Vote In Favor Against Not Voting Undecided

Democrat 0% 82% 17% 47 total votes

Republican 88% 11% 0% 63 total votes

Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Brown's "no vote explaination" [by Admin003 on December 17, 2003]
Rep. Brown, 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 no on Senate Bill 556 (H-1) as amended, because it will do great damage to our children's education.

Cutting $2.5 million from small class size funding will cause long term damage for our students. We know from research that providing for smaller class room sizes is critical to ensuring our children succeed. The research is clear that having smaller class sizes provides for more individualized attention to the students and results in the children performing better.

The substitute also cuts $10 million from the Intermediate School District (ISD) reserve funds. Why would want to set a precedent of punishing ISDs for showing fiscal restraint and saving their funding for emergencies? This makes no sense. This will encourage ISDS to spend their money as soon as they get it, leaving them vulnerable in times of emergencies.

The substitute version cuts $5 million or 30 percent of the $15 million provided to the Detroit School District. This is breaking a promise that was made when the Detroit School takeover occurred. At that time, an annual $15 million was promised to help in the school reform efforts. Finally, the substitute cuts $5 million from Section 20j which is money provided to the "hold harmless" districts.

It is irresponsible to cut education funding further when freezing the income tax rollback for six months would allow us to prevent these cuts and not cut into the education of our children any further. Pausing the income tax will cost $50 per year or $4.17 per month to a family earning $60,000 per year.

For these reasons, I voted no on Senate Bill 556 (H-1)."
Reply

2) "no vote explaination" [by Admin003 on December 17, 2003]
Reps. Hopgood, Kolb and Murphy, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 556 (H-1) because it will do great damage to our children's education.

Cutting $5 million from small class size funding will cause long term damage for our students. We know from research that providing for smaller class room sizes is critical to ensuring our children succeed. The research is clear that having smaller class sizes provides for more individualized attention to the students and results in the children performing better.

The substitute also cuts $10 million from the Intermediate School District (ISD) reserve funds. Why would want to set a precedent of punishing ISDs for showing fiscal restraint and saving their funding for emergencies? This makes no sense. This will encourage ISDS to spend their money as soon as they get it, leaving them vulnerable in times of emergencies.

The substitute version cuts $5 million or 30 percent of the $15 million provided to the Detroit School District. This is breaking a promise that was made when the Detroit School takeover occurred. At that time, an annual $15 million was promised to help in the school reform efforts. Finally, the substitute cuts $5 million from Section 20j which is money provided to the "hold harmless" districts.

It is irresponsible to cut education funding further when freezing the income tax rollback for six months would allow us to prevent these cuts and not cut into the education of our children any further. Pausing the income tax will cost $50 per year or $4.17 per month to a family earning $60,000 per year.

For these reasons, I voted no on Senate Bill 556 (H-1)."
Reply

3) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explaination" [by Admin003 on December 17, 2003]
Rep. Bieda, 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 no on SB 556 (H-1) as amended, because these cuts are shortsighted and will do great harm to our children's education, and, I believe, Michigan's long and short-term ability to attract new industry and development.

Cutting from small class funding is a poor way to balance a budget as it will cause long term damage to our students. Image, balancing the budget on the future of our children. Research clearly shows that providing for smaller class room sizes is critical to ensuring that our children succeed. The substitute presented on the floor today also cuts ten million dollars from the Intermediate School District (ISD) reserve funds. Why would anyone in state government want to set a precedent of punishing ISDs showing fiscal restraint and saving their funding for emergencies? This runs counter to common sense and human behavior. This will simply encourage ISDs to spend their money as soon as they get it, leaving them vulnerable in times of emergencies. But I suppose common sense is in short supply.

This also bodes poorly for the so-called "hold harmless" school districts. This bill cuts five million dollars from Section 20J which is money provided to the "hold harmless" school districts -- and it sets the precedent for even greater cuts to these school districts. Why should hold harmless school districts , and the taxpayers in those districts, be punished? This is simply irresponsible. For these reasons I voted no on Senate Bill 556 as amended."
Reply

View Full Conversation