Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 20 in favor, 16 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 256 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senator Cherry, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 245.

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I rise to explain to my colleagues that I voted “no” for many reasons. The worst being, of course, is the cut in revenue sharing in which the revenue sharing cut was magnified—if you look at it in certain ways—almost twice as much as what was made in the current executive order and extended throughout the year. We heard a lot of debate about how important revenue sharing is, of course, especially in terms of local law enforcement which is the person that, when who something happens to me or my neighbor or my family, it is the phone call that I make. That’s the local police officer who comes to my door, my neighbor’s door, or my community’s door. Those people are in jeopardy because of the cut in revenue sharing. That cut was made even though sources of revenue were proposed so that that cut would not have to be made. So that, of course, to me, is the most important reason why I voted “no.”

I also voted “no” because there were cuts in this budget that, to me, didn’t seem consistent. For example, the Secretary of State got a 10 percent administrative cut, but the Department of Treasury, the department which we need to collect revenue, got a 13 percent cut in the budget. So it seemed to me that there was some unfairness about how those budget cuts were made—the additional cuts.

In addition in the Department of State, we continue to argue about how much money is really being used, is really appropriately used for the services that are provided by the Secretary of State through the Comprehensive Transportation Fund; whether there is any money that should be actually going to the Comprehensive Transportation Fund which is being now ciphoned off by the Secretary of State.

We continue to argue about those issues year by year. So, because of all of those things and because we got this budget, once again, five minutes before we were supposed to vote on it, I am voting “no.” I know that there are lots of changes that will occur as we go through this process, but right now, this is my explanation for the “no” vote that I took earlier.

 

Senators Anderson, Jacobs, Pappageorge, Cassis, Whitmer asked and were granted unanimous consent to make a statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Anderson’s first statement is as follows:

I would like to preface my remarks with just a comment that it’s been, I think, out of a sense of frustration that members on this side of the aisle have with this whole process of how these budgets have been handled and the fact that this budget, I got a copy of the actual budget at five minutes after 11, which is less than an hour ago. We did get some information, and I do thank the good chair for that information this morning. But it’s a very extensive budget to absorb and to try to understand all of the implications of the cuts that are being made within such a short period of time.

My amendment would restore 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund dollars. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am certainly aware of the difficult budget situation which we face in Michigan, and I realize that cuts must be made. We have to balance the budget. There is no doubt about that, but this amendment does not seek to restore funding to the Governor’s recommendation of $75 million or even the $65 million provided in the bill which came out of committee. This amendment simply restores the funding $52.95 million in the amount of funding after the Governor’s EO cuts from the prior year’s budget.

Now the bill before us provides just $32.4 million. To me it is unconscionable that we would make such a draconian cut to a program whose purpose is to create jobs. Cannibalizing this program is like eating our seed corn. Are we just going to roll up in a cocoon and die, or are we going to invest in our future? I would ask members to consider this. Are we just going to close up shop and say it’s time, it’s over, we’re done?

Just last week, the Majority Leader commented that taxpayers are facing declining incomes and high unemployment rates. It seems the best way to address both of those concerns is to support the program which provides funding to companies that are creating the jobs we need to help spur a recovery in our state. We should be doing everything possible to ensure this programs success, and by extension, the success of Michigan businesses.

I ask for your support on my amendment today.

 

Senator Jacobs’ first statement is as follows:

Well, we all know that the current budget crisis has proven to be a difficult one, as we all share a growing worry of how we are going to fix the state’s budget. While cuts have to be made, we need to be both fiscally responsible and make sure we aren’t cutting necessary services which affect the safety and well-being of the constituents whom we all serve.

The extreme 12 percent revenue sharing cut which has been proposed by my colleagues from across the aisle would truly be devastating to all of the communities we represent. Our cities, townships, and counties rely on this funding of revenue sharing for local police, firefighters, water systems, road maintenance, and other vital services and infrastructure. Over the past several years, we’ve already cut out $3 billion for these local services.

Now we all know Michigan citizens are waiting longer than ever for police assistance due to understaffing that is caused by these cuts. If we thought we had heartburn, try and deal with the state troopers budget. Think about our neighborhoods that are now having even less police officers and less firefighters to come to our rescue and less improvement projects for our roads and communities. Many of our communities are already feeling the effects of this difficult economy through jobs lost and homes foreclosed on. While all cuts cannot be avoided entirely, I really so desperately believe that our citizens’ safety simply cannot afford this draconian 12 percent cut.

So what my amendment does is to restore about half back to revenue sharing so that we will not have to suffer the negative consequences of such an extreme cut that we have in this budget. So I would ask my colleagues to please support this. Support our local communities.

 

Senator Pappageorge’s first statement is as follows:

I don’t know of anyone who has worked as hard over the years to protect revenue sharing. The sad fact is that we don’t have $48 million. The idea of saying, well, we are only short $24 million, but putting some back in doesn’t make a lot of sense. Unless, in these amendments, somebody stands up and says we are short $66 million, which is what all of the amendments before us today will total, unless somebody stands up and says, look, here is where we are going to get the $66 million, the idea of standing up and just saying it’s terrible that we don’t have money, that just doesn’t cut it, folks. The world is full of critics, and what we need are playwrights.

If you have a suggestion on how to shift money, move money, or actually standup and say I am for a tax increase—I am going to say no to all of these amendments that say put the money back in. We just don’t have it, folks.

 

Senator Jacobs’ second statement is as follows:

To my good friend from Troy, the world is full of critics, and in Michigan, we are full of credits. There are pots of money out there that we can access because we do have credits, loopholes, and lots of exemptions for all over the board. If we all have to feel a little pain to do some tweaking later on, we can do that. I think I have said it from the heart—I don’t need to use my notes—there is money out there, and we need to have the will to look at a lot of the pots of money out there. If we remember, Representative Meisner had a whole package of things, and I know that my friend from Troy is familiar with those things. We can do this without a lot of hurt, and we can do this today if we want to. There is the money to do this and to save our cities and protect our communities

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

It is indeed a very gratifying thing today to hear my good friend, colleague, and neighbor from the 14th Senate District say there is money, and we should be able to tap that money to save essential, necessary services. I would point to a place where that money is, and I would certainly sign on to any such bills that would allow for these monies. Instead of going out and being a source of giving money away above and beyond just eliminating tax liability for companies, if that money instead were utilized to restore at least 100 State Police officers and revenue sharing, I can tell you I will sign on the dotted line immediately.

The money is in a place that is a good place to start on the refundable credits to the Michigan business tax. I raise this issue to all my colleagues because it is money that can be utilized right now. These would not require any cut in spending, but just to take new spending and put it where it is most needed. I applaud my colleague and neighbor from the 14th District for raising this all-important issue today before the State Senate.

 

 

Senator Anderson’s second statement is as follows:

My amendment would require that any settlement negotiated by the Attorney General be put directly into the General Fund. The Attorney General currently has the right and responsibility to reach settlements on behalf of the people of Michigan. Yet, there is no oversight on how this money is spent. We go through the appropriations process each year, but the Attorney General is able to spend money wherever he feels is most beneficial and for whatever reason.

This money should be going to the General Fund so that it can go through the legislative process and the appropriations process, as every other dollar is supposed to in our state. The recent example of a half million dollars in a Countrywide foreclosure settlement and that it almost went to one particular park in Grand Rapids based on a recommendation of a large donor for the other side indicates why we need checks and balances on the people’s money. It was only after media reports detailing that settlement and how that money was being spent that the Attorney General reconsidered his decision.

I urge support for my amendment.

 

Senator Pappageorge’s second statement is as follows:

Here we are with the next installment on the discussion between the Senator from the 6th District and myself. The fact is the settlement dollars go back to the department involved in the settlement. Settlement dollars often are not dollars. They’re in-kind. Every which way, every year, the Senator from the 6th District wants to move the entire Legislature, or at least the Appropriations Committee, into the judge’s chamber when settlements are done. That’s never going to happen.

The current Attorney General has no powers greater than the previous Attorneys General. So we ought to stop trying to insinuate the Legislature into the judge’s chamber. This should be a “no.”

 

Senator Anderson’s third statement is as follows:

This is not about putting the Legislature in court, and the good chair realizes that. It is a good sound byte, but it’s not the truth. The fact is that these settlements are reached and the Attorney General is given the opportunity—because this Legislature decides to look the other way—to decide where he wants this money to go around the state.

This example that I pointed out was a half-million dollars. This is not that we want to be in the courtroom; this is about that it should go through the appropriations process just like every other settlement. Everything should go through the state appropriations process. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that’s what should happen, but some folks choose to look the other way. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to do that any longer. We need to appropriate every dollar and appropriate it properly.

 

Senator Pappageorge’s third statement is as follows:

My good colleague from the 6th District and I have been going back and forth on this issue for a number of times. I would caution accusations about motivation of any of our members should not be allowed on the Senate floor. If you have a problem with integrity, come see me.

 

Senator Whitmer’s first statement is as follows:

I have three amendments, all to the General Government budget and all to the office of the Attorney General. All three amendments are substantive policy amendments. They do not cost a dime. You say, why are you offering these substantive policy amendments to budget bills? I know that you have worked on the budget when you were in the House, so you know what these budget bills are all about. I have substantive bills on all of these issues and have been told that perhaps I would have a better shot at getting you to pay better attention to some of my arguments than on my substantive bills. So here it goes.

This first amendment—and let me tell you that all three of these amendments affect the Attorney General’s office in an area that he has talked a lot about, and that is transparency. It is something that we all think is good government, and I think that we all believe that to our core—at least I hope so—that the more information that we give the public, the better they can make decisions about whether or not we are doing a good job and whether or not something is worth paying for here in state government. That is what all of this is about—transparency in state government. I like to think that the Attorney General would support and embrace all three of these amendments because he likes transparency, at least he talks about it a lot.

This first amendment gives us pertinent information regarding the use of special attorneys general. The Attorney General has about 270 assistant attorneys general, but often the Attorney General hires special assistant attorneys general outside of the people who are civil servants here in the state of Michigan. One of the worries we have is conflicts of interest, particularly when our Attorney General, who regularly appears before the Supreme Court, has someone who is perhaps married to someone who serves on the Supreme Court here in the state of Michigan.

This has been a recent issue that was decided before the United States Supreme Court in Caperton v. Massey, where the United States Supreme Court looked at a West Virginia case and said state Supreme Court justices may not be the best ones who can solely decide whether or not they have a conflict of interest. This is a monetary case, but in this case, I am proposing that we, the Legislature, should have a right to know whether or not a special assistant attorney general, someone we taxpayers are paying for but is hired outside the traditional system, is related to someone on the Supreme Court. We should know who those people are. What I propose in this amendment is that the Attorney General tell us who those special assistant attorneys general are. That’s it. Simple, right?

Now I want to give you another instance in which this really is of critical importance. Our Attorney General recently closed the U.P. office and the Petoskey office. Thus, all the people in the Upper Peninsula do not have an Attorney General or Attorney General office anymore. They are kind of second-class citizens now. I think that that, regardless of what you think the merits are of the decision, I personally think it was a terrible decision. But regardless of what you think of the merits of that decision, we want to ensure that it doesn’t become a pay-to-play situation in the U.P., where the Attorney General is giving out special favors in determining who is going to become special attorneys general up there.

So with having us know who these people are, who the taxpayer dollars are going to hire in these circumstances, I think is a good idea. All this amendment proposes is that we know who these people are, so we can make good decisions and we can ask good questions. We have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Michigan. That is how this relates to the budget. I ask for your support and appreciate your apt attention on this most important issue.

 

Senator Pappageorge’s fourth statement is as follows:

As did the previous speaker, I would like to address all three of these amendments. I must say I agree with her opening paragraph. This is policy stuff. Budgets are only one year. I assume we make policy for longer than a year, and it’s just not appropriate to be putting this stuff in a budget.

So I would ask for a “no” vote; not that I’m arguing about what kind of things ought to be put before the Judiciary Committee. I just don’t like an end run to the Judiciary Committee by putting something in the budget, so I would urge a “no” vote here.

 

Senator Whitmer’s second statement is as follows:

This is another amendment asking for information, transparency out of the Attorney General’s office. What this amendment does is it refers to the MIOSHA act. This is the act that the Legislature enacted to protect the workers of the state of Michigan. We got this law on the books for a reason—to protect people. One of the things we don’t know is how many complaints the office of the Attorney General is receiving annually; whether or not they are being investigated; whether or not those investigations are yielding actual prosecutions for violations and what is being done.

So all that this does is require that when the Attorney General presents his or her report to the Legislature that these details are included in that report. I don’t know that this requires a whole lot of effort on the office, but it certainly would give us a whole lot of information as to whether or not the laws which we enact to protect the people and the workers in the state of Michigan are being enforced, observed, and that the people whom we seek to protect are, in fact, being protected.

So I ask for your consideration of this amendment as well. I know that it has a one-year time frame, but, heck, let’s try it for a year and see if it works. What’s the harm in that? I think that when you are talking about workers’ safety, there was a man who died here in Lansing last year because people were violating the MIOSHA act. So I think that we as a Legislature owe it to our constituents, owe it to the working people of the state of Michigan to at least ask the question. I’m not saying let’s change the laws. I’m not saying let’s impose a new, tough burden on any party. Let’s enforce the laws which are on the books. Let’s ask if they being enforced So let’s ask. Let’s find out. One year. Let’s ask the Attorney General to include this in the report that is already compiled to put it on the website and make sure that we don’t have anyone else fall through an open elevator shaft that should have been properly closed and that this person should not have lost their life. Let’s ask the question and make sure that we are following up and enforcing the laws which are already on the books in this state

 

Senator Whitmer’s third statement is as follows:

This amendment is also toward the effort of transparency in government, and this is just another report on the state website from the Attorney General’s office with regard to the item pricing act. Now the item-pricing act, as you are all very well aware, we actually last session had some debate on a measure that I can’t remember who introduced, but there was an effort to eliminate the item pricing act on some dairy items, I recall, and some frozen foods that ultimately failed, but I’m not quite sure. I know I voted “no.” But we had some debate on that.

What this does, though, there have been a number of complaints on violations on the item pricing act, is my understanding, to the Department of Agriculture. It is the standard course of business that those complaints are sent over to the office of the Attorney General. We’ve asked the question of whether or not those complaints have been followed up on and what the outcome of those complaints has been without having a response and an understanding of what has happened with regard to those complaints.

Now to a lot of seniors out there, especially in these difficult times, not only to seniors, but to people who are on the bubble—people who are trying to make ends meet—being able to compare the costs of their food of the items which they are buying in the store makes a huge difference of whether or not they are going to feed their family that day. The item pricing act was enacted by the Legislature to protect consumers. So if this act is being violated, it is an important thing for us as legislators to know.

So what this amendment seeks to do is to get the facts. That’s all we are trying to do is to get the information so that we know whether or not our consumers—our constituents—are having the protection which we sought to afford them when enacting the consumer item pricing law in the first place.

The question should be, what are we afraid of? What are we really afraid of in requiring that the Attorney General give us this information? So I ask for your support on the amendment. It makes a difference to thousands of people when they’re at the check-out line in the grocery store what the cost of their milk is. It makes a difference.

I ask that we require this. I know it’s a budget bill. I know it only has effect in boilerplate for one year, but I ask that we get the facts on this issue, and I ask for your support.