Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2008 Senate Bill 1038: Revise gross receipts definition (Senate Roll Call 591)
facebook  twitter 

Amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schauer (D) on October 2, 2008, to tie-bar the bill to House Bills 4301 and 4628, meaning this bill cannot become law unless those ones do also. Those are Democratic-sponsored bills expanding the definition of "disabled" in the no-fault insurance law, and making it easier for unions to take PAC contributions from workers' paychecks without their permission. The amendment failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on October 2, 2008.
View All of Senate Bill 1038: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 17 in favor, 21 against, and 0 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 591 at Senate Journal 81)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 

Line

Vote
In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
 Undecided
Republican
1000%
100100%
1000%
21 total votes
Democrat
100100%
1000%
1000%
17 total votes

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)

Line

The amendment

IN FAVOR

SENATE DEMOCRATS

Anderson (D)Barcia (D)Basham (D)Brater (D)Cherry (D)
Clark-Coleman (D)Clarke (D)Gleason (D)Hunter (D)Jacobs (D)
Olshove (D)Prusi (D)Schauer (D)Scott (D)Switalski (D)
Thomas (D)Whitmer (D)   

SENATE REPUBLICANS
none


AGAINST

SENATE DEMOCRATS
none

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Allen (R)Birkholz (R)Bishop (R)Brown (R)Cassis (R)
Cropsey (R)Garcia (R)George (R)Gilbert (R)Hardiman (R)
Jansen (R)Jelinek (R)Kahn (R)Kuipers (R)McManus (R)
Pappageorge (R)Patterson (R)Richardville (R)Sanborn (R)Stamas (R)
Van Woerkom (R)    




SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES

  n  Allen (R)Y    Anderson (D)Y    Barcia (D)Y    Basham (D)  n  Birkholz (R)
  n  Bishop (R)Y    Brater (D)  n  Brown (R)  n  Cassis (R)Y    Cherry (D)
Y    Clark-Coleman (D)Y    Clarke (D)  n  Cropsey (R)  n  Garcia (R)  n  George (R)
  n  Gilbert (R)Y    Gleason (D)  n  Hardiman (R)Y    Hunter (D)Y    Jacobs (D)
  n  Jansen (R)  n  Jelinek (R)  n  Kahn (R)  n  Kuipers (R)  n  McManus (R)
Y    Olshove (D)  n  Pappageorge (R)  n  Patterson (R)Y    Prusi (D)  n  Richardville (R)
  n  Sanborn (R)Y    Schauer (D)Y    Scott (D)  n  Stamas (R)Y    Switalski (D)
Y    Thomas (D)  n  Van Woerkom (R)Y    Whitmer (D)  

Senate Roll Call 591 on The amendment

Line

Comments

"journal statement"  by Admin003 on October 3, 2008 
Senators Prusi, Cherry, Brater, Clark-Coleman, Scott, Whitmer and Basham, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House substitute, as substituted, for Senate Bill No. 1038.

Senator Prusi moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Prusi’s statement, in which Senators Cherry, Brater, Clark-Coleman, Scott, Whitmer and Basham, concurred, is as follows:

The reason I voted “no” and the reason I will vote “no” on an amended substitute is that still to my satisfaction has never been offered the total cost of what we are doing here. Certainly, I don’t want to stand in the way of Michigan business and job providers, but I certainly don’t want to disadvantage the people who have come to depend on the services that the state provides. I think until we have uncovered the great mystery of how much money we are actually talking about here today and where it is going to impact our budget deliberations as we go forward next year, I cannot in good conscience support legislation like this.

I have offered up and I have talked about it and we have indicated that, certainly, when tax policy needs to be amended and changes need to be done, there are certain things that we would be willing to participate in and eventually hope to get behind and support. But in the rushed and shoot-from-the-hip manner that we continue to implement tax policy here in the Senate Chamber, I cannot in good conscience offer up any support for measures such as that.

My “no” vote on this prior vote and subsequent vote on this substitution are predicated on the lack of information detailing exactly what this is going to cost and where are we going to find the savings that have to be made as a result.


Senator Prusi' "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on February 16, 2008 
Senator Prusi, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1038 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows:

I believe it is fitting that we are acting here on that glorious holiday of love, Valentine’s Day. All the sweethearts out in the lobby now have their chocolates, diamonds, and furs and exemptions, exclusions, and withholding of taxes. So I guess on Valentine’s Day it is good to show a little love. On this one, the only love I am going to show is to my wife and not to the folks outside who have implored us to do all of these fine gifts on Valentine’s Day.

So I would encourage members to withhold their love, save their love for their actual loved ones, and vote “no” on this bill.


2008 Senate Bill 1038 (Revise gross receipts definition )  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the Senate on January 22, 2008, to exclude from the definition of gross receipts subject to the Michigan Business Tax revenue from federal or Michigan government bond interest; any tax, fee, surcharge or bottle deposit amounts a firm is required to collect; dividends and royalties received from a foreign operating entity; certain Medicaid nursing home reimbursements; certain business equipment lease expenses; state license fees; sale of fully depreciated property; and more

The vote was 21 in favor, 17 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 52 at Senate Journal 15)

Click here to view bill details.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.