Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 27, 2009

The vote was 21 in favor, 15 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 355 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Switalski, Jacobs, Hunter, Whitmer, Gleason, Clark-Coleman, Cherry, Scott, Clarke and Basham, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 612, 613, 614, and 615.

Senators Switalski, Clarke and Basham moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bills be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Switalski’s statement, in which Senators Jacobs, Hunter, Whitmer, Gleason, Clark-Coleman, Cherry and Scott concurred, is as follows:

If I understand the intent of the bill, it seems like good intent. Thieves and frauds should be penalized. I think we would all agree on that, but I think the bill that appears in front of us has a couple of defects. One is what if it is our error? What if it is the state’s error that we overpaid somebody? What if they applied and we miscalculated, and it is our fault that we miscalculated their amount? Would they be penalized for our error? That doesn’t seem proper. I mean, if you are to defraud us, that is one thing, but if we perpetrate the error ourselves, why would we punish the individual for our error?

Secondly, and more importantly, as I understand this bill it, will set up a fund which would put us out of conformity with federal rules and put us at risk of about $70 million in federal sanctions. So before we do that, maybe we should refer this back to committee and answer these questions so that we don’t suffer from the long unintended consequences of when we are attempting to go after frauds, we start penalizing innocent people and put us out of conformity with rules that would cost us $70 million.

 

Senator Clarke’s statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows:

I would urge members to vote against these bills. We never had a hearing on these bills. These bills would impose penalties on people receiving unemployment compensation. I am not saying that people who are getting compensation without justification should not be penalized. That is not the point, but we are now voting expeditiously to penalize people for being overpaid by the unemployment insurance fund just a day after this body denied extended benefits for people in this state who sorely need it.

This shows that our priorities are clearly out of step with the needs of people who are struggling out there in Michigan. While we are cozy in this air-conditioned chamber, there are people who are struggling just too barely make it. This is another example of how this Legislature is totally out of touch with the needs of people. We are voting and we are jumping through hoops to do what we can to penalize people for receiving unemployment compensation when we should be doing everything possible to help people stay afloat financially.

I urge you to vote against this bill and the other bills connected to it. Again, if we had a chance to discuss these bills to make sure that we are in compliance with the federal regulations, I would have no problem working with the chair and anyone else on identifying a package of bills responsibly that could make sure that we are not over paying people when they receive unemployment compensation. But I will not at all vote in favor of these bills.

I urge you not to vote for them as well. They jump the gun to penalize people for getting unemployment compensation the day after we voted to deny folks extended unemployment compensation. That sends the wrong message. It also hurts many of our laid-off citizens right now who need help, not penalties

 

Senator Basham’s statement is as follows:

This is a very interesting bill. As I read the bill, I would think that probably the bill drafters who drafted this bill probably got the language from the item pricing bill because it goes after four times the amount. But they only go up to $5 when we are talking about the item pricing bill. In fact, this bill is up to $500, and they want them to go up four times that amount.

So it is interesting that the same folks who are arguing against item pricing in this chamber are now supporting a bill that goes after the folks who are unemployed or underemployed. I think, and again, I am opposed to giving anybody who doesn’t deserve unemployment benefits. If they are trying to fraudulently obtain them, then the department should not give it to them to begin with. But if there is a mistake, and let me talk about mistakes for a minute.

I had a trucking company in my office the other day in their fight with Treasury over taxes that they were charged. In fact, there was a $80,000 dispute in Treasury who is admitting that they are wrong, but they don’t want to give the money back to the trucking company. So if the trucking wants to continue to litigate this, they will have to put up one hundred and something thousand dollar bonds to go after $80,000. So it is interesting that the state once it gets its money, it wants to go after, wants to charge extra money for a person to recover what is due them.

Well, what is due folks in this bill and the other bills is unemployment insurance. As Michigan leads the nation in unemployment, we sit in this chamber going after those folks who have not even received unemployment. If we would have done the right thing yesterday, then maybe we should sit down as a chamber and talk about some of these kinds of things and how we can find common ground today. But to do the wrong thing on one day and try to make it even worse the second day is worse than partisan bickering. It is just not the right thing to do. I am trying to understand these bills, and you can’t as a person who sits up here and represents hundreds and hundreds of unemployed folks in your district, when we are losing 2,500 jobs in the city of Ecorse. You know, those folks want unemployment, deserve unemployment, and actually, when they buy things in the district like, gas and bread, and when they try to pay their rent and utilities, they are actually putting money back into the economy.

So this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time for the wrong people, and I would request, Mr. President, to take my comments to use them as my “no” vote explanation for all these bills.

Again, I will bring this up when we go after item pricing.