Michigan Votes Forum

I think this is a fair measure to take for those who were blindsided by the baiting ban in 2008. I would object to any further tax credits for future losses, now that the ban is in place.

 how about simply removing the ban and cutting the source of the loss?

even the government thinks that this ban is obstructionist and unfair. it's offer to cover the losses with a tax cut proves that. with the economy being so severe, i'm sure that there will be some businesses that were so hard hit by the ban that they will pay no taxes at all whatsoever. i'm also sure that there will be one or two that will get money back from the government.

this bill doesn't repair the damage that an arbitrary ban created, it simply shows that the government has erred, is apologetic, and wishes to perform some sort of damage control to restore lost faith.

This bill was presented by a Republican. He is looking out for the interest of his constituency, which is his duty. As a Democrat, I feel he has a legitimate point, being as the ban was imposed after most of the deer bait sellers had purchased their stock. The issue of banning baiting has been discussed on this forum extensively. You know my position, or should, and I know yours. This bill is about the effects on businesses after the ban. It in no way "shows" the government has erred. It merely is an attempt by a legislator to serve his constituents. I feel he has a good argument, and support this bill.

 why should the government worry about reimbursement for loss if they didn't cause the loss? reimbursement is what some people call ATONEMENT. which is the seeking of absolution from sins by the offer of a sacrifice. obviously this legislator thinks that the state has 'sinned' by banning deer feeding after stocks were purchased. this placed undue and unnecessary strain on already tight budgets, for little or no REAL reason. if the REAL reason was to stop the spread of a disease, and the threat of the disease were AT LEAST CREDIBLE, then the government would be well within it's scope of authority to call this ban. obviously this legislator has some doubts about the facts behind the ban, and the use of that authority, or he wouldn't be offering this "olive branch" to business owners punched in the nose by the anti-hunting feeding ban.

again, this is my opinion, looking at all the facts as they are presented.

as for serving the community, the community would have been better served by not allowing the original ban to pass in the first place.