Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 21 in favor, 15 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 280 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senator Stamas, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Cherry to Senate Bill No. 248 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Stamas’ statement is as follows:

I certainly appreciate the words of my friend from the Twenty-fifth District, and I appreciate her hard work and dedication. We are going to talk budgets today and we are going to talk about them next week and we have been doing it in committee. We are going to hear some consistent discussion. We are going to hear, “This is a worthwhile program.” By and large, I am going to agree with that. They are going to say, “This is the function these programs serve.” No disagreement here. We are going to hear the discussion “return on investment.” Virtually, every program we are going to talk about, we are going to talk about return on investment in actual dollars from the federal government or other sources. Or a return on investment in terms of savings down the road. Ten, twenty, thirty years down the road? I won’t argue with those arguments either. But the reality we face as a state, the House, the Senate, and the Governor came together—we have a $1.7 billion deficit. That is on top of the $600 million the Governor proposed in her budget in the beginning of the year. So it’s a budget deficit of over $2.3 billion. Even if we use every dollar we have of the stimulus money for this year, wouldn’t it seem like a wise action to take. We would still have $1 billion to cut.

We can talk about there being ideas about how are we going to raise revenues and things, but until we have something on the table, this is the reality. These are the decisions that we have to make, and I think it is important for us to make those decisions and for the residents of this state to understand the position that our state budget is in.

 

Senators Cherry, Hardiman, Switalski, Scott and Clarke asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cherry’s first statement is as follows:

This amendment restores the day-care rate and billable hours cut, the before-and after-school, and the zero to three cut, as well as the relative care providers pay rate cut and the ECIC cut, all in one amendment, trying to make it easy for everybody.

This is an area where we can ill afford to make cuts: early childhood and day-care services; as we all know and in which the Children’s Caucus tries to continue to reinforce our vital programs. Regarding the day-care cuts, those cuts would risk $58 million in federal stimulus funding, which requires that we maintain day-care funding. Jobs are hard enough to come by in this age, so without help from daycare, many of our clients in the Department of Human Services would never be able to find work. By cutting day-care rates, this budget will make it harder to find day-care. By cutting the number of hours a client can bill and if they do find a day-care provider, they may not be able to pay them enough to keep a job. This part of it is a $20.5 million amendment, but it is money that is well worth the investment if we are to put Michigan residents back to work.

Regarding the before-and after-school and the zero to three cuts, this spending is a bargain. A $3 million cut from before-and after-school the zero to three programs is shortsighted. For this tiny amount of money, we can help assure that children start out on the right foot that families are given the support they need to raise healthy children who are ready for school, and that once they get to school, they have activities around the school day to enhance their classroom learning. We have all seen the brain research that shows these early years are critical to brain development. These programs help our citizens who have the least resources take advantage of this research and give the children the best start possible.

Finally, regarding the Early Childhood Investment Corporation cut, federal rules require Michigan to spend 4 percent of our federal day-care funding to assure that quality day-care is available to our citizens. The ECIC funding addresses quality through training and professional development. Should we lose this, we will put into jeopardy our $200 million-plus federal allocation for day-care. I know that in my local paper we have had numerous stories about the need for improvement in quality in day-care programs. It is vital that we have safe daycare, and so I hope you will support this amendment because it restores the $14.6 million cut for ECIC. Again, without it, we risk our whole day-care allocation, and I don’t believe any one of us want to take that risk.

So, in total, this amendment, as I said earlier, will restore day-care rates, billable hours, payment rates for relative care providers, before-and after-school programming, zero to three programming, and ECIC funds—a total $71 million to restore these program. I believe it is important to restore them if we want to assure that our children have a good start and that we have a safe start for them. This is a proven investment in their our future.

I ask members to support it.

 

Senator Hardiman’s first statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 1. While I certainly appreciate the Senator from the 25th District and her desire to restore these programs and her care for the people who are served by them, in fact, I share that desire to support them. But I must rise in opposition because of the costs and because we have less revenue, and we need to pay for what we purchased.

Let me just talk about a few of these items, if I may. Obviously, the ECIC is very important. It was created a few years ago and originally was intended to attract private funds. Early childhood programs are important, but we need those funds to also support other programs. The before-and-after school program and zero to three, we worked hard to maintain some funding for those programs, which we have done in this budget, but, yes, there are reductions because of the lack of funds.

Daycare, obviously, this is very important as well. It is important to help people get into jobs. Right now the caseloads are down from what they were. They were about 50,000. They are now about 47,000, and there is a projection of about 44,000 for next year. Part of that is because of the economy. And so we tried to adjust that not only for that reason, but because some recipients are using fewer hours per week. They are not all using 40 hours per week.

So, for those reasons, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment

 

Senator Cherry’s second statement is as follows:

I am going to give you one more chance to deal with early childhood because I know—I know—how important you all believe it is. It is so very hard for me to believe that you would make these kinds of cuts to a program that you know provides a strong future for our children in this state. This amendment restores the Early Childhood Investment Corporation funding. That corporation, if you remember right, created by us, was to build an early childhood system for Michigan. Without these dollars, it will be impossible for local Great Start Collaboratives and Great Start Parent Coalitions to continue. We simply cannot lose this system. The ECIC has leveraged almost $10 million in private investment for state early childhood services. They have also leveraged another $6 million from local sources. It is a significant partner of the Department of Human Services, and it provides the childcare quality, workforce training resources and referral, and consumer education services that the state is mandated to provide by the federal government.

The Early Childhood Investment Corporation positions Michigan to benefit significantly from federal early childhood dollars. Studies show that the benefits of early childhood programs outweigh the costs with a range of between $2 and $7 dollars in economic benefits for $1 that has been invested. So it is beyond me why we cannot understand that if we fund this program and fund childcare we will be increasing the amount of dollars for future investment in our state.

We already rank 27 among states for child well-being. How low will we go if we cut funding for early childhood? Sixty percent of children entering kindergarten in Michigan do not have the appropriate social and emotional skills. Ninety-eight percent of Michigan kindergarten teachers believe that children who are behind impede those who are not behind. Eighty percent of those teachers think Michigan should make a significant investment in early childhood before children start formal school. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that there is a great need for children to enter kindergarten ready to go. The Chamber calls for far greater coordination in early childhood funding. That is exactly what the Early Childhood Investment Corporation and the Great Start Collaboratives do.

Lastly, in a major position paper called Early Childhood Education: A Call to Action from the Business Community, the business round table—the bluest of blue-chip business associations—emphatically endorsed state and federal programs that provide quality early education. Again, it is beyond me that this body would stop that investment and take our state backward from the work that we’ve done over the past few years. I urge members to support this amendment.

 

Senator Hardiman’s second statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because the Senator from the 25th District didn’t state how important the program is, but because we can’t afford it. It’s not being cut in total as the previous speaker said.

ECIC, I mentioned that in my earlier comments under Amendment No. 1, but quite frankly, it’s funded by $14.6 million. If we had that extra money, we could consider funding this.

So I do rise in opposition to the amendment

 

Senator Cherry’s third statement is as follows:

I just wanted to make a couple of points. One is that the money which is in this department’s budget for ECIC funds major activities which will not be funded any longer; programs that relate to the quality of service which is provided to our children in the state. I, for one, have read, as I said earlier, numerous accounts of problems. We’ve heard about them. I know there has been auditor reports about the problems which many of our day- care providers have had in terms of safety and quality education and care for our children. So it doesn’t make any sense at this time to cut quality programming to make sure that our day-care programs and the people who are providing daycare in this state get the kind of training which they need so that their programs assure that children are in a safe, educational, and healthy environment for children. That program will be wiped out by this action today. I don’t think that makes sense.

Lastly, I’ve heard any number of times over the past few weeks, “Well, you know, if you have ideas for money, you should bring them forward.” Well, I think there are some bills that have come forward, but it is not up to me and the minority to determine what gets voted on.

So I think that it is important to recognize that there are priorities which we have to make; priorities, I believe, that education and health care—those are my two priorities. That’s where I believe funding should go. That’s why I’m arguing so hard to make sure that the future of our children is such a good one that it brings back tenfold to this state.

 

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:

This reduction would eliminate $14.6 million and zero out the early childhood line in the DHS budget, and some reference has been made to the K-12 budget. There are five different early childhood or school readiness lines in the K-12 budget. Those come to about $110 million, of which all but $6 million is eliminated. So, really, what you have is about $124.6 million in early childhood resources being reduced down to $6 million. That, by any measure, is a massive cut and at a time when we’re trying to make everyone feel a little bit of pain—actually quite a bit of pain—with 8 percent reductions and 10 percent reductions. To completely wipe out, for all intents and purposes, down to $6 million early childhood is a drastic cut and is out of proportion to what we’re doing elsewhere in the budget.

 

Senator Scott’s first statement is as follows:

This would restore the clothing allowance that has been cut. My amendment would restore the $3.9 million to continue the clothing allowance at $75 per child per year. This is a relatively small amount of money that makes a big difference in the lives of families who get support from DHS. This is at a time when many families have to choose between paying for food or for rent. This small amount can have a big impact.

At the beginning of fiscal year ‘08, this was $88 per child per year. In the current year, it went down to $75. We all know that clothing allowances don’t go down. They should go up, and this budget eliminates 50 percent of the funding, meaning it only $43 per year.

So I urge you to support my amendment to restore the clothing allowance to $75.

Senator Hardiman’s third statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I certainly appreciate the Senator from the 2nd District and her compassion in caring for those who are in need of help—I share that. But her amendment would restore the, I believe, $3.9 million, but I would point out that we left money in. The clothing allowance is back to 2008 levels, so we have not taken out all of the money. Yes, this may be difficult, but I think we still provide funding for clothing, and considering the other pressing needs, I think this is a good balance.

So I would oppose the amendment.

 

Senator Scott’s second statement is as follows:

This is to restore the 100 FTES cut. DHS caseloads have overwhelmingly gone from just over 300 per worker to almost 600 per worker in the current year. More than 20 percent of Michigan’s population now gets some form of assistance from DHS.

The children’s rights lawsuit settlement requires that DHS add staff. The Budget Office has just issued a request for funding 200 more staff in DHS with federal stimulus funds. We know that unemployment levels continue to rise, reaching over 14 percent. We know that the combined unemployed and underemployed rate is over 20 percent in Michigan. We know that thousands of people in Michigan will be losing their unemployment benefits this year, peaking at about 90,000 people losing unemployment benefits by the end of this year.

DHS staff is clearly already overloaded. Now is not the time to reduce their capability to help our citizens weather this economic storm, so please support my amendment, and restore the relatively small amount of $4 million to avoid the laying off of 100 DHS workers.

Senator Hardiman’s fourth statement is as follows:

The Senator from the 2nd District is correct. DHS staff is very important. I do want to clarify a couple of things. I believe she mentioned that 200 staffers are being requested. That was a request for temporary staff funded with stimulus money to deal with some of the increased caseloads relative to, I think, food assistance, but that’s not what we’re referring to here in the budget. The 100 FTE reductions in the budget are specifically for administrative clerical staff. While these positions are very important, the reduction is necessary because of the lack of funds, and this is about 2 percent of the total staff.

It’s a necessary change, and I ask that this amendment be turned down.

 

Senator Scott’s third statement is as follows:

My amendment would restore the FIP grant cut. Michigan’s cash grant is paltry. We already supply the neediest of our people with a grant that is only a fraction of the poverty level. Could you live on an average of $490 per month? How about if we cut that grant to just $460? Could you even find a place to live?

Again, at a time when our population in Michigan is hurting and when they need help to get through this very difficult economic climate, we should not look to save money on the backs of those who have none. So I ask you to support my amendment, restore the $24 million, and make this a priority for this Legislature that we will not stand by and watch our neediest citizens be cast aside because we cannot make other tough cuts or other tough choices to balance our budget.

So I ask you to vote “yes” and restore the FIP cash grant to the level that we currently provide.

Senator Hardiman’s fifth statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. We wish that we had lots of money to give for lots of good causes, but we simply don’t have that in this state. This was a tough decision, but it is part of the balance between immediate needs and looking to address longer-term prosperity. The $10 reduction of the FIP grant is difficult, and it is painful, but it does not reduce that grant. I think that grant is still in the neighborhood of grants for surrounding communities. Housing assistance is separate, and I believe we need to make the cut.

Many people across the state are dealing with less money in their household budgets, and they have to cope with it. While this is difficult, I believe the FIP grantees will have to do the same. I ask that we turn down the amendment.

Senator Scott’s fourth statement is as follows:

I just want clarification. The chair of the committee indicated it was just $10. From the statistics that I have, the average is $490 and they are cutting it to $460. It seems like it is $30 to me, and I just wanted to see if it was $10 or $30.

Senator Hardiman’s sixth statement is as follows:

My figures say that it is $10 per month.

Senator Scott’s fifth statement is as follows:

See, that is what happens when we only get this budget a few hours before we are to debate it. I would hope that in the future that we would at least get these in a timely manner so that we would be able to research them ourselves.

Senator Hardiman’s seventh statement is as follows:

Senator, I apologize that you did not get these budgets earlier. The budgets were being worked on, and I’d asked staff to get that to your side of the aisle last night. It was after five, but that is when we had our final numbers. Perhaps you didn’t get it until today and I would, certainly, want you to have enough time to review the budget so that you could make all the amendments and comments that she would like to.

Senator Scott’s sixth statement is as follows:

This amendment would restore the cuts to the local office emergency funds. For all the reasons that were argued earlier to save DHS workers, we should also save this pool of emergency needs fund. Unemployment is high and unemployment benefits will be running out for thousands. Many will be in need of emergency funds to pay water bills or to keep a roof over their heads. This is a small amount of money that can keep children in their homes.

So please support this amendment. It will restore $2.3 million for the local office emergency fund.

Senator Hardiman’s eighth statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. While these dollars are important, I would point out that this is a continuation of the Governor’s executive order. The fact is that we can’t afford as much, and I believe there was some lapse in these dollars from a previous year. So I ask that this amendment be turned down as well.

Senator Scott’s seventh statement is as follows:

This restores the employment and training services which have been cut. This funds JET to train those laid off for the new economy jobs. It also funds clothing, transportation, and miscellaneous items for people looking for jobs. So, again, if we want to truly help people off assistance and back into the workforce, this is the last place we should be cutting.

So I would certainly hope that you would support this amendment to restore $13.4 million for this vital service. There are some things which we can’t afford not to do. So I ask you all for your support on this.

Senator Hardiman’s ninth statement is as follows:

Mr. Chair, I said under the last amendment, I think I mentioned employment and training. I was in error; it was on a different item. But the issue was it was a continuation of the Governor’s recommendation or the EO.

On this item, the Senator spoke to employment training funds. Certainly, I understand the use of those dollars for people who are looking for jobs. They might need some new clothes or some other help in obtaining those jobs. I think fewer jobs may be less need for the dollars, but also we need to find better ways to get the things that we need. This is a necessary reduction because of the lack of dollars.

I rise in opposition to the amendment

 

Senator Clarke’s statement is as follows:

This amendment requests that we maintain the current level of state Supplemental Security Income payments to the neediest citizens in our state who are still able to live independently. Now these payments equal an amount of $14 per month. Mr. President, this is very important because these are people who are barely able to survive right now, and they have to pay their own bills. Fourteen dollars a month is a lot of money when you are earning a little over $100 a week. This is money that people would need for their food, shelter, and medication.

Another reason why I ask you to maintain this funding is because the federal government requires us to do so unless they expressly give us the permission not to make these payments. The federal government has not yet allowed us to not make these payments. So I urge you to maintain these payments because we should under our arrangement with the federal government, but also it is the right thing to do to help people who are many times disabled, blind, or who are otherwise struggling just to barely make it at an income of $600 a month. This additional $14 will make a difference for them.

Senator Hardiman’s tenth statement is as follows:

While I certainly appreciate the Senator from the 1st District and his sentiments on wanting to help those who are in need, as I have said before, these are painful cuts, but they are necessary to balance the budget. This particular reduction was proposed by the Governor in the executive order. I stand in opposition to the amendment and would ask the body to turn it down.