Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 24, 2007, to borrow $410 million dollars to avoid spending cuts in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 state budget. The bill does this by increasing from $400 million to $500 million the borrowing authorized under the “21st Century Jobs Fund” business subsidy program. The first $400 million of that debt was loans with a duration of approximately 20 years. Note: Reportedly, the bill may be amended to authorize an additional $300 million in borrowing to pay for current year spending. The House Fiscal Agency notes that depending on the timing and structure of the borrowing this will impose annual debt service payments of $40 million to $46 million for the next 20 years

The vote was 80 in favor, 26 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 187 at House Journal 55)

Click here to view bill details.

This translates to an inability to deal with reality. This type of uncontrolled spending is why the state is in trouble, but apparently to many in Lansing cannot see this!

Tell you what, MI legislature. We The Remaining Working-Class People of Michigan will lend you $100,000,000 at the low, low, bargain-basement price of just 25.9 percent annually. If you have trouble paying it back, you can maybe try your hand at playing the Lotto (I hear it all goes to financing our schools) or take a trip down to the Detroit casinos where I'm sure you can score big time. We can re-finance all your state-owned vehicles and get more cash if you need it. In the meantime, we'll have to double your energy costs and slash your wages. Sound like a deal YOU can live with?

I'd prefer cuts in government spending. But taking money from the 21st Century Job Fund is second best. These "investment funds" don't do what we want them to do, even if they sucessfully bring businesses to Michigan. Usually they end up being just a fancy way to give money to corporations, at the expense of other Michigan priorities.

Rep. Elsenheimer, 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 vote no today because of the misinformation which was supplied to members regarding the actual need to be covered by securitization, which information was at a minimum negligently provided, and because I think it is a mistake to continue to seek securitization of our assets. I have real questions about how the 21st Century jobs fund was handled, and I am concerned about our entering into a new securitization regime before the full effect of this program is known. Additionally, a one-time fix is not what is needed at this time. We need real structural change to the state's budget."

Rep. Meekhof, 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: We have not addressed the real reform issues that are facing the State of Michigan. I can not vote for one time gimmicks and accounting changes, to balance the 07 budget, when we have not fixed the real problems facing Michigan."

Rep. Miller, 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: While I understand that this measure is part of a bipartisan and bicameral agreement to 'seal the deal' on the 2007 budget crisis, I cannot support this because of the long term ramifications to the state budget. We all agree that the solution to the budget crisis is a mixture of cuts, reforms, and revenues. We should get on with the business of making these tough choices and explaining them to the people we represent. Selling off revenue streams and assets to put off the inevitable tough choices is shirking our responsibility that we were elected to assume. P.S. Bring the troops home NOW!"

While the manufacturing sectors continue to decline in Michigan, we still have the ability to change the future economy of the state by fostering innovation by education. It at least provides a fighting chance. However, borrowing against the future instead of fixing today's fiscal problems brought about by the previous and current regime will continue to propagate decline. I say make education a priority and provide tax incentives for innovative businesses.

This type of thinking is getting old. Get the fiscal house in order with cuts, especially in the legislature, then and only then even think of borrowing or further tax increases. Translation: Lansing get off our backs! Live within your means!

twelve years to produce any effect, and that effect is likely to be slender to nil. tax cuts take WEEKS to take effect, and that effect is likely to be widespread and profound. J.F.K. cut taxes, and he was a democrat. (imagine that), and he cut taxes to STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. i don't hear a single democrat pounding HIM on a rock because he cut taxes. only bush. J.F.K. got us into an unpopular war and an unwinnable situation through lies and deciet. i don't hear a single democrat pounding HIM on a rock because he sent thousands of our boys overseas to die. i note with interest the HIPOCRACY of the democrats who DO SOMETHING, good or bad, and then POUND THE REPUBLICANS ON A ROCK FOR DOING THE SAME THING. i also remember that the democrats LIE, the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS especially so.

Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. A word on the national spelling bee, does it fit our legislature?

ask??? what is the word for the morons who keep electing the kakistocrats?

the KAKIST party. sounds a little bit like COMMUNIST party, doesn't it????

the government is going to borrow the money from? what banking institution would give a loan to someone who has no income other than to take money from the citizens by force? what bank would loan money to a someone who spends like our government does? so, i guess the government will have to go back to the old BANK OF THE SHEEPLE and make another forcible withdrawl.

Yes we have a Kakistocracy and it has a Queen. She shall be called Jennifer. She has a court. They shall be called democrats.

Senator Sanborn's statement is as follows: House Bill No.4850, the tobacco securitization money, is a bad idea. It's a bad financial strategy because you're selling off a future income to the state for pennies on the dollar to address a structural deficit. The problem is, in future budgets, you will still have that structural hole in your budgetary boat, but you will have sold off the bucket that you used to bail out the boat. It's fittingly symbolic that we had a string quartet play here today because this economic plan is tantamount to the budgetary sinking of the Titanic.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: Let's be clear what House Bill No.4850, as amended, does. This will pay for lottery advertising. This $5 million is not additional revenue for the School Aid Fund, and it won't go to our schools. It relieves Governor Granholm of her veto removing the $5 million in the first place, and it, therefore, then increases the total securitization amount from $410 million to $415 million. Colleagues, we're encouraging people to gamble, especially the most vulnerable among us--those who have less discretionary dollars, much less, those who have lost jobs, and those facing foreclosures or bankruptcy in the hopes of hitting it big, hoping against hope for a miracle.

Senator Whitmer's statement, in which Senators Basham and Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: A few weeks ago right before Memorial Day weekend, we sat here for 10 hours and we cast one vote. For me, it was a "no" vote. I voted against the 2007 fix because it was not a fix at all. We simply pushed the inevitable tough votes off for another day in favor of this continued shortsighted shell game. Now make no mistake. This vote represents another one-time revenue gimmick to pay for an ongoing expense, the education of our children. You couldn't get away with this kind of thing in the private sector. Are our standards that much lower? Because Senate leadership is unwilling to invest in schools and prevent a pro rata cut at the end of the year, we've been left with no choice. I'm astounded that we've really come to this point. I'm going to hold my "no" and vote "yes," but I'm not doing it because it's good fiscal policy. I'm not doing it because we finally channeled the wisdom and political fortitude to finally put the people's house in order. I'm not voting "yes" because this is a real solution. It's not. I'm voting "yes" because this is the only way to avoid what's otherwise an unconscionable, retroactive pro rata cut to our schools.

Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: I came down to Lansing and I was very honored to come down to Lansing four years and five months ago. Our business at that particular time was from misguided and misdirected policy that put me and others who have joined the legislative body on that particular day in a very harmful situation. Since the day I came down here, we've been cutting programs and services vital to people in the state of Michigan. A few weeks ago, we cast a vote so that we would have a one-time fix that would be required to once again to compromise our future as a state. At that particular time, it was $200 million that we were going to be asked for to plug that hole in the aforementioned Titanic. I'm not alone when we stand here and we talk about tough districts that we represent. I have the historically great city of Flint. My county was the only county during the prosperous times in the 1990s to see an increase in the rise of poverty. Now many people think that those in poverty have taken a shortcut in life, but in my county, the reason that we had an increase in poverty was because of the working poor. They were working as we asked them to do, but they weren't making enough money to rise above the poverty level, so they still needed assistance. My concern is that I'm going to leave future bodies with the same experience that I had--giving our money away today when we may have a more urgent need in the future. Now there's an old saying that says, "May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, the foresight to know where you are going, and the insight to combine the two and make a good decision." I voted for this fix--I think a very onerous fix--a couple of weeks ago. I will do it today--again because I know there are those who are in a lot worse situations than I am personally, but I don't think this is a very good decision. Now normally when you know you're not going to make a good decision, you would vote "no," but I think those folks back home and in tough districts across this state are expecting us to make sure that they have the health care that's required. Mr.President, I know we can do better. I didn't come down here to take an easy road. I think we are once again doing that today.

Senator Basham's statement is as follows: I was just thinking to myself, if I was the head of the State Senate, I would do the other part of this budget puzzle which we need to do. In fact, I would increase the revenues the state needs and not play the games we are playing here today.

I can not beleive this. Your going to borroww and pay interest to balance the budget rather than reduce spending. Why don't you try earn8ng that huge salary that you get? A child could do what you did.

I can't believe this crap these morons shouldn't be allowed a personal check book let alone public one.I've said it before and I'll say it again the only way to stop this type of stupidity is vote there butts out of office kick em out all of them out and start over we surely can't be in any worse shape than we are now!!!

If I ran my life this way, these jerk offs would have me in jail. What in the world are they thinking??? How much longer do they think this can go on? These people have got to go!!!

self-explanatory