Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 24, 2010, to authorize spending the $312 million granted to Michigan's school budget by the "Edujobs" portion of the federal "Stimulus 2" bill passed by Congress in August, 2010. See also House Bill 6086, passed by the House on the same day, which shifts $208.4 million from the state school aid fund to the general fund, and appropriates this money to the 2010-Fiscal Year 2011 community colleges budget

The vote was 90 in favor, 14 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 367 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 Educators, in Michigan, must learn that the wallet is empty!  If everyday, taxpaying Michiganian's have to take a paycut-----so do they!  Teachers are not the exception to the rule!!!  As far as a 'waiting period',....72 hrs should be the very minimum!  how about a week.   IF the bill is 'a good bill and has support,  it will pass.

admin:

See also House Bill 6086, passed by the House on the same day, which shifts $208.4 million from the state school aid fund to the general fund, and appropriates this money to the 2010-Fiscal Year 2011 community colleges budget

The vote was 90 in favor, 14 opposed and 3 not voting

Upon reading this, does anyone else get a sense as to why folks are disenchanted with and don't really trust their representatives in the legislature?  Is it unreasonable for citizens (taxpayers all) to expect dedicated funds to be spent for their dedicated purposes, not juggled around for the sake of political expediency?

Senator Garcia, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the substitute offered by Senator Pappageorge to House Bill No. 5872.

Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows:

Over the past number of years that I have represented my district, I have been continuously beat up about the fact that there is such a big disparity between the schools that are funded at the lower end and those that are funded at the higher end. Repeatedly, I have told my school board members, parents, teachers, and superintendents that the reason we have this is because of Proposal A and the political agreements that were made many years ago, and people voted for this process. So I have defended many of the schools that are now known as 20j.

While the substitute that was presented before us a little while ago might seem fair to some, I would like to point out that for many, many years, many of our schools at the lower end of the per-pupil funding have done without. While we are being fair to 54 or 58 school districts that were mentioned earlier, but we haven’t been fair to those school districts that have had to deal with having to provide for their students with less money than many others have.

For that reason, I voted against that particular substitute. While on the surface it might appear to be fair for this year that we distribute the money and give it back to those school districts that lost it from last year, but, in reality, ever since Proposal A, those at the bottom of the per-pupil funding have had to do with less. That is why I voted “no.”

Senators Patterson, Thomas and Hunter, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 5872.

Senator Patterson moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Patterson’s statement, in which Senators Thomas and Hunter concurred, is as follows:

Those who actually listened before were quite on point. So that is why I would like to reincorporate my “no” vote explanation on this bill. Having referenced the United States Republican Conference and the state GOP, I will now take the liberty of referencing a Wall Street Journal article that I understand Senator George circulated yesterday:

“Washington and the Fiscal Crisis of the States. The states have faced and will face combined budget shortfalls estimated at $350 billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Past experience suggests that these deficits will continue even if a national economic recovery takes hold.

The federal stimulus has provided significant budget relief to the states, but this relief is temporary and makes it harder for states to cut expenditures. These strings prevent states from substituting federal money for state funds, require states to spend minimum amounts of their own funds, and prevent states from tightening eligibility standards for benefits.

Because of these requirements, states, instead of cutting spending in transportation, education, and health care, have been forced to keep most of their expenditures at previous levels and use federal funds only as supplements. The net result is this: The federal stimulus has led states to increase overall spending in these core areas, which in effect has only raised the height of the cliff from which state spending will fall if stimulus funds evaporate.”

This is a perfect example of kicking the can down the road. Stop spending future generation’s money. Have the guts to cut spending now and not keep spending our grandchildren’s money. That is easy.