Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 26, 2008, the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Labor and Economic Growth. This would appropriate $1.364 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.301 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $94.8 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $46.0 million. Another $385.9 million is from “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue, compared to $378.8 million the previous year. The balance of the money is federal funds

The vote was 59 in favor, 48 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 229 at House Journal 29)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this amendment because the language is unclear and will create significant government waste as DLEG staff will have to try to serve as local federal immigration experts. There is no evidence that undocumented persons seek to use and/or abuse the No Worker Left Behind program. We should be focused on solving the state’s economic woes and not on politicking on immigration

Reps. Meekhof and Calley, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While I support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms and new structural deficits this bill creates. The FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the Democrats’ $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks. If we allow spending to go unchecked, we will have to raise taxes again in the near future. The director of the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency has said we cannot afford the governor’s proposed level of spending. The House Democrat budget is even higher than what the governor proposed. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike. Not enough was done last year to cut waste and reform government, and as a result taxes went up. If we want to fix our economy, we need to get our spending problem under control. This budget does not do that. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Rep. Schuitmaker, 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: While I support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms and new structural deficits this bill creates. The FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks which I did not support. If we allow spending to go unchecked, we will have to raise taxes again in the near future. The director of the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency has said we cannot afford the governor’s proposed level of spending. The House budget is even higher than what the governor proposed. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike. Not enough was done last year to cut waste and reform government, and as a result taxes went up. If we want to fix our economy, we need to get our spending problem under control. This budget does not do that. For these reasons and the fact that the H5 was gaveled upon and we were unable to view it prior to voting, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Rep. Caswell, 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: The final bill was presented with no chance to read it or know what was in it. In addition, $40 million of revenue is based on bond refinancing and we have not been told any details of that even though I have repeatedly asked.”

Rep. Moore, 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 can’t vote for a bill that the majority party allows us 2 minutes to read a 51 page substitute. The original version had a 106% increase in GF dollars. As a state we can’t afford this.”

Rep. Palsrok, 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 support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms and new structural deficits this bill creates. The FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the Democrats’ $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks. If we allow spending to go unchecked, we will have to raise taxes again in the near future. The director of the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency has said we cannot afford the governor’s proposed level of spending. The House Democrat budget is even higher than what the governor proposed. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike. Not enough was done last year to cut waste and reform government, and as a result taxes went up. If we want to fix our economy, we need to get our spending problem under control. This budget does not do that. Furthermore, once again a substitute was submitted at the last moment. Members were not afforded the opportunity to review the contents of the substitute. Therefore, I am further resolved in my opposition, not only in the substance of the bill but in the process in which it was passed. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Rep. Emmons, 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: House leadership failed to allow adequate time for study of this bill. One minute to study an appropriation bill is completely irresponsible and inadequate. Due to that short period to scrutinize HB 5809 I must vote no.”