Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 21, 2007, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of History, Arts and Libraries budget. This appropriates $43.5 million in gross spending, compared to $54.8 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $47.4 million proposed by Gov. Granholm (see Senate Bill 255). Of this, $37.2 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $43.1 million

The vote was 20 in favor, 18 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 271 at Senate Journal 79)

Click here to view bill details.

The Idea that a state government has a department dedicated to arts,library,and history is CRAZYYYYY.I mean come on where going broke business is pulling out ,gas is soaring, this whole department should've got the ax in a government down size program.

Senator Clark-Coleman, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 231. Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: I'm protesting the proposed reduction in the History, Arts, and Libraries budget, specifically as it relates to the arts and culture grants. We've heard repeatedly that an educated citizenry is the foundation for the future that Michigan seeks to build. I do not need to remind you, my colleagues, of the value I place on education. You have witnessed my advocacy. You have observed firsthand my support, but I hope you also know that my perspective on education is not a narrow one. Education is far more than algebra and biology and English. It includes an historical perspective and a futuristic vision. It's about expanding imagination. It's about encouraging creativity. It's about cultivating ingenuity. These are the qualities that arts and culture grants contribute to our state through a program that has recently received national recognition from the National Endowment for the Arts for its grants application and review process. Whether through school classes offered by skilled artists or outdoor sculpture for a Michigan city, the Michigan Council for the Arts and Cultural Affairs grants provide opportunities for thousands of talented and creative artists who make our state and our lives rich, vibrant, and attractive. They are the very qualities that Michigan must embrace as we educate and prepare our citizens for the future. Art is life itself, and when you allow culture to languish, you are allowing people to languish as well. How can we in good conscience be responsible for that decline? If we don't have the revenue to provide this crucial piece of education for our citizens, perhaps we should address our lack of revenue rather than eliminate the grants. Let me repeat that--perhaps we should address our lack of revenue rather than eliminate the grants. Please restore the funding to the Michigan Council for the Arts and Cultural Affairs grants to assure that the future Michigan is as enriched and well-rounded as we can provide. I was going to ask that you don't deprive us of this vital effort, but since you already have, then I'm explaining to you why I voted "no" on it.

Rep. Meekhof, 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 must vote no on this budget because of the devastating cut made to the library system. Libraries are an essential part of our local communities and I believe that we can find much better places to save money than this."

I think Michigan needs to be careful with what they cut in Libraries and the Arts since these are factors that help people decide what communities they might want to live. You cut off Libraries and the Arts and people may choose other states to live where these services are better provided. Hopefully Michigan will not shoot themselves in the foot by pushing more citizens into deciding to leave the state for a more inviting one.

Rep. Meekhof, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I can not approve the funding decreases for our important libraries. These vital community resources are used by many school children, seniors, and home school students."

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?"

"This appropriates $49.5 million in gross spending, compared to $54.8 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006." This budget is unusual - it actually spends less than last year. Most of the other budgets spend more, notwithstanding a "budget crisis."

This appropriates $49.5 million spending, compared to $54.8 million and $47.4 million originally proposed by Gov. Granholm. She only asked for $47.4, but you gave her $49.5? Why?

Rep. Warren, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote pertaining to Senate Bill No. 231, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Thank you for this opportunity to explain why I am voting against the proposed FY 2007-2008 History, Arts, and Libraries budget, which cut $2 million from the arts and cultural grants program and an additional $2 million from our public libraries. To help explain why I am voting against this budget, I think it might be informative to start off with few numbers: Throughout 2002 in Washtenaw County alone, there was one industry that boasted a total economic impact of $165million, generated over 2,600 jobs, and produced $5.2 million in state revenue. As astounding as these numbers are, they were not produced by the car corporations or the pharmaceutical companies. They were produced by our growing not-for-profit arts and cultural organizations. These organizations have made these great strides despite a struggling economy, and repeated cuts and unfulfilled grants from this body. They, along with our public libraries have provided invaluable opportunity to our citizens, enrichment to our students, and promise for future generations. As a first term legislator who has spent too many hours to count in this very room dealing with the financial crisis we are facing, I am all too painfully aware that we will certainly face the constraints of a tightening state budget for the foreseeable future. I also believe, however, that in these difficult times, we must not turn a blind eye to the promise of economic revitalization based on preconceived notions. We must not continue to do as we have done before and somehow expect the results to be different. So, I am voting no today to urge investment and the untold benefits it will reap for our citizens, our schools, and our state and local governments. I am voting no today because I believe that we must continue to develop and maintain these creative communities for years to come, always working to establish Michigan as a leader in the programs that attract and keep new talent here, re-invent our economy and ensure a diverse and innovative state. After all, who knows when your county may need an extra $165 million? Thank you."