Michigan Votes Forum

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

My previous colleague pretty much described the concerns that I have with Senate Bill No. 72. I am not going to report those, except to say that the part that probably concerns me the most is that we are now requiring more information from businesses that they are going to have to report if this bill passes. It seems to me that that is something that we would not want to do; that we would not want to make their reporting even more burdensome than it is now.

In addition, I think the bill also requires the Department of Treasury to make an analysis of the various tax credits that we have passed into law to say whether they are effective or not. I guess I believe that that is a responsibility of ours. If we pass a tax credit, then we must believe that it is effective. If we don’t, then we should not be passing them.

So I, unfortunately—well, I voted for it in committee. It has changed enough where I am not going to be able to vote for it now. I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Senator Thomas’ statement is as follows:

The bill that many of us just opposed—that I just opposed—is important in that it does call for transparency. However, the bill is technically flawed in that the Treasury Department does not keep the statistics, and businesses are not required to report the statistics that the Treasury Department would then have to report to us. So I don’t see how it is possible for them to report information that they are not given by local businesses.

So with that being said, I could not support the legislation because I think it is impractical, and while its intent is laudable, it is impossible to make happen.

 Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:

This is the one bill that, unfortunately, I am not going to be able to support. It kind of goes back to this whole process issue that we talked about a little earlier in terms of Senate Bill Nos. 70 and 71. In committee, we promised to work with Treasury on a compromise, and our Democratic votes were contingent upon working together with the committee and Treasury. We just got, actually, a more burdensome sub that was dropped on the administration and us just before adopting it. I wanted to be sure that as we move forward that we do so having all of the facts.

Now, originally, the content of the bill is essentially covered by the subs for Senate Bill Nos. 70 and 71, basically, rendering the bill as introduced as redundant and probably unnecessary. Now the new content in this sub would require Treasury to collect information that they do not already collect, adding an additional administrative and cost burden to the department. I need to know what that cost is going to be.

Now new information will also have to be collected from taxpayers via new or altered forms, again, associated with costs to the department, but at a time when presumably—lso I am making the assumption that there will be more burden and more costs to businesses.

So until I have a better understanding of the time and the financial burden on both our state government and our businesses, I cannot support this bill at this time in this form.

Senator Cassis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

Just to provide a little bit of background, very briefly, on treasury 101, if you will. Companies claim their MEDC credits from Treasury, not from the MEDC. So Treasury is the appropriate department to provide the information that we are asking for. Let me point out there is no true real burden on Treasury to provide for the mechanism for following taxpayer dollars. They are entrusted with all the revenue in this state, and that is why we not only seek their counsel, but we seek in this bill that they do their job—Treasury does their job to implement and follow the laws written by the Legislature. This will be a bill written by the Legislature—a bill and then enacted into law.

So I think while we will work continually throughout the process, this needs to be made abundantly clear this morning.

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system. 

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 hmmm... tax cuts... effectiveness...

bold new words now that a democrat has entered the white house.

bold new words now that a demcrat has been in the mansion for seven years.

there are those who scream that tax cuts got us into this mess in the first place, we wonder why they think that. there are those who blamed the former president for ruining this country and this state because of tax cuts.

those same people are now willing to adopt tax cuts to save this state.

oh what a difference a few days makes.

Bump:

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 there you go 'bumping' again.

repetition is the soul of spam...

Bump (hoping we can stay on topic):

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 if that's what you have to do....

you may want to consider dropping the "sane" part...

just a thought.

by the way. we agree again.

Bump (to keep the thread on topic):

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

crazycajun:

hmmm... tax cuts... effectiveness...

May I point out to you crazy that a tax cut is quite different than a tax credit, which is what this bill intends to measure the effectiveness of.

A tax cut is given generally, while a tax credit is given for a specific action by or condition of the recipient. This is, to my view, an important distinction.

Bush's tax cuts were given in general to a certain income level group. Their effect on the economy is painfully evident, no matter how rigid your ideology might be.

If they would have been good for the economy, we would not be in the crisis we are.

 okay.. semantics again.

a tax credit is something that lowers the amount of taxes you pay.

a tax cut is something that lowers the amount of taxes you pay.

both stimulate the economy.

i'm not sure why you think it wouldn't or didn't.

and i'm not sure about this WE'RE in crisis thing. i'm not personally in a crisis. you may be. i am not.

no, my situation is not what i'd like it to be, but i'm not hopeless that things will get better.

i also see a lot of hatred for president bush. i personally witnessed people of all economic stripes getting a tax cut. not just 'the rich'. i got one. my ex wife got one. you got one..... or maybe you didn't. is that why you are upset?

and by the way... if tax cuts are BAD for the economy. why is YOUR president planning to make so many of them?

SaneMichigander:

 

 

Bump (to keep the thread on topic):

 

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

 

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

<an assessment which would give our legislators the added impetus to start cutting more taxes in order to get more revenue. it worked nation-wide for years, why wouldn't it work here? only time and TRYING IT will tell. tax increases certainly aren't the answer.> 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

<this could be accomplished by waiting a year and allowing the figures to come in on that stack of tax forms the state gets with all the checks with them. they could also tell the ACTUAL RESULTS of this credit by comparing it to last year, business by business, without releasing any personal information.>

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

<again. wait for the tax forms. the info is THERE. but if they are in a hurry... >

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 <no need to estimate, they have the business records on file. look that information up now.>

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

<again, waiting for the filing would give them the most information... but they don't seem to want to do that. i suppose they don't think that the idea is a good one. or more accurately, people on the left don't think that the idea is a good one.>

 

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

<you act as if those tax credits are a GIFT. you also act as if they are being PAID FOR by your money. THE TRUTH IS, the state is actually getting just THAT MUCH LESS of our money. the state PAYS OUT NOTHING. it simply COLLECTS LESS. to call a tax credit something that the state PAYS FOR is being dishonest.>

 

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

<a tax credit is simply a credit, a lessening of the tax bill. social security is a benefit. welfare is a benefit. those we pay for with our taxes and get no transparancy for, no relief from, and no hope of these programs ever ending.> 

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 

 

 

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 let's see... transparency... openness in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches...

hmmm... sounding awfully republican there... almost libertarian.

now, if we could only discuss reduction in the size and scope of government...

Bump (trying to stay on topic):

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

"and i'm not sure about this WE'RE in crisis thing."

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. It appears you have four to go.

SaneMichigander:

Bump (trying to stay on topic):

Give it up Sane. All roads lead to anarchy for crazy.

 not anarchy... just liberty.

jmangan:

If they would have been good for the economy, we would not be in the crisis we are.

If the government would just do nothing this correction would cure itself in six or eight months. The things that the socialists are doing will turn our correction into a true crisis.

jmangan:

"and i'm not sure about this WE'RE in crisis thing."

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. It appears you have four to go.

 okay... you deny that your governor cused this mess. you are angry whenever the truth is brought up. your side is bargaining with our side about tax cuts and cuts in government programs in order to shell out billions of tax dollars to fix the mess you made. you are depressed that the world sees right through your plan. and you accept that tax cuts are necessary, but only if suggested by the democrat in the white house.

i'd say you WERE THERE...

proof positive that the democrats are in crisis.

Anger. Only three to go.

This is good legislation.  It is a step in the direction of ensuring that tax giveaways in the form of selective tax credits that are awarded "to create jobs” actually accomplish what they are supposed to do. 

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

… The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

Michpatriot:

If the government would just do nothing this correction would cure itself in six or eight months. The things that the socialists are doing will turn our correction into a true crisis.

That's what Hoover said in the early thirties. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.- George Santayana

 we had a few problems.. not the least of which was a liberal demcrat in the white house for almost twelve years.

it did CORRECT ITSELF within a few months after that.

 i don't feel any anger towards democrats...

only pity. and why should i grieve? i can wait till the democrats currently in office screw the pooch badly enough to anger their constituents.

it shouldn't take long.

let them renege on a few more campaign promises. let them cut a few 'PRECIOUS SOCIAL PROGRAMS', let them cut a few taxes that pay for those programs. let them lay off a few thousand government workers, and voila, instant angst.

the polls are already swinging back in our direction.

And what polls would that be crazy? The President has a 65.5% job approval rating, as an average of the six leading national polls.

Bargaining, only two to go.

Bump (trying to stay on topic):

This is good legislation.  It is a step in the direction of ensuring that tax giveaways in the form of selective tax credits that are supposedly going to “create jobs” actually accomplish what they are supposed to do. 

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

The bill would amend the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) Act to require the Department of Treasury, beginning July 1, 2010 and each subsequent July 1, to submit to the Governor and the chairpersons of the Senate and House of Representatives standing committees with jurisdiction over taxation and finance matters, an annual report concerning the operation and effectiveness of the credits under Sections 429, 433, 437, 457, and 459, and to post the report on the Department's official website. The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

 

(Sections 429, 433, 437, 457, and 459 provide tax credits for alternative energy technology businesses and qualified alternative energy entities, anchor companies, businesses in renaissance zones, businesses engaged in brownfield redevelopment, and businesses with investments in qualified film and digital media infrastructure projects.)

 

The Department also would have to prepare a clear and concise listing of each credit allowed under the Act and a detailed explanation of that credit, make a copy of the listing available to the public upon request, and post it on the Department's official website. Within 10 business days after the Department, the Michigan Film Office, and the Michigan Economic Growth Authority submitted annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature, the Department would have to post or provide a link to those reports on the its website.

 

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

 so far, no one has said anything AGAINST this bill.

just against you repeating yourself incessantly.

 only six???

you really should expand your searches. there are at least a dozen that show his support among his CORE AUDIENCE to be slipping steadily, especially as the public hears more and more about the details of this bailout package. it was a long hard fight, which angered a lot of the 'grass root fringe' of the democrat party.

msmbc has been reporting that same slip since the package went back to both houses.

the other alphabet networks have been hashing this around on the sunday talk shows all day. its quite funny to watch actually.

they quote washinton post polls and zogbe polls, and pew polling, and all sorts of other polls that show the steady decline in the frivolity of the first few weeks of office.

it's also understandable that now, as the realization has come through that the promises WILL NOT BE KEPT, that those who were promised things just aren't going to get them.

and now, with the 'GIMMEE' generation standing there with their hands out, the legislators wrestle with the pork in the process, slowing down the 'GIMMEE' crowd's checks.

this does not bode well for the man who promised a BILLION dollars in incentives.

this will also not bode well when the promised jobs do not surface, and when the big three shutter their factories despite the billions of dollars spent of taxpayer money.

it seems our president is not in a good position, promising as he has, the complete reversal of fortunes for every democrat in the country, and a slice of the pie for everyone.

when the 'good times' become slow in coming, and he has to ask the taxpayers to dig a little deeper, his approval ratings will once again slip.

even the democrats who pay taxes have done the math on this one..

it doesn't look good for your side.

Yea, I only check the big six. Never put much faith in those other little right wing nutjob polls. You know the ones. The ones Hannity and Limpburger quote. The ones that said McCain was a shoe in, and Palin was going to reinvigirate the GOP.

I guess you haven't been listening to Obama, cause he's been warning us how bad things are going to be before they get better. Maybe you've confused him with Michael Steele. 

It is a gamble though. To do something rather than nothing is taking a big chance. People want to see something done, and they want to have hope. The repubs are taking even a bigger gamble by doing nothing. If the economy improves, even slightly, they will have been proven wrong, and will look like obstructionist. Last time that happened, they were the minority party in Congress for 40 years.

You sound like your hoping for failure, so you can be proven right. That's being very selfish, and also depressing.

One more step to acceptance. This is the hard one.

crazycajun:

 so far, no one has said anything AGAINST this bill.

just against you repeating yourself incessantly.

So, if you have nothing to say for or against this bill, why are you posting incessantly in this thread, repeating the same old boring (and boorish) off-topic claptrap you post all over this forum?

Now, getting back on topic:

This is good legislation.  It is a step in the direction of ensuring that tax giveaways in the form of selective tax credits that are supposedly going to “create jobs” actually accomplish what they are supposed to do. 

According to the “floor summary” legislative analysis of this bill dated Feb. 12, 2009:

The bill would amend the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) Act to require the Department of Treasury, beginning July 1, 2010 and each subsequent July 1, to submit to the Governor and the chairpersons of the Senate and House of Representatives standing committees with jurisdiction over taxation and finance matters, an annual report concerning the operation and effectiveness of the credits under Sections 429, 433, 437, 457, and 459, and to post the report on the Department's official website. The report would have to include the following regarding the credits under those sections during the prior calendar year:

 

-- A brief assessment of the overall effectiveness of the credits in attracting more business to this State and creating more jobs in the State.

 

-- The number of taxpayers that applied for each credit, broken down by business sector and firm size in a manner that did not identify individual taxpayers.

 

-- The amount of money spent by each taxpayer to comply with its agreements and a breakdown of that spending by those taxpayers classified as goods, services, or salaries and wages.

 

-- An estimate of the number of people employed in this State by the taxpayers that qualified for the credits.

 

-- The value of all tax credit certificates of completion issued.

 

(Sections 429, 433, 437, 457, and 459 provide tax credits for alternative energy technology businesses and qualified alternative energy entities, anchor companies, businesses in renaissance zones, businesses engaged in brownfield redevelopment, and businesses with investments in qualified film and digital media infrastructure projects.)

 

The Department also would have to prepare a clear and concise listing of each credit allowed under the Act and a detailed explanation of that credit, make a copy of the listing available to the public upon request, and post it on the Department's official website. Within 10 business days after the Department, the Michigan Film Office, and the Michigan Economic Growth Authority submitted annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature, the Department would have to post or provide a link to those reports on the its website.

 

Assessment of the real effect of business tax credits allowed and handed out by the State should be a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

SB 72 requires not only such assessments but also requires transparency in the administration of tax credits.  That is an important step toward making Lansing accountable for the outcomes derived from providing these benefits.

The only reservation I have about this proposal is the masking of tax credit recipient identities.  Otherwise, this is very much a step in the right direction for increasing openness in government.

I agree with you Sane, this bill sounds laudable. Getting a report back on how effective targeted tax credits are seems reasonable. I think the hitch lies in the reporting mechanism. Seeing a certain Senator I have great respect for vote against it makes me want to know his reasons.

But I certainly support the openness and accountability this bill would bring to government.

I respect your attempts at keeping this thread on target.

 well said... spoken like true republicans.

perhaps when the leftists see that tax credits are reasonable, they will vote to issue MORE tax credits until the citizens who pay the bills will no longer have to be taxed for useless services.

Contrary to your belief, the "left" is not as ideologically frozen into place as the right is. Tax credits are sometimes a valuable tool to bring in new jobs and businesses to our state. Some of them are effective, some are not.

And if you mean by "true republicans" the republicans of back in the day, like Bill Milliken and Eisenhower, I'm flattered. That was when republicans were truly the party of fiscal conservatives and smaller, and smarter government. Government for the people, all of the people. Not the neo-con, anarchist, war mongering, government for the wealthy, let the markets run wild, greed is good, every man for himself, religious fanatics and hippocrites that call themselves republicans now days. I might not have agreed with them all of the time, but at least they were principled and pragmatic. Today, they are harder to find than hen's teeth. They used to be called moderates, today they are called history.

You my friend, are the new republican. Trapped in your ideological prison. Destined to stay in the minority until the moderates come back to reclaim their party.

Jesus is coming, look busy.

 so, what will all the leftist zealots who for decades have favored tax increases do?

revolt?

form a new party even farther left?

probably. look at trueblue. he advocates socialism. do you?

and by the way... you got the saying wrong....

it's

"JESUS IS COMING... AND BOY IS HE PISSED."

I am left shaking my head over the constant attempt by one poster here to filibuster on discussion of this bill.  The poster repeatedly prattles about unrelated or only distantly related matters, and political leanings without discussing the contents of this proposal.  It’s time to grow up and take care of business.

Sound business practice requires the examination and justification of price discounts to selected customers.  Are they worth the cost?  Do they return a profit?  Would it be better to replace discounting with cutting prices or restraining price increases in general?

Essentially, that examination is what this bill seeks in respect to tax credits, which are the equivalent of price discounts. It makes no difference which political party or movement created the policies or practices under scrutiny here: they have been put in play, so they affect us all and belong to us all.

As a fiscal conservative, I want to see what, if any, return on investment our state realizes from these handouts to selected businesses.  That is why I support passage of this bill.