2002 House Bill 5883 (Senate Roll Call 697)
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 5, 2002, to withdraw $892 million over two years from the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF, or “rainy day fund”), for purposes of closing a budget deficit. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 117, which requires that bill to become law before this one can. Without the tie-bar, passage of this bill will mean postponement of the 23-year phase out of the Single Business Tax (SBT). Under current law, the annual one-tenth percent SBT reductions are postponed if the BSF falls below $250 million. This bill will leave $33 million in the BSF. SB 117 lowers the SBT cut threshold to less than this amount. The bill would also suspend annual $35 million BSF withdrawals to pay bonds on the "Build Michigan III" road construction program. It also would require the state to rank contractors bidding on construction projects on the basis of qualifications, and seek to “negotiate a satisfactory contract” first with the top ranked firm, then with the second, etc. “Satisfactory contract” is not defined. Under current law, contracts go to the lowest qualified bidder. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 37 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 697 at House Journal 54)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported 2002 House Bill 5883:
The following legislators opposed 2002 House Bill 5883:
The following legislators did not vote on 2002 House Bill 5883:
| Vaughn (D) |
Most Recent Comments
1) Senator Shugars', "no vote explantion" [by Admin003 on August 14, 2002]Senator Shugars, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate
Bill No. 1322.
Senator Shugars’ statement is as follows:
I voted “no” on all the conference report bills and House Bill No. 5883, which was the one dealing with the SBT. I also
voted against the cigarette tax because I heard and felt strongly that what’s going to happen is that we are going to
postpone the cut of the SBT tax from 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent therefore, increasing taxes on businesses and also
increasing the cigarette tax. I didn’t think that was the best way to deal with a proposed budget deficit. I felt it would
be better to cut back government spending, government programs, and prioritize what programs and what services were
important to the citizens, and then cut back as much as possible. And though it would be very difficult and a tough
decision, I felt that was much better to do.
A number of my colleagues run for office, and as they run for office, they say we need less government, and I
subscribe to that philosophy, so I voted “no.”
I think the unintentional consequences of the cigarette taxes is going to cause a lot of hardships with businesses
across the lower tier of the state bordering to other states. I feel bad for a lot of those businesses concerning what we
did today. That’s why I voted “no” on all the conference reports and the cigarette tax.
Reply
Introduced in the House on April 11, 2002, to require the state to rank architects, engineers, surveyors, and contractors bidding on construction projects on the basis of qualifications, and seek to “negotiate a satisfactory contract” first with the top ranked firm, then with the second, etc. “Satisfactory contract” is not defined. Under current law, contracts go to the lowest qualified bidder
The vote was 100 in favor, 1 opposed and 8 not voting
(House Roll Call 654 at House Journal 40)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
