies in any budget process and in terms of the general government budget, in particular, I need to mention one. On one hand, the Governor has been proposing personal property tax credits to relieve the tax burden on many, many of our industries, especially in the manufacturing sector. On the other hand, there is an attempt to increase collections through personal property tax auditors.

About one year ago, the Governor vetoed a bill that I sponsored that would have reduced the increase and the higher penalties on those businesses for one reason or another and made a mistake or an error in their personal property tax filings. The bill would have removed retroactivity. The Governor vetoed this for businesses.

In summary, our Governor is sending mixed messages to the business community at a time when small and large businesses alike are struggling; when bankruptcies are on the increase. There is no question that businesses want and will pay their fair share, but they don't need Treasury's intimidation to do so, especially at a time of economic hardship.

I will be voting "no" on this general government budget this year. I urge my colleagues to consider this budget very carefully in light of some of the facts that I have just brought forward.

Reply

3) 2005 Senate Bill 272 (Appropriations: 2005-2006 General Government budget ) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the Senate on March 2, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 General Government budget, which funds the Executive, Legislature, Secretary of State, Department of Treasury, and several other agencies. This appropriates $2.654 billion in gross spending, compared to $2.597 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $334.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $335 million. Another $1.668 billion is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue. $1.114 billion of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments

The vote was 34 in favor, 2 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 253 at Senate Journal 58)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation