Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 24, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.826 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $1.600 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), $166.4 million is from "restricted funds," or earmarked state tax and fee revenue, and $59.6 million is federal revenue. The House version uses federal "stimulus" money to reverse a 3 percent university operations grant reduction proposed by the Executive budget, and uses this source in other line items also. The House also reversed a 50 percent reduction proposed by the Governor in funding for the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

The vote was 89 in favor, 21 opposed and 0 not voting

(House Roll Call 153 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Genetski, 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 not in good conscience vote for this bill as I am greatly concerned that it allocates federal monies to cover spending cuts without enough guidance from the federal government as to what state governments can do with the money.”

 

Senator Cherry’s first statement is as follows:

I rise to support the Brater amendment and to ask all of my colleagues to support it. Earlier, under General Orders, you passed an amendment which said if things get good, then we will re-fund this program. I can’t think of a more important time to fund this program when things are difficult. This is the future of our state. This is one of the programs that we need for good economic development to be attractive to companies all across this nation. My colleagues, it’s also a promise that we have made to the parents and students of this state.

Lastly, this budget cut, again today, is just like the budget cuts of last week. We are balancing this budget on the backs of our children. I thought our children were our priority. We have twisted things around, and I hope that we can straighten them back out again. I hope that the members of this body will vote for the Brater amendment

Senator Cherry’s second statement is as follows:

Once again, my colleagues, earlier today you voted for an amendment that was a feel-good amendment that basically said when times get good, we will restore programs like scholarship programs. To me, again, it is important to keep those programs going when times are bad. Like the other amendment, I don’t want to balance this budget on the backs of our children and on the back of our future.

This amendment specifically continues the financial aid programs. I know the Governor recommended some changes in the financial aid programs, but I do understand that we all have different varying opinions about a lot of those programs. For example, the Michigan Competitive Scholarship program was one that helped me go to college when I was of that age, and it is important to many people. There is a whole wide variety of programs. This budget, in case you don’t know, wipes out the work-study program. It wipes out the adult part-time grant programs and the Michigan Education Opportunity Grants.

In addition, as I said, it cuts many other scholarship programs in half at least. This amendment doesn’t restore all of them fully. It recognizes that we are in financial hard times and that we need to make cuts. It restores them to the 90 percent level, and so then there is a 10 percent cut in our scholarship programs, which the Senate Republicans have said that was their goal.

I would hope that our members would support this. We don’t want to break the backs of our children and our families in this state. We need students to be able to go to college and we need them to be affordable. These programs help us do that. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

 

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

Fellow Senators, a few numbers to consider. We are getting information from our nation’s capital that in 2015, we’ll have 70 million Americans of retirement age needing health care. At the same time, here in Michigan, we are seeing an influx of out-of-country nurses coming to our state. So I would ask us to consider this. We all understand the duress that we’re under with this state budget. We all see the shortcomings we have with our receipts—income taxes are down, sales receipts are down—but one of the best bargains we have in health care is the nurses.

It is well understood in this chamber and across the state that we don’t have enough nurses. Yet, here again we are looking at an impediment, a restriction on offering those who want to choose nursing as a profession from getting into school with these grants. Although we’ve zeroed out these nurse grants, I think we are looking at this differently than we should.

Every day, they cross the bridges going back to Canada from different points here in Michigan. We are losing the talent that is provided to those who are sick and those who need health care in our state hospitals and the satellite sites across this state. They take the money that is spent here in Michigan by those who are being offered health care, and they take it back to Canada on a regular basis. I understand that we have a budget to meet, but why would we consider giving those from a foreign land opportunities to come to our state and take our tax dollars back to Canada?

We know there is a shortage of Michigan nurses. This is going to compound that shortage. The money that we could be putting into state coffers by hiring Michigan nurses and getting them through the academic requirements and clinic requirements, let’s restore this funding to a responsible level. Let’s add 50 percent. Let’s not cut at $4.2 million; let’s cut at $2.1 million so that we give our nurses a chance. I think that we have looked at this budgetary obligation wrong for too long. We have a chance to take these nurses’ wages and the purchases they make here in Michigan. Why would we give a nurse from Canada a chance to take our nursing jobs, and then take all of the money they gave in employment, their wages, back to Canada?

Let’s hire our nurses so that they can pay off the student obligations, and put them on the payroll here in Michigan so that we get some money back. Right now, we have too many, as I mentioned earlier, going from Canada to Michigan and taking the paycheck back across our bridges to their land. I think we should look at this closer and give the nurses the grant money that they need and require. We can fill the void and also fill some of our state coffers with income taxes and sales taxes that Michigan nurses would be spending right here in our state.

 

Senator Cassis’ first statement is as follows:

I’ve been listening closely to this very lively discussion this afternoon, and what I am offering here in the Amendment No. 5 is a compromise—a compromise, a partial restoration of the Promise Grant program. Certainly, we all recognize the significant economic crisis that Michigan faces, but I am struck by the need now, perhaps greater than ever before, to prioritize very scarce and diminishing state resources.

So today I offer intent language to restore accountability in scholarships. A promise scholarship is a promise to students who qualify and work hard in high school and a promise equally importantly to our entire economy. Well-educated young people are the future of our next economy here in Michigan and the pride, I believe, of Michigan.

Here is a compromise: Restore $40 million of the proposed $140 million cut. It still represents a savings of $100 million. We reduce the grant overall from $4,000 down to $2,000; $1,000 for the first year for graduating high school seniors who have met the criteria, and then another $1,000 their sophomore year if they maintain a 2.5 grade point average, which is responsible to all our taxpayers.

Secondly, it creates a means testing. In these difficult times with scarce resources, let us put it to those families who are indeed extremely hard-pressed by our economy. Therefore, what this would propose is that students would receive it if their single-parent household income is $50,000 or less and for a joint-return taxpayer up to $100,000. All of this is an attempt to find a solution to where we are kind of caught up today.

I notice that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are beginning to talk about—and I believe it is responsible—where do you find the money to cover these costs. One of my colleagues—one or two—has spoken to the issue of tax expenditures. This has not gone unnoticed, my friends and colleagues. Conservatively speaking, there is $180 million to $200 million keeping certain credits but just removing refundability in those credits. This discussion is certainly in the background of what we are talking about today.

Senator Cassis’ second statement is as follows:

In many ways, this amendment will go along with the prior amendment. Again, I am speaking to the need for prioritizing in this and every other budget. My amendment, in its most positive intent, is to save almost $32 million that otherwise would go to private schools of higher education. My amendment seeks to really underscore good public policy. Let’s first fund Michigan students going to taxpayer-supported public universities.

You know, how can we justify sending a Promise Scholarship to public universities, and yet, retain grants to private institutions? Would that mean we could really consider doing both? But we cannot. Public education must be our first priority. I urge adoption of the Cassis Amendment No. 6.

 

Senator Gleason, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4441.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

Once again, I rise with concern over our stress on our state budget. Only a few weeks ago, we voted on legislation that indicated that we would support Michigan workers. We passed legislation nearly unanimous, if it wasn’t unanimous, about putting Michigan workers first, yet, with leaving the grant for our nurses, we are continuing an effort that I think is detracting from the coffers of our state. We have a tremendous influx of Canadian nurses coming to our state to fill this void. This is not against the Canadian nurses; this is for Michigan workers and Michigan nurses.

For far too long, we have had a shortage, a void in Michigan nurses. A few years ago, we tried to close this gap by offering these grants by making it a high priority that with the high need and the high acceptance rates of those who wanted to become nurses. We could fill this void with a little bit of financial support. So I ask for a token of recognition and a token of support and financial consideration of raising this allocation to $2.1 million, only 50 percent of prior allocations to the nurses here in Michigan.

In recent times, there has been talk that we may be able to fill some of these voids in our state budget with tax credits. It appears to me that this may be an appropriate place to transfer money from the credits into a much-needed workforce. Every day, we have tough decisions to make because our coffers are so suppressed, and yet, today we say it is okay if Canadian nurses come to Michigan and work in our hospitals. Only a few minutes away lies their country where they will spend their income; where they will purchase their goods at a detraction to our Michigan sales tax coffers.

We are not only losing their income to Canada, but also we are hurting our manufacturing industry with Canadian nurses more than likely purchasing Canadian automobiles from the Canadian dealerships. So those Senators who have communities like mine will be just seeing a reduction. My concern and my reason for supporting this is we’ve recently seen a tremendous cost to our local auto dealerships with closures, and yet, we still see an influx of hundreds of Canadian nurses coming and more than likely purchasing cars from a foreign country. Buying with high-ticket incomes that we could use from nurses in our state, rather than sending the nurses back to Canada and spending their money over in Canada.

I think we need a little more thought in this process in cutting these nurses’ grants. We need the nurses; we need the sales tax receipts; we need the income tax receipts. I think when you look at this holistically, I think this is a bad decision that we are making today by leaving these nurses out of our economic recovery plan. That is exactly what we are doing. We know that there is a waiting list in the nursing schools, and we have known that for some time. Yet, once more, we are going to take a step that I would consider irresponsible in these tough budgetary times.

Let’s take the money that we could pay Michigan workers. We already made a commitment two weeks ago saying we were going to put Michigan workers first, and yet, with this legislation, we are going to continue to put Canadian nurses, Canadian workers, first. I think we can change our philosophy in midstream.

 

Senator Cassis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

This amendment will establish a $100 placeholder to continue the discussion on the Michigan Promise Grant. We are working toward a compromise very diligently. The process will continue, and the bill now goes back to the House. I fully expect, as we all do, that it will go then to a conference committee. There is no question the original amendment is a good practical solution. It keeps half of the Promise Grant, it creates a means test, and most importantly, it retains a promise to our kids.

It is intent language and I want to share with this body that I have requested the policy bill this afternoon, so it will continue. Importantly, also to all my members who voted in favor of this when it first came up, I have the support, commitment, good faith, and, I believe, the confidence of the chair of higher education appropriations to pursue this policy further. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in this mutual effort.

Michigan Promise: 2009-2010

The Michigan Promise Merit is a promise merit, awarded to those who have strived and succeeded in scoring high on state tests. It is important to follow through with a promise made by the state to its people. This Promise Scholarship is more important than many of the people that continue to fail it from passing understand it to be.

Michigan's people are losing their jobs, homes, investments, and so on. Why not invest in the children, the people who will be the ones' paying for the debt we are in, and coming up with new ideas to move us out of this potential depression? Giving highschoolers this Michigan Promise Scholarship gives them hope in a future in college, and therefore, a future in life.

If highschoolers can't find jobs. Isn't it important to make sure they're under consideration? They haven't been working their whole lives to make money. If they don't have money and haven't had the chance to make it, what makes people think they'll attend college, especially with the tuition increasing exponentially.

For numerous people the Michigan Promise Scholarship, isn't just promising them money, but also helps promise them a chance to change their lives with a college education. It's healthy motivation.

It's time to make decisions, think long and hard about everyone made.