Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) Department of Education budget. This appropriates $97.794 million in gross spending, compared to $90.665 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. Of this, $8.187 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.66 million. (Much of that increase is due to the transfer of career and technical education operations from the Department of Labor and Economic Development.) Another $7.236 million comes from state “restricted fund” revenue that is generated by various fees and other levies. Note: As with all House Budgets, this one authorizes spending well in excess of projected revenues, and is based on the presumption of a substantial tax increase

The vote was 59 in favor, 50 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 302 at House Journal 77)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While I have always supported full public disclosure, this amendment adds a level of redundancy to existing state law. Simply put, this is an unnecessary amendment that creates more bureaucracy and little of value. The information is readily available, and this amendment would require more man hours of work that would simply replicate what is already available. Thus, I voted against this useless amendment."

Rep. Huizenga, 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 believe this vote and the spending levels demonstrated in this and similar bills violate Article 5, Section 16 of the State Constitution which requires Michigan to spend no more than it's revenues. Since there has been no vote on increasing revenue or taxes we therefore must base our budgets on current budget estimates. This and the other budget bills we are voting on this evening violate that requirement."

The only redundancy is the spending of taxpayers money, especially by Democrats. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent, INCLUDING education money, and it should be easy to find out. It is not. I have tried!

Why would any idiot want to spend money they don't have when the economy is in such bad shape. Surely this will eventually raise taxes. Of course the democratic legislators will get the teachers votes and the teachers union will get their salariers reguardless.

the democrats plan it that way. you just keep right on working and paying those regularly increasing taxes they plan on putting out for you, and they will be just fine.

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: No time to read the bill."

Senator Clarke asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Clarke's statement is as follows: This amendment would require the state to conduct a performance audit of the Detroit Public Schools. That school district currently performs its own audit--a financial audit--that compares its financial transactions to how it reports them in its budget. I'm talking about an audit that does something much more than just look at numbers and whether those numbers are reported correctly. I'm asking the state to look at how well that school district is performing; how well the school district is spending its money. The reason why I believe the state has the obligation to do so is because several years ago, this state took over that school district when it had a $90 million surplus. That school district ended in a multimillion-dollar deficit, which it continues to have. The allegations of misspending have been well documented, and if they are true, they are gross and egregious and possibly criminal. The reason why I believe that we should conduct a performance audit with the Detroit Public Schools initially is because out of the school aid budget this state spends more money in the Detroit school district than we do in any other. Also, as a Senator from Detroit--as a person who graduated from the Detroit Public Schools--I was appalled by the districts decision to close scores of school buildings because many of those buildings, I believe, were structurally sound, and to keep those buildings open would mean smaller class sizes for students who are being raised in the most challenging environments. The bottom line is this--the amendment would require a performance audit that would look at two things in the Detroit Public Schools: how well that district is spending the money and how efficiently it is spending the money. I believe that that audit could come up with recommendations that could save the district and this state millions of dollars, but also this audit would look at how effectively the school district is spending the money and make recommendations on how we can better spend the money we appropriate to Detroit schools, so that our young people can get the best education possible. I urge your support.

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot vote for these budgets as they are based on increased fees, an income tax increases, and the expansion of sales tax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannot balance the budget on the backs of Michigan citizens and job providers that are barely hanging on and making ends meet. Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. I was not sent to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The Income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes will in no way benefit the state's economy or its citizens. However, it will take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living, which is a double hit to the consumer. It will drive up the cost of doing business and drive out more employers, increasing unemployment and further exacerbating Michigan's plight. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here. I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state?"