Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $333.8 million in gross spending (all general fund money), compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. When delays in previous year disbursements are considered that pushed some of those appropriations into this budget, the net increase in community college funding is around 2.5 percent, distributed unevenly to different institutions. Note: As with all House Budgets, this one authorizes spending well in excess of projected revenues, and is based on the presumption of a substantial tax increase

The vote was 59 in favor, 47 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 315 at House Journal 78)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: In a surprising turn of events, I rise to oppose this bill. I'm being facetious; it's not surprising. You know, I served six years on Appropriations when I was in the House. The last four were as the ranking member. I understand how the process works. I understand the Legislature's rule. I may not look old-school, but I remember a day not that long ago where the Legislature actually put money and numbers in these budgets and set priorities and said, "This is what we stand for." We care about community colleges; let's just not put in $100. Not everyone in our state can afford a four-year university and some students need to work while attending school. They might need to raise a family. This is the opportunity that our community colleges afford and offer them. I hope these students continue to have choices, and I think we should fund them so that they can. I want them to have the opportunity to receive a degree closer to the community. This bill has $100 for each community college in the state of Michigan. Now, if you just look at LCC down the road, we have 32,000 students there. Under this bill, if you look at the numbers in the bill--and I'm not just saying there are no numbers there because there are numbers; just zeros--under this one there is $100, so at LCC that would be 3/100 of a penny for each student to go to LCC. Now I don't know about you, I can stretch a dollar, but I couldn't afford to go school on 3/100 of a penny. I think we should do our job and set priorities and say this is important enough for us to actually put real money here before it leaves the Senate, before it goes to a private room with a handful of people in it. I think we should put our stamp on this and say this is important to the State Senate. This bill does not do that and I will oppose.

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I also rise to oppose this bill. As a legislator, the public record that we have about our positions on a bill is our vote. We are voting today on record to give our community colleges $100. I think my community college deserves more than that. I know that it's a priority of mine, and whether or not it's a process issue or not, your public statement is that you are giving the universities $100. I don't think that is responsible. I think it is bad policy, and I believe that voting "no," as was said earlier, might stop government from going on in October 1 is not correct. We have not done our jobs for nine months; that is what might stop government. That's what might close government that we have not done our job. So I think it is time to put ourselves on the record. I am going on the record saying that I think our community colleges deserve more money.

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows: I rise as chairman of the community colleges Senate subcommittee and ask for your support for this bill. We all understand that all of the numbers we would like to see are not present. We have put $100 placeholders in because we need to move forward, move them to conference. We are within a month of the end of this fiscal year. We need to get the job done. Now some of my colleagues have stood and said they oppose this process. It is not what I would have liked, but this is where we are right now. Some colleagues have stood and said it is because we have done nothing all year long. Well, I want to say something. I have been busy all year long. I chair three committees. I put a lot of effort into those bills, especially the first two, when we first hit House bills. So it is not as if I have sat and done nothing all year long. You know the things that we have accomplished here. We have had to redo the 2007 budget, we have had to redo the tax replacement for the SBT, and now we are working hard on this. Yes, there are philosophical differences and there are politics at play at times, but it is not because we have done nothing all year long. You also know the process. We are moving us forward so we can get the job done by the end of the year. Now I would hope that we can move forward on the rest of these bills and do just that so we can serve the people of this great state. Someone mentioned courage before. It's not courageous to put forth a bill like this. I don't think it takes much courage to vote "no" on a bill that has just a $100 placement in it. You can always justify why you vote "no." It takes courage to lead and that is what we are trying to do and get through this process. I would ask for your support for this bill

Senator Jelinek's statement is as follows: I would like to say that a "no" vote on this bill is a "no" vote against community colleges; the colleges that we value; the colleges that do us a great service in this state. To vote "no" means that you don't want to fund them. We do intend to fund them. We do know that they are going to be funded. When we get into conference, we will decide the level of that funding. But to vote "no" would be an insult to those community colleges. We value their service and we intend to fund them to the fullest extent that we possibly can. So a "no" vote would be a vote against funding them.

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This bill has removed the prohibition of abortion services and same sex benefits. It's also a 10% increase in spending."

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 sales tax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannot balance 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 $318.9 million in gross spending, compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006." Anyone get the idea the people of this state were just sold a huge bill of goods?