Senators Prusi, Cherry, Brater, Clark-Coleman, Scott, Whitmer and Basham, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House substitute, as substituted, for Senate Bill No. 1038.
Senator Prusi moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Prusi’s statement, in which Senators Cherry, Brater, Clark-Coleman, Scott, Whitmer and Basham, concurred, is as follows:
The reason I voted “no” and the reason I will vote “no” on an amended substitute is that still to my satisfaction has never been offered the total cost of what we are doing here. Certainly, I don’t want to stand in the way of Michigan business and job providers, but I certainly don’t want to disadvantage the people who have come to depend on the services that the state provides. I think until we have uncovered the great mystery of how much money we are actually talking about here today and where it is going to impact our budget deliberations as we go forward next year, I cannot in good conscience support legislation like this.
I have offered up and I have talked about it and we have indicated that, certainly, when tax policy needs to be amended and changes need to be done, there are certain things that we would be willing to participate in and eventually hope to get behind and support. But in the rushed and shoot-from-the-hip manner that we continue to implement tax policy here in the Senate Chamber, I cannot in good conscience offer up any support for measures such as that.
My “no” vote on this prior vote and subsequent vote on this substitution are predicated on the lack of information detailing exactly what this is going to cost and where are we going to find the savings that have to be made as a result.