Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 15, 2008, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to require that would prohibit the legislature from expanding the sales tax to services, or creating a new services tax like the one passed and repealed a month later in 2007, unless a two-thirds supermajority in the House and Senate approved the measure

The vote was 24 in favor, 12 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 229 at Senate Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

About time

Big Surpise - It was voted down. These people DO NOT represent anyone except themselves and the state employees................ FIRE THE BASTARDS AND THE BITCH!

Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows: The Constitution is our guiding document, and continually in my service in the Legislature, there have been references to the Constitution. Now you want to take and amend in a significant way our guiding documents, and you want to do it with less than 20 minutes or a half-hour heads-up on this issue. I think that is monumentally unfair, I believe that this is a politically-motivated ploy to get a headline on this April 15 tax day. One year ago, the Senate Republicans had as part of their plan an expansion to the sales tax on the services performed in this state. You spent the last entire year running away from that plan, but that was part of what your thinking was a year ago as we wrestled with significant budget problems here in the state of Michigan. That service tax which was passed and given immediate effect last year was done so with Senate Republican votes. Now all of a sudden, you want to handcuff the Legislature into the supermajority scheme on a significant portion of what we were going to use to balance the state budget at some point in the future. I find it ironic that you want to insert into our guiding document this paragraph that is big, nebulous, and really has had no opportunity to be studied or analyzed by our fiscal agencies, by Treasury, our attorneys, or anyone just so you can garner a headline here on Tax Day. I find that disturbing, and for that reason, among others, one of which being should not it be printed or reproduced in five days. We barely got five minutes with this, folks. I think that is a sad commentary on how we are running this process, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in voting “no” on this. Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows: Why would a joint resolution as important as this, just introduced 10 minutes ago, be left off the agenda, discharged to the floor with no committee hearings, and run all the way through General Orders and onto Third Reading in a total of 15 minutes? Are we that cavalier about our Constitution? The establishment of a two-thirds supermajority should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. It is a limit on the will of the majority. This two-thirds amendment to the Constitution would mean that majority rules on tax policy. I am appalled that my colleagues would take such drastic action in 15 minutes on a resolution whose ink isn’t even dry.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows: This resolution does not arise de novo, isn’t like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, though, hopefully, it has the same amount of knowledge. Why say that it doesn’t arise de novo? We’ve proposed it before in this body. There are 16 states that require supermajorities for tax issues, and clearly, we have had seared into our minds as well as into our people’s minds the issue of the service tax, its limitation, and I doubt that there is a person in this body who would like to revisit that. I do understand the concern about timing. I would like to hear comments that reflect the value of the proposal—the value of reassurance to our people, the value of jobs, and the value of consideration before we raise the taxes that zap jobs from our people. That is missing from the comments that I have heard from my worthy colleagues who sit to my left. I would hope that they would bear that in mind that this resolution would pass, and failing that, it would not disappear, but rather receive hearings and then pass.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows: This resolution does not arise de novo, isn’t like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, though, hopefully, it has the same amount of knowledge. Why say that it doesn’t arise de novo? We’ve proposed it before in this body. There are 16 states that require supermajorities for tax issues, and clearly, we have had seared into our minds as well as into our people’s minds the issue of the service tax, its limitation, and I doubt that there is a person in this body who would like to revisit that. I do understand the concern about timing. I would like to hear comments that reflect the value of the proposal—the value of reassurance to our people, the value of jobs, and the value of consideration before we raise the taxes that zap jobs from our people. That is missing from the comments that I have heard from my worthy colleagues who sit to my left. I would hope that they would bear that in mind that this resolution would pass, and failing that, it would not disappear, but rather receive hearings and then pass.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows: Supermajorities are certainly not unheard of and, in fact, make it more certain that especially in regard to tax issues that our taxpayers—our constituents, that is—are heard loudly, clearly, and convincingly

Senator Kahn asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows: We considered this proposal a week or so ago and the chamber almost passed it with a two-thirds majority that we needed. It fell just barely short. A strong objection was given that the proposal had been sprung on the chamber, there had been no time to consider it, and thus, we’ve given a delay of a week or so. We’ve talked to other members who were considered in support it and it is brought forth again today. Let me remind those who are here, us in the Senate, about the nature of this bill. This allows us to join 16 other states requiring more than a majority—a supermajority—before raising taxes on their citizens. It’s something our citizens have come to groan about and groan about mightily over, in particular, what has happened in the last year and over which we will spend much of the next two months trying to fix in the MBT, where we see people with a 7-Eleven store taxes going from $1,000 to $8,000. So we’re saying a supermajority will guarantee that the Legislature will be more careful in its actions and it will also limit the growth of taxes, particularly job-destructive taxes. These were the words I spoke before the chamber two weeks ago. You have had further time to consider them, my colleagues. I hope that you will now support this resolution with the required two-thirds vote, so that we may move it to the House and move along some assurance to our people that we will consider them more carefully before we will raise taxes.

A supermajority on ANY TAX INCREASE? And why do these mental midgets need "time to consider it"? This is a no brainer if you actually believe that you WORK FOR THE CITIZENS OF MICHIGAN and not some little fiefdom.

That you had to "consider" this is at all is stupid. When people/businesses pay taxes they lose choices. The government is the most inefficient distributor of funds around. There should be an IQ test if you want to serve in the House or Senate. And how about one for the right to vote too. You work for me. Get it -- for me and every other citizen. I'm sick of you taking what I work my rear off for, and using it for stupid things -- like a Lansing Police HQ -- when we currently lease the one we have from MSU for $1. Idiots, all of you.

I am e-mailing the twelve, socialist idiots who voted down Senate Joint Resolution L. You always manage to look out for your perks, benefits, lobbyists, and wallets. I totally agree with 1) You don't deserve your salary [by LakeOrionMom on April 28, 2008]. The government is the most inefficient distributor of funds around. Your votes are another reason why we need to secure a Supermajority vote on any taxing issues. My daughter is looking into moving out of the State of Michigan. We just might follow her.

Well illustrates how a rather small minority can control the fate of legislation when it requires a super majority for passage. Good civics lesson, although many dunces will fail to absorb it.

to insert some imaginary right of homosexuals to marry, would you? This statement is the reason we need LESS government. Remember, you guys work for us! "I find it ironic that you want to insert into our guiding document this paragraph that is big, nebulous, and really has had no opportunity to be studied or analyzed by our fiscal agencies, by Treasury, our attorneys, or anyone just so you can garner a headline here on Tax Day. I find that disturbing, and for that reason, among others, one of which being should not it be printed or reproduced in five days. We barely got five minutes with this, folks."

It's a rare day when any government offers to allow its own powers to be diminished.