Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 8, 2008, to extend the sunset on a 2006 law revised permit requirements for pipeline maintenance projects, a 2004 law that established new regulations and fees on the use of aquatic nuisances control pesticides and herbicides, and a 2003 law that “temporarily” imposed higher fees for various environmental permit fees. Under current law the higher fees end on Sept. 30, 2008

The vote was 63 in favor, 43 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 759 at House Journal 77)

Click here to view bill details.

Any Michigan taxpayer knows there are no temporary tax or fee hikes. They are all permanent. The only way to lessen the burden is to get out of this state.

 You are so right, bapossum.  I sure hope that, in this economic climate, these kinds of legislative tax increases don't cause citizens to resort to any violence against state employees or legislators.  That would be very sad.

 i am against this law passing.

OK. We'll make note of that.

 thank you for noting that.

now, if you would like to come up with some FACTS that might change my mind, i'm willing to listen.

or do you not support oppressive fees?

It is not important to me whether you change your mind or not. I would venture to say it isn't important to anyone, but you.

 pffft... no facts....

no case....another white flag of surrender...

 

 

It's important to me. If the libtards don't even know the definition of "temporary" then we need smarter libtards.

Pardon me, that's two. Seems you've acquired a me too.

 okay...

TWO white flags of surrender.

LOL

 where are your facts?

make your case.

The concept of “fees for service” as a replacement for taxes is an idea that really took root in Michigan during the 1990s.  It is another scheme to shift the burden of regulatory cost off the shoulders of the taxpaying public to those of “prime beneficiaries,” or primary cost producers.

 

In this case, the prime beneficiaries (or cost producers) are various businesses or other interests whose activities can have adverse impacts on “the general welfare” of the citizenry, and so must be regulated to protect and provide for that general welfare.  (Read the Preamble to the United States Constitution.) 

 

A whole hodgepodge of new or vastly increased fees to replace (or restrain) taxes has been imposed on Michiganders in the last two decades.  One of the most onerous, and controversial is the so-called Driver Responsibility fee, which serves as a great example of how the scheme works.

 

There can be little question that a thorough, rational examination of government services and how we fund them is long overdue.  The thing to remember, though is that we got to where we are by creating small-picture, piecemeal and ad hoc “solutions.”  Do we really want to continue on that course, or would we prefer to try getting things done right for a change?  

 our governor has had almost eight years to "get things done right for a change". when is she going to start?

repealing onerous fees and taxes is a great place to start.

crazycajun:

 our governor has had almost eight years to "get things done right for a change". when is she going to start?

repealing onerous fees and taxes is a great place to start.

I guess you want to continue along the course of ad hoc, piecemeal, small picture solutions, then.  

That makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution. 

 

 no, it makes our governor part of the problem.

i'm waiting to hear YOUR solution. our governor doesn't have one.

crazycajun:

 no, it makes our governor part of the problem.

i'm waiting to hear YOUR solution. our governor doesn't have one.

There is no denying that the governor is part of the problem.  So is an obstructionist legislature.  The entire political class in Lansing -- especially the entrenched lobbyists -- is part of the problem.  

I believe the governor has proposed, on several occasions, broad scale changes that address the matter of funding for government services.

As stated before, the imposition of special fees in lieu of taxes has been an ad hoc, piecemeal, small-picture approach to shifting tax burdens.  The ad hoc, piecemeal, small-picture approach hasn't worked.  But you insist on continuing to pursue that failed approach rather than advocating for a thorough, rational examination of government services and how we fund them, which will lead to better policy decisions.

That clearly makes you part of the problem. 

 

 

 

 

 wrong again.

i'm the one pointing out the FAILURE of our present governor, and, by extension, the folly of electing another democrat like her.

i think that electing a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT, as trueblue SAYS he wishes, is even FURTHER FOLLY.

it's time the government learned to live on less dollars, so it can get out of the way while business saves this nation again, just like it has countless times before.

we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity.

but the left in this state keeps on trying.

your vision of 'anarchy' as being totally negative is the result of the riots of the past, when some group hasn't gotten things their way, and resorted to violence.

before big, intrusive government, the people were often far from the reach of 'big brother', and very distrustfull of him when he showed up. it didn't mean we ran amok, it meant we lived our lives without the assistance of government.

like i say.. i pay my taxes, i mind my own business, i don't take what's not mine. what do i need government for?

 why does our state need to 'hike fees'? can't it operate efficiently on what it makes like every family in michigan? obviously not.

isn't thrift a part of the responsibility the representatives take over when they get elected? obviously not.

representatives were elected to do a job, and that job does not include finding new jobs for the government to do. a big part of the job of a legislator is to NOT WRITE BAD LAWS. any law that puts new "irons in the fire" for taxpayers to pay for is a bad law.

the job of government is to govern, not to micro-manage the private lives of the citizens of this state. it is also not the job of government to provide subsistance for those who will not work. charity is the work of the people, not the state.

it is not the job of government to disarm the public. the  people have a right to defend themselves. perhaps if more people exercised that right, we might just need fewer police officers.

it is not the job of government to dispense morality. moral decisions are personal decisions. the government has no business making them for me or anyone else. to do so is to dabble in people's religion, and, by extension, establish a 'religion of the state', which is clearly unconstitutional.

 

crazycajun:

it is not the job of government to dispense morality. moral decisions are personal decisions. the government has no business making them for me or anyone else. to do so is to dabble in people's religion, and, by extension, establish a 'religion of the state', which is clearly unconstitutional.

Then why do you advocate so vehemently, as you do, for the state to outlaw abortion?

 

 for the same reason i advocate so vehemently for the death penalty for the OTHER heinous murderers.

 by the way.. my PERSONAL MORALITY says that murder is wrong.

it also tells me that KILLING is sometimes necessary to save lives.

you have yet to show me ONE INSTANCE that an abortion was the ONE AND ONLY WAY TO SAVE A LIFE.

the mark of cain was not put upon him because he KILLED his brother, but because he MURDERED his brother.

 

 

crazycajun:

 by the way.. my PERSONAL MORALITY says that murder is wrong.

it also tells me that KILLING is sometimes necessary to save lives.

Fine.  But up above you said, in equally absolute terms:

it is not the job of government to dispense morality. moral decisions are personal decisions. the government has no business making them for me or anyone else. to do so is to dabble in people's religion, and, by extension, establish a 'religion of the state', which is clearly unconstitutional.

So the question stands repeating:  If you believe what you wrote above, why do you advocate so vehemently for government intervention to ban abortion -- in other words, the imposition of your moral belief on others, by government force?

 

 

 

 

 i would much prefer PERSONAL intervention to stop abortion, but as those are frowned upon...

i simply uphold the person inside the woman's RIGHT TO LIFE.

don't you?

i also hold it to be true that a woman who snuffs out a viable human life (even one inside, or barely outside, her own body) has committed murder.

don't you?

you keep saying that abortion is a choice, but do you have the right to choose to kill another human being? the law says NO.

ARE WE NOT A NATION OF LAWS?