Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 24, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

State police already blew past their last budget. Is this some pathetic attempt to cover it with more taxes? Only a small portion is to be used in any way connected to phone usage. The rest is just activities that should be provided from general state funds.

That seems to be George's mantra. He surely is the poster child of why we need a part time legislature. He has never seen a tax increase he did not like. Why is that? Is he altruistic? I think not.

No More, No More. Why don't you guys admit that you don't have a clue and just quit. NO MORE TAXES

Fed. Tax Use tax 911 tax local tax connection tax landline tax tax this tax that tax on tax tax on tax on tax and oh, by the way...you made no calls this billing period so you owe the phone company nothing except basic service, HOWEVER you must still pay the taxes or we'll have to turn off your phone service. Thanks

We just received a federal tax increase on our phone service so that everyone in the U.S. who can't afford service can have it. That tax was always there before, but the feds felt it necessary to increase it. Now you want this?!! Who would monitor the misappropriation - I mean distribution of this tax??

Another "tax and spend" example. Get rid of the fat. Belt tightening may be difficult, but it is the right solution.

This money will be reaapropriated like th erest. Departmental mismanagement is at the core of the states fiscal issues. Lets solve the real problem.

This is downright ridiculous-I try to use my phone instead of drive my car...supposedly, to save me some money. I shop phone service providers constantly, trying to bring that big bill down. Seems like first the Feds, and now the state, cant bear for me to keep ANY of the money I work for. READ MY LIPS! NO NEW TAXES!!!

These swirling revenue proposals are like the Whack-A-Mole arcade game, or like in cartoons when someone gets clubbed on the head and a bump rises, they push the bump back down only to have three others pop up somewhere else. Except these aren't fun or funny. Let's all administer a severe literary beat-down to this one today, and tomorrow we'll read about a proposed toilet-tax, or a special cauliflower tax, or a plan to license walking on public sidewalks.

I feel that the justification of the tax is too vague. I do support tax increases, we need to start paying for things that we want, we can't keep getting things for free. Paying for law enforcement functions might not be the best place for our money, would need more specifics in order to feel comfortable with agreeing to this tax.

pay a telephone tax to fund law enforcement? they make enough on d.u.i. fines.

I think that most of these against the bill have no idea of what will happen to the state police that serve as primary law enforcement outside the Detroit area if this does not pass. Granholm has cut millions out of the MSP budget. People are without police protection becuase of her. Trooper strength is down 500. The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one. Of course if you are so confident that you will never need police protection, then by all means, shoot it down. Police protection comes at a cost. This is a very small cost. And remember, the democrates really care about your protection!

for your information, it is OWI and the police do not see but pennies to the dollar on your court costs. Look at your county where you were arrested, the township where the arrest took place, your local court, your local library and the Michgian Judges Retirement fund to see where the money goes. It does not give but a fraction to police. If that were the case, I would agree with you, every department would have the best equipement and more officers than needed. Sadly, about everyone but law enforcement gets the money. Hope this helps clear up the rumor.

really cared about our protection, they wouldn't have MIS-SPENT ALL THE MONEY. we would have adequate police protection, and then some. we would have more than enough money to keep the jails open. but we DON'T. the democrats don't give a rip about our protection, only their getting re-elected.

My point, democrats do not care about police protection, only entitlement programs to give to the lazy on the backs of the working

my point was a slam on the democrats. They do not care about cutting fat or police protection.

Yeah the State Police blew past their last budget protecting your arse--couldnt have been the nearly dollar a gallon gas rise or the fact that they are dictated to buy everything they use by DMB-Computers, buildings, cars you name it. Maybe they should just close their doors when they reach their budget ceiling? Send all their people home? Quite taking calls after 5pm? Not work holidays? Police work is not a money maker-if you want it then it costs-if not then dont complain when you dont have it. Get a grip Mike-maybe you should take the time to review "how" they blew past their budget instead of listening to the media. Of course that might take some time on your part-- better to just take everything your told for granted.

If he did, he does not understand it anyway. The problem is the public does not get it. The state police are out of money. Tighten the belt any more and it will not be holding up the pants. I agree, stop talking calls. Posts have closed, millage restrictions, no overtime, broken equipment, no recruit schools in five years, uniforms with holes in them, no flash lights that work, broken cars and these nuts keep thinking we need to tighten the belt. WE HAVE, we have no more left. Public saftey has taken a back seat. Rest easy Michigan, your state police are hurting. It will get worse come October.

I read the budget for this year compared to last there is no cuts.The state police is out of control anyway the communties they serve up north don't need them they have police forces of their own.The only reason we have so many post up north is because these communties a lot of them anyway didn't have a police force.I saw on the news where the state police travel in wolf packs now to catch speeders must be they don't have anything better to do than catch a soccer mom 10 over in her mini van.I also seen where they got more gas money so thhey'lll be out there but as far as cuts go the only cuts in this state will be the ones in our budgets to make up for the extra taxes.Don't worry the lansing spending machine will continue to run full boar sucking every penny out of every tax payer like the blood sucking leech it is.

For a big company with several lines and branches this tax increase will probably mean sme people will be out of a job.Tax increases never increase revenue it always backfires.The thing is tax decreases though make tax revenues.Itlike people spend more when they have more companies invest expand do all kinds of great things when taxes lower.

"Trooper strength is down 500. The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one." Good point. The logical thing do do, therefore, would to reserve police manpower for response to and investigation of violent crimes, burglary, etc., instead of easy revenue-enhancers like speed traps and seatbelt-ticket patrol. The state police budget also would benefit from not driving fleets of huge gas-guzzler Suburbans at 80+ MPH like crack-crazed retards.

"Public saftey has taken a back seat." It hasn't been about public safety for a long time. It's really all about fleecing the populace via seatbelt tickets and speed traps. Public safety would be best served by diverting part of the police budget to providing a pistol and NRA-approved pistol training to all Michigan citizens capable of meeting the Federal requirements.

"my point was a slam on the democrats. They do not care about cutting fat or police protection." Sometimes "police protection" becomes another kind of governmental fat deposit rife with inefficiency and pork-barreling. Both parties are guilty of fattening up our police-state, and too many quivering sheep out there lap this stuff up, gladly hucking liberties out the window in exchange for a little temporary security.

They SHOULD just close their doors when they reach their budget ceiling. That's the point of a legislature voting on a budget. The state legislature is responsible for approval of ALL funding for the State of Michigan; funding is not approved at the whim of even a governor, much less a controller of a department. They didn't do their job. They should have notified the governor and she should get approval from the legislature to increase the budget. If that isn't done, and people are at risk because of the lack of state police, then it is the legislature's responsibility.

As far as funding the state police, if they are under-staffed, under-equiped and under-paid, and unable to do their mission, it is the fault of the legislature and governor. I simply question the spending we already have. We have a general fund that should be funding the important activities of government. I don't like special taxes applied to special departments that don't have any connection to the source, or are multiple-taxed from the same source. Special taxes like user fees make sense for state parks. Use the park, pay the fee for its upkeep. Don't use the park, don't pay the fee. The police function is not like that. It is a basic part of government and should only be funded from general revenues.

from the looks of things when driving around all they do is hide with the radar gun to generate revenue. The only time you see them driving is after midnight when they pull everybody over in hopes of finding one of the elusive "drinking drivers" so they can ruin someones life for .08. If they called themselves what they truly have become, the revenue arm of the government folks wouldn't have a problem cutting half of them. When did you last see a local cop on your sidestreet??????

"If that isn't done, and people are at risk because of the lack of state police,"

Yeah, lay off the cops that ruined your life after you got dinged for drunk driving. Go talk to the family that just had someone killed by a idiot drunk you moron.

"The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one." Try sitting along the road broke down, if you see a state cop it will be their tail lights that you are looking at and they will dissappear quickly. As for your b&e in progress, if you ain't packin all you can do is wait . average response time is about 5 minutes. It takes time to stow that radar gun.

I've read this bill several times and cannot make sense of the actual tax mechanism. It appears to impose a uniform tax "on each service user," which is defined as "a person receiving a communications service." That is: it is a flat tax of $1.35 per phone-using person, regardless of how many phone lines that person owns or how many service providers that person uses. That is what the bill actually says--but such a thing would be impossible to apply, since it would require immensely complex coordination between service providers. John Doe has two cell phones, a land line, and a fax line. He still owes only $1.35, but to which provider does he pay it? Perhaps the bill meant to say 'a tax on each service used by a service user,' or 'a tax on each phone number owned by a service user' or 'a tax on each user's services from a single service provider.' But which of those? Even if that question could be resolved, there are others. The bill presupposes that service providers employ 'regular billings.' But what about those of us with pre-paid mobile phones? We never get billed, and when we do pay, it is never on a monthly basis but only for set of commodity 'minutes' that can be used at any time. And the name and address associated with the account are purely nominal: there is nothing to stop a user of a prepaid SIM from giving an address in another state, or another name, for that matter. How will such things be accommodated? I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of. It is hard to believe a bill could be this incoherently written.

the police stater's favorite 'worst case scenario'. "The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one." how about this... "The next time your daughter breaks down on the highway, and a guy comes up to assault her, have her taught how to properly use a weapon. she will be able, with a minimum of training to dispatch the felon with one or two shots from the twelve gauge shotgun she knows well how to use." the problem with this is, the police stater's have already made carrying a weapon in your car ILLEGAL, so your daughter CAN'T DO THAT. even if you taught her how. how about allowing the people of michigan to PROTECT THEMSELVES IN THE EVENT OF A PERSONAL ATTACK? that would go farther in PREVENTING PERSONAL ATTACKS than putting more policemen on the streets. now let's look at 'worst case scenario' number two. "the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and get no response... take that same twelve gauge shotgun off the wall and point it at the door the bad guy is trying to break in. as soon as it swings open, blast him. if he get's up, blast him again. now, the hopolophobes will cry "what if it's a relative or somebody you know trying to get in to save you?" my relatives don't kick in doors at odd hours of the night. my friends don't either. they know that this is the 'right way to get their butts shot'. anyone with any common sense realizes this too. and, since someone is going to say it, 'what if its the police trying to serve a warrant?'. they have the legal obligation to knock and announce before they start kicking. if they can't yell "POLICE!!! WE HAVE A WARRANT!!! loudly enough to be heard from the other side of the door, they know what the consequences will be. now, both of these solutions are simple, don't cost the citizens of this state a dime, and are constitutionally supportable. the draconian gun laws of this state are not. neither relies on 'police response time' as part of the plan, and neither relies on anything else other than a citizen saving himself. now, the police's job is NOT to protect you from crime, it's to ENFORCE THE LAW. a police officer can watch as a person beats you to death before arresting him for your murder. he is NOT legally obligated to protect you from anything. in other words, he is not obligated to stop the person from assaulting your daughter, or the person from kicking in your door, but he IS obligated to investigate the crime and attempt to arrest the subject for doing it. it's YOUR job to protect YOUR life. it's the government's job not to take that life away without due process.

You people are disturbed and uneducated in the school of common sense. You have no clue to what you are even talking about. Do you read your posts prior to clicking them, becuase if you did, you would see how stupid you look. I would guess most of you have been arrested, blame your act of stupidity on the police and the system, pay little in taxes but cry the most, have never been the victim of a crime, but probably commit them or have never had a friend killed by a drunk driver at "only a 0.08". Get a life, better yet, get an education and job and be a productive member of society. It's a wonder people even want to police fools like yourselves. For some of you, there truly is no help.

"I would guess most of you have been arrested" Not Me. But I still think we have too many revenue agents/cops. "pay little in taxes" I'll bet you I pay more than you do. Two homes in Michigan, one non homestead, one business for 25 years, three cars. You know not of what you speak. "never had a friend killed by a drunk driver at "only a 0.08" Neither have you. Almost all drunks crash at about .25 and the vast majority of those are running off the road, one car wrecks. These laws are just about raising revenue for the ever hungrier bloated government. "have never been the victim of a crime" Wrong again. I have been a victim but have never had a cop solve it. "It's a wonder people even want to police fools like yourselves" They don't want to "police" anyone. They want to drink coffee and write tickets. And furthermore I don't want to be "policed" I don't need a nanny. I don't need a police state. If you can't take care of yourself then it is you that has a problem. Now a few questions for you... Have you ever tried to drive in this state after midnight? Do you have any teenaged straight A students that leave work at 11 pm on the weekend and get pulled over every other weekend? It's always the same, C'mo kid, tell us how much you been drinkin and we'll go easy on you. Same kids haven't ever gotten a ticket, just harrassment. Has a cop ever solved one of your crimes? You are a "usefull idiot" Go look it up. Have a nice day.

I have always supported the police in the past and probably will for the most part in the future. I have read this bill and I have to say I just will not support it. Another tax applied to people who are over taxed as it is. What really bothers me is using the threat of "the next time your daughter breaks down." I can't belive the state police would use a scare tactic like that to put money in their pockets. I have already wrote and sent letters to my Senator and Representative to vote completly against this bill. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Here is an idea! How about we take $1.35 an hour from every current trooper and trooper Sgt. pay. Gee, I heard they just received a very generous pay raise not to long ago. Thats right a pay raise when the state could not afford one. And yes, the state police was way over budjet for fiscal year 2007, go figure. Why did'nt the public hear about this big pay raise the troopers recieved? Just to answer any rediculous coment someone might have, no I have not been arrested, I just simply speak the truth. So if these troopers are to protect and serve, they would not mind giving up that measely $1.35 an hour would they.

Keep the crime lab until a few private ones can get up and running.

Go sit along the freeway or any road and see how long it takes for the state boys to come see if you're okay. If you happen to park in a place where kids drink beer it may be quick, if it's along the freeway you will just get to wave as they go past in their hunt for the elusive speeders.

Here is a glowing example of someone who needs to learn how to deal with the public. Calling people disturbed and uneducated makes you look like the uneducated fool. Whatever department you work for should send you to some public relations classes before they ever send you back on the street to face the general public. You are the best example of someone who has no reason to be wearing any badge.

Obviously you have not seen the amount of overtime afforded to the troopers this year alone. Please quit adding lies and misrepresentations. Troopers are given OWI overtime, seatbelt overtime, and oh yes! VISIBILITY OVERTIME. You read that right, VISIBILITY overtime, they are not required to stop anybody for violating the law, they just simply sit in the median so the general public can see them, so they are VISIBLE. Try being honest for a change and tell the public the whole truth, not what you think the public should hear. Now that would be refreshing for a change.