Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 21, 2007, to cut approximately $250 million from government spending appropriated in scores of line items for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Among the cuts are approximately $65 million from the Department of Community Health (including Medicaid and $21 million for the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Board); $11 million in welfare spending; $40 million from state revenue sharing; $14 million in public transportation; $3.6 million in arts grants; money for community corrections programs, loans to parolees and a prison union leave bank; and many others. See also Senate Bill 221

The vote was 20 in favor, 17 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 39 at Senate Journal 27)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I urge members to vote against passage of Senate Bill No.220. When we talked about amendments, you've already heard about some of the major cuts that are in this bill which have an impact on Michigan families. This leads Michigan backwards. It does not invest in our citizens. It does not establish a strong Michigan which creates jobs and creates a strong economy for the state. It takes us back to another time and place. I want to just focus for a few moments on the health budget. First of all, the health budget is very shortsighted as it cuts medical services or Medicaid dollars. For every dollar that's being cut through Medicaid, we are losing $1.20 from the federal government; $1.20 which can be used to help provide health care to our older citizens, to folks who are in nursing homes, to children, and to parents. That, to me, is very shortsighted. Seventy cents out of every dollar that is spent on Medicaid goes to serve the elderly. When we cut funds from this program, you can pretty much say that 70percent of the dollars which we are cutting have an impact on older adults in the state placing them in vulnerable positions. We've talked about already that we cut $20 million from mental health services when we could actually be providing short-term care. Instead, we are making sure that people wind up going into emergency rooms which is a very bad economic development decision. Businesses will pay more for health care because we're making sure that people who don't have health insurance wind up going into emergency hospitals. We are increasing the cost of uncompensated care in this state, which is a very shortsighted economic development decision. We're also placing many hospitals in vulnerable positions because we're not adequately providing payment for the services which they are providing. In addition, if you look at the Healthy Michigan fund reductions, let me just point out some of the things we are cutting out. We are cutting out providing cancer prevention and control programs. We are cutting out smoking prevention programs. We are cutting out a whole series of almost $2 million in cardiovascular health programs. We're cutting out programs for osteoporosis, arthritis, Parkinson's, Huntington's, and a very significant amount of money which goes into diabetes prevention, which when we actually provide these services, we're cutting down the cost of health care. We're cutting dental health. We're cutting family planning. We're cutting child health services and services to mothers or pregnant women who need health care. We have in Michigan one of the highest infant mortality rates in the country. Without these kinds of programs, we're just increasing the number of children who die. We're also cutting out lead poisoning prevention, we're cutting out programs for infant mortality, and we're cutting out early hearing detection and screening which many schools are operating on, which we, as you know, have heard many cases from our constituents of how this program has provided very vital services to our children. It seems to me that if we want to make Michigan a strong Michigan, we would make sure that we were providing adequate revenue sharing. In Michigan, at this current time, we have lost 1,600 police officers in this state because we have cut revenue sharing to this state. With this 10 percent cut, we only increase the number of police officers who will not be providing safety to our cities, townships, and our communities. It seems to me that if we want businesses to come here, we need to make sure that we are providing good services like police services. We need to have need to have people living in safe communities. We need to make sure that health care is provided for this state. We need to make sure that we have a healthy educational system. Today we are making decisions that really turn around all of that effort which we have made in this state and move us backward. I hope, again, that my colleagues vote against this bill.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: We can no longer play politics with the future of our state, and we cannot play ostrich either. Sticking our heads in the sand will only make the problem worse. Tonight you will push the problems further into the future, which will just make them worse. Our children are moving out of the state. So who is going to be left to pay for the problems years from now that we are not solving with this budget? You are betting our future on risky propositions and questionable accounting gimmicks. We must support a comprehensive solution that gives us the resources to invest in a bright future for Michigan. That means a plan that brings cuts, reforms, and revenue investment to the table. Yet, tonight you are about to cut jails, schools, economic development, and funding for local communities that support police and fire. When are we going to start taking cues from other states about how to turn around our economy? The states with the most college graduates have the strongest economies. We have an amazing public university system in this state, and we got there by investing in these schools. We have a manufacturing infrastructure system that is second to none. But neither of these can be maintained with your plan. Shortly, you will be complicit in pushing our state backward once again. Then we wonder why businesses don't want to locate here

Senator Clarke's statement is as follows: The Pistons, the Tigers, and the Auto Show. While the Pistons and the Tigers and the Auto Show represent different teams and different activities, all of them have one thing in common and that's their affiliation with the city of Detroit. People all around the state and all around the country know these teams because they're affiliated with the city of Detroit. As a matter of fact, the city that people know best, probably the only city that people know that is located in the state of Michigan regardless of where they live around the world, is the city of Detroit. You know, right now we're trying to attract jobs back to this state. We're trying to keep the jobs that are here. We're trying to revitalize this economy. The one way to do that is to improve the image of the city of Detroit. Now these big sports games--having the Super Bowl or the All Star Game--that helps for a minute. We get some visitors into the city for one day or for one weekend and they leave. TIFFAs and economic development programs, in my opinion, they're just Band aids. The way to turn around the city's image is to help make those city streets safe again. They mayor of the city of Detroit, who is a person that I've challenged a few years back, I now completely agree with his strategy to revitalize the city of Detroit, which is making the streets safe again by putting 200 more police officers on the street. This bill, ends up eliminating over $12 million in revenue sharing from the city of Detroit. This bill along with other actions that this Republican-led Legislature has taken over the last 10 years, by cutting money to Detroit schools, to Detroit libraries, to Detroit institutions--all of these measures have been successful. They've been successful in crippling the city of Detroit and by doing so, you're bringing down the economy of the state of Michigan. You see, Detroit and Michigan are linked together. When you're anti-Detroit, you're anti-Michigan. What I'm asking you is to change your attitude about the city. You can see that if we want to make this state prosperous again, we need Detroit to be strong again. By eliminating the chance for the mayor of Detroit to hire more police officers so that these streets can be safe so the image can be restored, we're also crippling the image of the state of Michigan, and we're going to make it tougher for any business to want to stay in this state or attracting investment back to this state.

Senator Brater's statement is as follows: Mr.President, I voted against Senate Bill No.220 because it is a bill against our people and against our communities. It hurts children. It hurts parents. It hurts senior citizens. It cuts vital health care programs, public safety, and transportation. And this is on top of our action earlier today of drastic cuts to school funding. So these cuts are going to compound the problems in our communities on top of those other drastic cuts. Earlier today, we had the opportunity to do the right thing. We had the opportunity to vote for revenues that would have allowed us to balance the budget without drastic cuts to health care, public safety, care for vulnerable adults, Healthy Michigan, transportation to work, local bus systems, and 9.9 percent in revenue sharing cuts. These cuts will hurt cities in my districts. It will hurt cities in your district. Revenue sharing cuts have already forced our cities to cut parks and recreation programs, and what is there left to cut at the local level--police and fire, public safety programs. It is irresponsible. It is wrong. We cannot solve this budget deficit by cuts alone and still keep Michigan as a state in which we are proud to live and work.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I'm sure my colleagues don't really know what they've done today to this state. It's a sad day; a sad night that we have spent here taking from the least of these. And He said, "If you take it from the least of these, you've done it unto thee." Be careful what you do, colleagues. You know, it's me today, but it certainly can be you tomorrow, and tomorrow comes very quickly. We have dealt with single parents not allowing them to have the daycare and the services they need. You say you want them to work, but yet, they don't have the transportation or the support that they need to work. Kinship care. People need the love of their families and we can do it at a lesser fee than giving to those who have the most--privatizing these services. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We continue to take from the poor and give to the rich. If we're trying to be a third-world country, well, we're there--a Third World state. The federal government is making us a Third World country and we're following in their footsteps today. This is truly a sad day. I said the saddest day was when we treat some different than others. This is really sad any time that we keep taking away programs that help the least of these; to help them to thrive. What do we want to do, fill our prisons? So we can have jobs for people in certain districts? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. A business can't thrive here because we take the dollars away. How do we grow this state if we keep taking their straps away from them? It's a sad day and now it's a sad night. We've spent all of this time playing games just to not allow us to debate these issues as they should be. Well, me today; you tomorrow, and it will come quickly to all of us.

Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: Tonight I missed putting my five-year-old birthday girl to bed because I wanted to be here tonight because I knew how important this debate was. I knew how important it was that we participate; that we fight for the things that we believe in; that we do the right thing not just for my five-year-old, but for every five-year-old in the state of Michigan. I love this state. I love this democracy. Earlier tonight, we were reminded by the Lieutenant Governor that this is not the House of Representatives. We have decorum and rules and respect, yet debate was cut off systematically tonight on amendments and on final passage. It felt like it was the House of Representatives, unfortunately. Rather than ask everyone in our state to pitch in and help our state, the state of Michigan, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we decided--not we, but the majority decided--every child and every school in every country, they're the ones who are going to make a sacrifice. Incredibly, the Senator from the 7th District cited the Constitution and said it's just 32 cents a day. Let me get this right. Instead of asking everyone to chip in a $1.33 a month, we're going to ask all the kids in this state to chip in 32cents a day. That's better? That's shameful. This is the same group of people who I saw having a standing ovation for the Governor when she said, "I will not cut our schools." Now you look at that board. That's my caucus that's up there. It's my caucus that's still sitting here because this is an important debate and we were cut off and were not permitted to participate. Half the people of this state were disenfranchised today, and we all have a stake in the outcome of this debate. We had a clear choice today. Were we willing to invest in our future, or stay on the path of cuts, cuts, cuts? Well, the time for games is over. It's time to step up to the plate and earn our pay. It's time to stop pretending that our budget has grown in the last five years--it has not. We have cut and cut and cut our General Fund $3 billion. And let's not mislead the public; the General Fund is the money that we use for schools, for universities, for prisons, for cops, and for firefighters. The rest is federal money that we would be foolish, foolish to cut. So when we don't step up and face the problems that we know exist, we are biting our nose to spite our face. We cut funding from the city of Grand Rapids, and they had to fire 80 public safety officers, 52 cops, and 28 firefighters last year. And if you were at our hearing of Finance in Grand Rapids, you would have heard people come out of the woodwork to talk about how we need investment--people from the western side of the state. Is that enough of a cut to satisfy the fiscal conservatives here? Apparently not! I wish the mayor of Holland, Mayor McGeehan, was here. He spoke to our Finance Committee in Grand Rapids and he stated it better than I could have. He said when cities can no longer plow the streets, repair the streets, offer recreational programming; when we cannot provide for public safety, they will no longer be attractive places in which to live. And, surely, they will not be attractive places in which to invest. He continued with a question that I would challenge all of you to answer. Tell me, please, what business wants to hitch its star to the current reality? It's time to invest in Michigan and I know a lot of you don't like the word "invest," but I bet that you do it. I bet that you invest for yourselves. I bet you set aside some of the state's General Fund dollars that the citizens pay you in salary for your own future. But when it comes time to setting something aside for someone else's kids, or cops, or schools, your answer is, "No, just keep cutting." Money solves every problem except when it comes to teachers, it seems. How many of you think that we can find volunteer prison guards? Any volunteers here? Or volunteer teachers for our inner city schools? I don't see any volunteers. I'll be honest. I don't want to live somewhere where our kids can't go to good schools; where we are forced to release dangerous prisoners. As I said, there was a clear choice today--moving forward or moving back. I, for one, stand for moving forward.

Senator's Basham's statement is as follows: It is appalling to me that we are cutting $4 million from auto theft when day in and day out the good Senator from Detroit, Highland Park, talks about insurance rates in the city of Detroit. We are going to cut $4 million from auto theft recovery and those police officers working on the streets trying to lower auto insurance rates and trying to catch the bad guys and get them out of circulation. We just cut my district alone just under $2 million from the foundation allowance that was cut from K-12 in my district. This does not include the categoricals. We cut funding to get the drunk drivers off the road that should make us really proud since we passed this strong legislation in years past. Since I have been up here, even under term limits in 1997, we passed some very, very serious public acts dealing with drunk drivers, yet we are going to cut the funding for those folks who actually tried to deal with drunk drivers. We are also talking about an inordinate amount of cuts for the city of Detroit. The city of Detroit is a city that certainly affects my district. That is a city that, by the way, just hosted the Super Bowl not to long ago and everybody was so proud of the city of Detroit. Obviously, when you are proud one day, you are not proud the next day. We are talking about cutting $3 million to pregnancy prevention programs. I mean, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, certainly, when it talks about pregnancy prevention, you would think we could agree. We are cutting $3million from them. We are cutting $10 million from the food stamp program when 1 in 12 people in the state of Michigan are on some sort of food assistance. You know, I am so pleased and proud that I am a Democrat tonight, probably more than I have been for many, many months. It just sort of reaffirms why I came up here-- to fight for the little guy. Tonight we are going to be able to go back home and some of us will be able to look in the mirror and some of us won't. I will sleep very sound tonight knowing that I did my best today to vote on something and make the good fight on something that I feel very, very proud about. I am just really sad that my colleagues across the aisle, who I traditionally have great respect for, can't see the reasoning. They think it is more important to take money away from kids than it is to invest in the state's future. I am really going to be thinking about this around the cuts when I look at my four grandkids tomorrow.

Rep. Green, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against SB 220 today because it included a $40 million cut in revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is absolutely critical to maintaining the essential services the people of this state depend on. I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that includes such drastic cuts to these services. Such shortfalls would be felt in every police station, firehouse, and public works facility in our State. Michigan has already seen the loss of 1,600 police officers since September 11, 2001. We have already seen firefighters consolidate and close house ­ Wyoming has just one fire station to serve a growing city of over 70,000! If local municipalities cannot afford these services we have broke our promise to the people who sent us to Lansing and I cannot be a part of it. I recognize the need to balance the budget. While there are merits to SB 220, including many of the proposals found in this bill, I cannot support cuts to revenue sharing. It is a question of priorities and this one is simply too vital to the lives of my constituents."

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I could vote for this bill except it is a stunt to raise taxes by a tie bar. This bill in it's original form was passed nearly unanimously in Approps this morning- this doesn't even resemble the original. This is a good example of true partisan politics. This is not good government policy."

Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I could have voted for these painful cuts to get this state's budget in order, but I could not support the political stunt that was pulled by leadership to substitute the bill and then tie-bar it to a large business tax increase. Tax increases should be voted on their own merits."

Rep. Warren, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Thank you for this opportunity to explain why I am voting against these proposed budget cuts. While I was on the campaign trail running for office this summer, I would inevitably get asked the question that I am sure many, if not all of you, have had to answer: why?, why would you want to run for office when our economy is so bad and Michigan is confronting so many challenges? For me the answer was clear. I ran for State Representative because I feel that although we are in an unprecedented budget crisis, we are also facing an incredible opportunity to create long-term reform that will invest in the extremely talented people of Michigan and move our state forward. It is no secret that these are tough times. Our citizens are scared and they are frustrated. They are looking to us for a plan, and most importantly, they are looking to us for hope. I do not believe that these cuts represent that hope, but rather an admission of defeat, a concession that we cannot recover and grow stronger from this crisis. Like many of you, I fought hard to stand here today as a State Representative for the good people of this state and I did so with the promise that I would fight just as hard when I got here - for education, for health care, for local government and critical public services, and for the programs that make Michigan a unique and great place to live. That is why I cannot, in good conscious, vote today to cut these programs and in essence pass the buck to our local elected officials, our school personnel, our public servants, and our citizens. That is why I cannot vote today to concede and to move our state backward. I understand that this vote is but one of many that we will take on the budget, that it is just one part of the negotiating process that will continue to take place as we work through this crisis. As we stand here today taking this vote, however, I believe that we must be mindful that we are already forcing citizens to live without heating assistance during an usually cold Michigan April because we have exhausted the utility assistance fund, and that we are already forcing schools to increase class sizes and cut vital programs due to possibility of the reduction in state aid. I am not interested in playing politics with our citizens' quality of life, nor will I stand idly by as Michigan enters a race to the bottom. It is time for a comprehensive plan that raises revenue for the programs that invest in our children and protect our most vulnerable citizens. Ultimately, as State Representatives I believe that it is our responsibility to take our charge seriously and to lead in times of crisis, to take the hard votes when the choices are not easy and to stand up for the people who cannot. It is not a duty that can be shirked in times of trouble for it is how we handle these challenges that truly define us, as leaders and as a state; not just for tomorrow's five o'clock news or the next election cycle, but for the generations after us who must live with the decisions we make today and in the days ahead. Ladies and Gentlemen, Michigan is waiting."