Most Recent Comments

1) Sen. Garcia's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 31, 2007]
Senator Garcia asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Garcia's statement is as follows:

First of all, I intend to support this budget, but I do want to take this opportunity to say a couple of things about this department that I believe needs some attention.

First of all, some of you may know that I have the Island Lake Shooting Range in my district. Over the last couple of years, some of my constituents have brought suit against the state and the shooting range for the noise that comes from that shooting range. Now there are some disputes between the residents and the shooting range as to who was there first. I think it is clear that the shooting range was there first. However, the type of shooting that has occurred there changed about three years ago and has caused a deterioration in the quality of life for many of my constituents.

Now most of you know that I have been supported by the NRA. The fact that I serve in the military, I have no problem with guns; I have no problem with shooting, but I also represent constituents and believe that they, too, ought to be afforded a quality of life. The judge in the court case ruled in favor of the department. It is my hope that the department will now take some steps to help improve the situation there and help serve all the citizens of the state, including my constituents. It is my hope that we will be able to work something out there.

So while I intend to support this budget, I do hope that the department will keep in mind the fact that we still need to do something about the noise at that range and the complaints that my constituents will have.

Reply

2) This'll make someone cry - NOT [by Anonymous Citizen on October 30, 2007]
"This appropriates $289.4 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $287.2 million recommended by Gov. Granholm."

At least a cut - less than 1 percent, but at least a cut . . .
Reply

3) Rep. Sheen's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on October 30, 2007]
Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I cannot vote for these budgets as they are based on increased fees, an income tax increases, and the expansion of salestax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannotbalance the budget on the backs of Michigan citizens and job providers that are barely hanging on and making ends meet.

Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. I was not sent to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The Income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes will in no way benefit the state's economy or its citizens. However, it will take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living, which is a double hit to the consumer. It will drive up the cost of doing business and drive out more employers, increasing unemployment and further exacerbating Michigan's plight. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here.

I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state?"

Reply

View Full Conversation