Most Recent Comments

1) "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.

Reply

2) 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.

Reply

3) 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.
Reply

View Full Conversation