Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 24, 2005, to authorize $1 billion in government borrowing (bonds) for grants and loans to public entities and private businesses engaged in the research, development, marketing and commercialization of various “competitive edge” technologies identified by the state (see Senate substitute for details). A government “Strategic Economic Investment Board” composed of government officials and representatives of the types of organizations likely to receive the money would disburse the borrowed money. Assuming a 5-percent interest rate and 30 year amortization, the new debt would require annual debt service payments of $66 million, and incur approximately $930 million in interest expense. The proposal would be on the Nov. 8, 2005 ballot

The vote was 31 in favor, 7 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 200 at Senate Journal 55)

Click here to view bill details.

Valde, I'm disappointed. The cuurent governor wants citizens to be responsible for repaying 2 billion to make bad investments. You only propose borrowing 1 billion to make bad investments. I guess that would make you only half as bad a governor as Jennifer. It's not quite enough to make me want to vote Republican. The state does a very poor job of trying to manipulate the economy by investing in companies that are not stable enough to get their own funding. Having the governor pick the brilliant board running this fund, whether it's Jenny now, or you in the next election, doesn't fill me with confidence. This would be no problem if you voluntarily wanted me to invest in the fund, but you are holding a gun to my head and forcing me to co-sign the note for you. Not interested.

Senator Hardiman, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Thomas to Senate Bill No.533. The motion prevailed. Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows: I certainly support what the good Senator is purposing to do and the amendment. In looking at the language, I don't know exactly what "special consideration" means. I certainly support reaching out and being very inclusive. Although I'm going to vote against the amendment, I would be willing to work with him to ensure that all people have equal access and opportunity to these funds.

Senator Thomas asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Thomas' statement is as follows: This amendment is really about principle and defining that Michigan is a state of equal opportunity; that as we set the table on how we are going to go forward, as a chamber, as we set the table for how Michigan is going to continue to build an economy, that is representative of all people; that women-owned and minority-owned businesses have an opportunity to participate in these next-generation economies. Specifically, this changes the peer review process. It inserts one addition into the peer review process; a provision that consideration be given--not a mandate, not a set aside, not a preference, but that consideration be given--to women-owned and minority-owned businesses so that Michigan can assure that equal opportunity for all businesses is met. I think this is fair. This, again, is not about job retraining; this is not about job retention. This is about dreaming on what Michigan can become in the 21st century. It is predicated on the belief that women and minorities have not always participated fully in our 20th century economy, but why can't we? As we dream about what our 21st century and 22ndcentury economies can develop, why can't all people have a seat at that table? I think that it is a fair representation. It says that it is, basically, the intent of this Legislature that we will ensure, that we will guarantee economic opportunity for all people. The constituents whom I represent currently and in the future don't always just want to be employees; they want to be employers. They have great ideas; they have great tools at their disposal to do that. This Legislature now, as we dream big for the state, can definitively say that all people should be able to have that same dream and that all people should be afforded that same opportunity. Again, this doesn't cost the state any money. It doesn't mandate that folks be given any special preference, although other parts of this bill do have certain mandates. It simply sets the table for what we believe Michigan can and should become in the 21st century. I hope that my colleagues would give it some consideration.

Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.533 and adoption of Senate Joint Resolution C. Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: I voted "no" on Senate Bill No.533 and Senate Joint Resolution C based on certain philosophical and economic principles emphasizing the role and enhancement of the entrepreneurial spirit which, once freed from overly burdensome regulations and taxes, provides the spark, takes the risk, uses creative and innovative expertise to create jobs--spurring a strong economy. Give them the freedom! As one Senator, in my opinion, representing almost 300,000 citizens, our state would be better served by investing in broad-based tax relief, providing the incentive and the motivation to invest right here right now. Bonding presents a risk and costs being spread to all taxpayers coming out of the General Fund accompanied by bureaucratic decision-making. Should a government investment in a particular business go sour, there is no trigger mechanism to repay or halt the grant or loan. Michigan's bond rating also could react negatively to our state's risk gone amuck. Let's encourage winners to emerge on their own in an attractive business climate with motivation to take the risk themselves. Government's record of picking winners is speculative, especially now in a very fast-changing technological and global environment, where our stock market is replete with winners today becoming losers tomorrow. There is so much precedent in America for trusting in private enterprise, in their fiduciary acumen to make decisions to succeed rather than risking taxpayers' dollars in trying to predict winners.

Extra consideration for the "Traditionally underserved communities???" I am a hispanic female business owner that can't believe that we have people like Mr. Thomas III in the senate. Do you notice which party supported and which party opposed?

I think BILL 533 is a well thought out compromise between the Govonor's $2M Bond Proposal and the House's 'Omnibus' Bill 4831. The House has obviosly NOT taken a very close look at the impact this Bill would have accross the State. Thank you Senator Garcia for a well thought out plan for the future.

the only stats i've seen is the final party votes. i havent yet come across any line by line party votes. the only thing i can think of is do a very time consuming "search legislation" then "search legislator's voting record: by bill number". of course you'd have to know the actual bill number in order to search. very time consuming since you would have to look everyone up individually. unless someone else knows how to find the voting tally for amendments & such?

click on the link "vote details & comments" in the section that talks about the extra consideration amendment

i'm an undergraduate @ wayne state and the "omnibus" will seriously raise my tuition (AGAIN) by drastically reducing Wayne's funding (AGAIN). The 553 bill appropriates $ to businesses, not the universities (welfare, prisons, medicaid, etc) that they're taking it from. The bill should give the $ back to the universities (etc).

...give the money back to the taxpayers NOW, instead of taking it from them piecemeal down the line to pay for this debacle. I, and I feel confident to say everyone else for that matter, can spend their own money a lot better that those in Lansing can.

I am not in any way confident in the $1 billion 21st century jobs idea. This state bureaucracy has shown over and over again the lack of ability to be efficient, logical and get results. Ihis state has become so discriminatory in its various economic edicts by giving tax breaks to this one but not that one and to make a renaissance zone here but not there and to show favoritism in general. I am not sure how they can get away with these discriminatory practices. Maybe we could declare the "whole state" a renaissance zone instead (DUH!). It sort of reminds me of the old communist states who tried to control everything and did great and terrible harm in the process. As usual I am appalled again!