"That's Saul, folks!"Michigan Republican Party Blog

STATE BUDGET FACTS:

Some quick facts about Michigan's State Budget situation.

Budget Numbers...Granholms' rhetoric doesnt' match reality

Here is Engler's last years budget and Granholm's budgets...where are all the "cuts" and "savings" she claims to have made???

Look at the "state employee" numbers...where are the "thousands" of "less" employess???  Maybe 1,000 or so less, but how many have been "transfered" to "off the books" agencies?

2003:

Spending

(FY 03-04) Total Budget: $38,546,223,200

(FY 03-04) General Fund: $8,886,841,500 (House Fiscal Agency FY 03-04 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 4: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/summ03-04_b.pdf).

Inflation
2.27% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment
7.1% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22)

State Estimated Population
10,068,311 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls)

State Employees
54,984 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/24th_AWFR_Complete_84712_7.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

2004:

Spending

(FY 04-05) Total Budget: $39,236,530,900

(FY 04-05) General Fund: $8,751,597,200 (House Fiscal Agency FY 04-05 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 12: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/Summ_analy04-05.pdf).

Inflation
2.68% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment
7% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22).

State Estimated Population
10,093,398 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls).

State Employees
55,043 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/25th_AWFR_Complete_119970_7.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

2005:

Spending

(FY 05-06) Total Budget: $40,224,217,400

(FY 05-06) General Fund: $8,975,685,700 (House Fiscal Agency FY 05-06 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 10: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/Summ_analy05-06.pdf).

Inflation
3.39% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment
6.8% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22).

State Estimated Population
10,100,833 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls)

State Employees
54,457 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/26th_AWFR_Complete_156331_7.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

2006:

Spending

(FY 06-07) Total Budget: $41,672,547,100

(FY 06-07) General Fund: $9,222,830,000 (House Fiscal Agency FY 06-07 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 9: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/FULLsummAnal%20web.pdf)

Inflation
3.24% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp)

Unemployment
6.9% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22)

State Estimated Population
10,095,643 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls)

State Employees at Beginning of Year
54,300 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcs/27th_AWFR_Complete_186263_7.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

2007:

Spending

(FY 07-08) Total Budget: $42,806,727,300 (ESTIMATED)

(FY 07-08) General Fund: $9,862,055,100 (ESTIMATED)

Inflation
2.18% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp) Figure is averaged from inflation data from January-September 2007

Unemployment
7.0% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22) Figure is averaged from unemployment data from January-September 2007

State Estimated Population
No estimates presently exist for 2007.

State Employees
53,933 [As of June 2007] (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcs/WF_2007_3rd__Quarter_Complete_205572_7.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

College Republican "reform" Constitution

College Republicans are looking to write a new constitution that would ensure "fairness" in the process.

There have been contentious conventions and claims of "gamesmanship" between various factions within the College Republicans.  Some personality based, some based on presidential politics and then some just plain "power politics".

A group of "reform minded" College Republicans used our state party bylaws and convention rules as a "base" to put together a fair and more open process for all College Republicans to partipate in.

It appears to be a big step in the right direction.  It creates an open process and avoids any "manipulative" powers that have been raised in the past as the "main concern".

I've posted the draft below...I wish the College Republicans the best of luck as they work through this process.

Fairness and an open process serves our party well.  I would encourage all of the College Republicans to think long term and adopt a constitution that protects all your members rights and provides for as fair a process as possible.

Good luck.

Saul Anuzis

Granholm's Budget...cuts???

Estimated Budget Numbers...What Cuts???

Engler to Granholm years....so where are all the cuts???

2003:

Spending

(FY 03-04) Total Budget: $38,546,223,200

(FY 03-04) General Fund: $8,886,841,500 (House Fiscal Agency FY 03-04 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 4: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/summ03-04_b.pdf).

Inflation

2.27% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment

7.1% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22)

State Estimated Population

10,068,311 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls)

2004:

Spending

(FY 04-05) Total Budget: $39,236,530,900

(FY 04-05) General Fund: $8,751,597,200 (House Fiscal Agency FY 04-05 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 12: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/Summ_analy04-05.pdf).

Inflation

2.68% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment

7% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22).

State Estimated Population

10,093,398 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls).

2005:

Spending

(FY 05-06) Total Budget: $40,224,217,400

(FY 05-06) General Fund: $8,975,685,700 (House Fiscal Agency FY 05-06 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 10: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/Summ_analy05-06.pdf).

Inflation

3.39% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment

6.8% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22).

State Estimated Population

10,100,833 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls)

2006:

Spending

(FY 06-07) Total Budget: $41,672,547,100

(FY 06-07) General Fund: $9,222,830,000 (House Fiscal Agency FY 06-07 Budget Overview Summary and Analysis, page 9: http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/FULLsummAnal%20web.pdf).

Inflation

3.24% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp).

Unemployment

6.9% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22).

State Estimated Population

10,095,643 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_StateEst0006_181741_7.xls).

2007:

Spending

(FY 07-08) Total Budget: $42,806,727,300 (ESTIMATED)

(FY 07-08) General Fund: $9,862,055,100 (ESTIMATED)

Inflation

2.18% (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp) Figure is averaged from inflation data from January-September 2007

Unemployment

7.0% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST26000003&data_tool=%22EaG%22) Figure is averaged from unemployment data from January-September 2007

State Estimated Population

How to Run a Recall

Our friends at Michigan Liberal put together a nice, short explantion of what it takes to run a recall.  Thanks for the help.

How a Recall works?

Step 1 - File Petition Language

? The reasons for the recall developed by the recall petition sponsor must be submitted for  clarity determination before the recall petition is placed in circulation.  The clarity determination is rendered by the County Election Commission established in the county where the officer resides.  The County Clerk, County Treasurer and Chief Judge of Probate serve on the County Election Commission.
? The recall sponsor submits the reasons to the county clerk.  The individual submitting the recall language must be registered to vote in the electoral district represented by the officer.
? In the case of a multi-county district, the language must be submitted to the county that has the largest portion of the district.
? The County has 24 hours to notify the officer that recall language has been filed.
? The County Election Commission must meet to rule on the recall language between 10 and 20 days from the filing of the language.

Step 2 - Circulate Petitions

? The signatures needed on a recall petition must be collected within a 90 day "window" period.  Any signatures which are dated more than 90 days prior to the date the recall petition is last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled
? The petitioner needs to collect signatures  equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the previous Gubernatorial election.
? Separate recall petition must be circulated for each officer whose recall is sought.

Step 3 - Petition Filing

? Completed petitions must be submitted to the Secretary of State
? The filing official notifies the officer of the filing of the recall petition in writing no later than the business day following the date of the filing.  The written notice  1) specifies the date of the filing 2) informs the officer of the right to examine the petition and obtain copies of the petition sheets if desired. 3) informs the officer of their right to challenge the signatures on the petition. 4) specifies the deadline for signature challenges.

Step 4 - Petition Processing

? The Secretary of State has 7 days to verify the petitions and signature count and 22 days to verify that the circulators were registered voters.
? The officer has 30 days to challenge the signatures.  They must provide a list of all the signatures they wish to challenge.
? If the recall petition is considered valid, a special election will be called in that district at the next regular election date at least 95 days after the petition was filed.

Ten Things Democrats Don’t Want You To Know

Ten Things Democrats Don’t Want You To Know

About the “Mother of All Tax Hikes”

When Chairman Rangel introduced his long-awaited tax legislation yesterday morning, there were certain things he conveniently forgot to mention. Among the things the Democratic Majority doesn’t want you to know about the “Mother of All Tax Hikes”:

1.      MARRIAGE PENALTY ON STEROIDS:  The bill imposes a surtax of 4% on single filers with incomes above $150,000 and $200,000 for married couples filing jointly.  After years of fighting efforts to repeal the marriage penalty, the Majority is taking the battle to a new level by putting a massive new marriage penalty into the tax code.

2.      KISS YOUR DEDUCTIONS GOODBYE:  The surtax is imposed on adjusted gross income, not taxable income.  That may sound like an arcane difference, but it is an important one.  Now, when filling out your tax return, you add up your income to get your adjusted gross income and then subtract deductions for things like charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, medical expenses, un-reimbursed business expenses, or your standard deduction.  But the surtax is applied to the AGI before you take deductions. So it has the effect of taxing people on items that they can ordinarily deduct. 

3.      MAKING THE U.S. A LEADER IN HIGH TAXES:  Combined with the implicit sunset of the lower personal marginal tax rates after 2010, the Democrats’ plan would have the effect of raising the top personal federal marginal income tax rate to more than 44%.  The other 29 OECD countries – essentially other developed nations - have an average personal top marginal tax rate of 35.7%.  In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the U.S. if the Rangel bill is enacted. 

4.      SMALL BUSINESS TRIPLE-WHAMMY:  Millions of Americans who own small businesses and who pay taxes on that income on their individual tax returns are going to face a triple-whammy.  First, they will be hit with the 4% surtax on some of their income.  Second, many of them will lose the Section 199 manufacturing deduction that lowers taxes on their business income.  And third, this is happening at the same time as incorporated businesses get an across-the-board rate cut, making it even tougher for these small business engines of job-creation to compete. 

5.      FUZZY MATH:  A summary of the Chairman’s bill indicates it repeals the AMT but includes a provision called “Limitation of Benefits” to keep high income individuals from benefiting too much from repeal.  But the Limitation of Benefits RAISES $36 billion more than it would “cost” to repeal the AMT.    So even the alleged tax cut is by any definition a tax hike. 

6.      IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST…. Like the famous Zen question, “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” the Chairman’s bill forces us to ponder how to give tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes.  The answer is to have other hard-working Americans pay more taxes so the government can write a bigger check to folks who have no income tax liability.  The Chairman’s bill would spend close to $40 billion over the next decade in various forms of “tax cuts” for (e.g., payments from IRS to) people who don’t pay income taxes.

7.      TAXING PHANTOM INCOME:  The bill would require businesses of all sizes and sectors to discontinue the use of an accounting regime for their inventory known as LIFO (Last-in-First-Out).  They would have eight years to pay the taxes resulting from the forced revaluation of their inventory, even though they would have had no economic income.  The income might be phantom, but the $106 billion in taxes that will be paid and the associated impacts on businesses certainly won’t be.

8.      CAPITAL LOSSES:  Current law provides a top tax rate on long-term capital gains of 15%.  The surtax, because it is applied to Adjusted Gross Income, has the effect of raising the tax rate on long-term gains by another 4% or more for millions of Americans.  This assault on the jobs and growth-producing 2003 tax cut presages what lies ahead as we approach the sunset of the Bush tax cuts.

9.      GETTING A HEAD START ON A RUN IN THE WRONG DIRECTION:  In 2003, Congress lowered the top tax rate on dividends to 15%.  All signals suggest that the Democrats want to let those lower rates expire at the end of 2010, sending the top tax rate on dividends back to the top marginal tax rate, which will be 39.6%.  As a helpful head start, the Chairman’s bill subjects dividends to the surtax, so taxpayers can begin to get accustomed to seeing more of their retirement savings eroded by taxes, setting the stage for the leap to 44% or more after 2010. 

10.     THE WRONG CHOICE FOR AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS:  The Democrats claim this bill is responsive to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s efforts to advance U.S. competitiveness.  But the Secretary never embraced a proposal to delay the ability of businesses to take deductions for legitimate business expenses.  Despite the Majority’s rhetoric to the contrary, this bill will make it much harder for American companies to compete abroad.

California Congressman Gone Made?!? "Amusement"???

Romania Overhauls Pension System...a lessson?

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2007/10/16/feature-03

The country is now joining 31 others that are shifting to private funds.

By Gelu Trandafir for Southeast European Times in Bucharest -- 16/10/07

A lack of younger workers is making it more difficult to support pensions for the elderly. [Gabriel Petrescu]

Under a new system launched last month, more than 3 million Romanian workers under 35-years-old must opt for one of 14 competing private pension funds before January 17th, 2008. Those ages 35 to 45 can also decide to join one of the private funds.

Starting in 2008, 2% of every worker's general income will be redirected from the state budget to the chosen private fund. This contribution will gradually increase to 6% by 2015, and the current 9.5% social security contribution to the state system will diminish accordingly.

"Several million Romanians will become investors, and the private pension system will educate them in the spirit of a free market economy," says Romanian President Traian Basescu.

"The launch of the private pension system marks the end of the process of transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist one, creating the premises for a long-term economic stability," says Finance Minister Varujan Vosganian. "The privatisation of the public pension system will thus ensure the transition from populism to guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of retired people."

The current, state-run pension system has been plagued by inadequate monitoring methods and poor management. It also faces intense pressure because of demographic changes. A scarcity of younger workers is leaving the elderly without enough financial support for their pensions.

"Romania is already the only country within the EU having more pensioners than employees -- in 2050 Romania would have 145 pensioners for every 100 employees," Basescu said. Authorities also hope the switch to private funds will trim the black market in labour, since it will now be in the workers' interest to have their real salaries recorded.

A Commission for the Surveillance of Private Pensions System has been set up, and 17 companies have been licensed to administer the private funds. "The system is safe," insists Commission President Mircea Oancea. "A company not able to reach the minimum efficiency needed for a pension fund would be placed under a special supervision. If it continues to fail, the Commission would designate another company to take over the fund."

According to Oancea, the new private system "increases individual responsibility". It develops "consciousness that only through saving during a long period of his active life, an individual could enjoy similar living standards once retired," he argues.

The minister acknowledges that the initial 2% contribution is small. However, he says, a decision was made to gain employees' confidence progressively.

Romania cautiously now joins a club formed by 31 countries -- Bulgaria, Macedonia and Croatia among them – that have decided to address the demographic pressure on state budgets through privatisation.

The political context for the reform is not friendly, however. Romania faces European, local and general elections within a year. In June, the Romanian parliament unanimously voted to increase the state pension system, a hike that will cause a projected budget deficit of 2 billion euros a year.

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2007/10/16/feature-03

Mackinac Center releases "options" to save

55 Specific Spending Reductions Would Allow Repeal of the $1.358 Billion in New State Taxes

These budget reductions are “immediately available,” says senior legislative analyst

For Immediate Release
Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007
Contact: Jack McHugh
Senior Legislative Analyst
989-631-0900

MIDLAND — The Mackinac Center for Public Policy today released a list of 55 specific recommendations that would reduce state spending by $1.358 billion — the amount state budget officials forecast will be raised by the new service-related 6 percent sales tax and the 11.5 percent income tax hike. The recommendations, drawn up by Mackinac Center Senior Legislative Analyst Jack McHugh, include every major area of state government and fallinto the following nine categories:

• Department of Corrections: $136.0 Million in Savings

• "Economic Development" Subsidies: $90.0 Million in Savings

• Department of Human Services: $135.7 Million in Savings

• Department of Community Health: $82.2 Million in Savings

• Higher Education, Including Community Colleges: $82.7 Million in Savings

• Primary and Secondary Schools: $286.3 Million in Savings

• Department of History, Arts and Libraries: $29.9 Million in Savings

• Other Departments and Programs: $211.3 Million in Savings

• Achievable Government-Wide Savings: $303.9 Million in Savings

Total: $1.358 billion

McHugh says that the current tax increases are unlikely to resolve the state’s budget problems: "By further burdening the private economy they are likely to establish a vicious cycle of ever-lower revenues and successive budget crises," he notes. The recommendations show how "the state could reduce spending immediately to help balance the state budget" if the new taxes were repealed, and as McHugh points out, past Center publications have detailed additional spending reductions, asset sales and even a downsizing of the state work force. "Ultimately," writes McHugh, "current spending levels are the product of past failures to embrace genuinely transformational government restructuring."

McHugh’s Policy Brief, "Replacing Michigan’s New Taxes with Budget Reductions: Curing $1.358 Billion in Overspending With 55 Specific Recommendations," is available online at:

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2007/mchughOCTreplace.pdf

Please read, print and share this document with every concerned taxpayer you know...the Democrats are talking about more tax increases already!!!

Your Tax Burden...and growing

Increasing income tax

House Bill 5194: Increasing income tax

This bill would allow the state to increase the income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent, effective Oct. 1, 2007.

Michigan House

Vote: 57 YES; 52 NO; 1 NOT VOTING

Voting YES

Frank Accavitti Jr., D-Eastpointe

Kathy Angerer, D-Dundee

Joan Bauer, D-Lansing

Doug Bennett, D-Muskegon

Steve Bieda, D-Warren

Terry Brown, D-Pigeon

Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township

Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga

Marsha Cheeks, D-Detroit

Brenda Clack, D-Flint

Ed Clemente, D-Lincoln Park

Paul Condino, D-Southfield

Bob Constan, D-Dearborn Heights

Marc Corriveau, D-Northville

Andy Coulouris, D-Saginaw

George Cushingberry, D-Detroit

Robert Dean, D-Grand Rapids

Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township

Marie Donigan, D-Royal Oak

Kate Ebli, D-Monroe

John Espinoza, D-Croswell

Barbara Farrah, D-Southgate

Ed Gaffney, R-Grosse Pointe Farms

Matthew Gillard, D-Alpena

Lee Gonzales, D-Flint Township

Richard Hammel, D-Mt. Morris Township

Ted Hammon, D-Burton

Morris Hood III, D-Detroit

Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor

Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit

Bert Johnson, D-Detroit

Robert Jones, D-Kalamazoo

Michael Lahti, D-Hancock

Kathleen Law, D-Gibraltar

Richard LeBlanc, D-Westland

Gabe Leland, D-Detroit

LaMar Lemmons Jr., D-Detroit

Steven Lindberg, D-Marquette

Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City

Gary McDowell, D-Rudyard

Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing

Andy Meisner, D-Ferndale

Tim Melton, D-Pontiac

Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens

Gino Polidori, D-Dearborn

Michael Sak, D-Grand Rapids

Bettie Scott, D-Detroit

Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch

Alma Smith, D-Ypsilanti

Virgil Smith Jr., D-Detroit

Dudley Spade, D-Tipton

Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit

Aldo Vagnozzi, D-Farmington

Mary Valentine, D-Norton Shores

Chris Ward, R-Brighton

Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor

Coleman Young, D-Detroit

Voting NO

Daniel Acciavatti, R-Chesterfield Township

Fran Amos, R-Waterford

Richard J. Ball, R-Bennington Township

Darwin Booher, R-Evart

Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township

Brian Calley, R-Portland

Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba

Bruce Caswell, R-Pittsford

Bill Caul, R-Mt. Pleasant

Craig DeRoche, R-Novi

Kevin A. Elsenheimer, R-Bellaire

Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan

John Garfield, R-Rochester Hills

Kevin Green, R-Wyoming

Martin Griffin, D-Jackson

Goeff Hansen, R-Hart

Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell

Jacob Hoogendyk Jr., R-Texas Township

Kenneth Horn, R-Frankenmuth

Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland

Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township

Rick Jones, R-Oneida Township

Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy

Philip LaJoy, R-Canton Township

David Law, R-West Bloomfield

Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion

Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive

Kimberly Meltzer, R-Clinton Township

John Moolenaar, R-Midland

Tim Moore, R-Farwell

Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham

Neal Nitz, R-Baroda

Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek

Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt

Brian Palmer, R-Romeo

David Palsrok, R-Maninstee

John Pastor, R-Livonia

Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Township

Tom Pearce, R-Rockford

John Proos IV, R-St. Joseph

David Robertson, R-Grand Blanc

Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights

Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton

Rick Shaffer, R-Three Rivers

Fulton Sheen, R-Plainwell

Mike Simpson, D-Liberty Township

John Stahl, R-North Branch

John Stakoe, R-Highland Township

Glenn Steil Jr., R-Cascade

Howard Walker, R-Traverse City

Lorence Wenke, R-Richland

Lisa Wojno, D-Warren

NOT VOTING

David Agema, R-Grandville

Michigan Senate

Vote: 19 YES; 19 NO; 1 TIE BREAKER

Voting YES

Jim Barcia, D-Bay City

Ray Basham, D-Taylor

Patricia Birkholz, R-Saugatuck

Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor

Deb Cherry, D-Burton

Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit

Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit

Tom George, R-Kalazmazoo

John Gleason, D-Flushing

Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit

Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods

Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks

Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming

Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek

Martha Scott, D-Highland Park

Mickey Switalski, D-Roseville

Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit

Gerald VanWoerkem, R-Muskegon

Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing

Voting NO

Jason Allen, R-Traverse City

Glenn Anderson, D-Westland

Mike Bishop, R-Rochester

Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township

Nancy Cassis, R-Novi

Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt

Valde Garcia, R-Howell

Jud Gilbert, R-Algonac

Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood

Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township

Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw

Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland

Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau

Dennis Olshove, D-Warren

John Pappageorge, R-Troy

Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township

Randy Richardville, R-Grandville

Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond

Tony Stamas, R-Midland

TIE-BREAKER VOTE

Lt. Gov. John Cherry

Imposing sales tax on services

House Bill 5198: Imposing sales tax on services

This bill would impose a 6 percent sales tax on a wide variety of services, including various personal services and a number of services used primarily by businesses

Michigan House

Vote: 56 YES; 53 NO; 1 NOT VOTING

Voting YES

Frank Accavitti Jr., D-Eastpointe

Kathy Angerer, D-Dundee

Joan Bauer, D-Lansing

Doug Bennett, D-Muskegon

Steve Bieda, D-Warren

Terry Brown, D-Pigeon

Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township

Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga

Marsha Cheeks, D-Detroit

Brenda Clack, D-Flint

Ed Clemente, D-Lincoln Park

Paul Condino, D-Southfield

Bob Constan, D-Dearborn Heights

Andy Coulouris, D-Saginaw

George Cushingberry, D-Detroit

Robert Dean, D-Grand Rapids

Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township

Marie Donigan, D-Royal Oak

John Espinoza, D-Croswell

Barbara Farrah, D-Southgate

Matthew Gillard, D-Alpena

Lee Gonzales, D-Flint Township

Martin Griffin, D-Jackson

Richard Hammel, D-Mt. Morris Township

Ted Hammon, D-Burton

Morris Hood III, D-Detroit

Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor

Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit

Bert Johnson, D-Detroit

Robert Jones, D-Kalamazoo

Michael Lahti, D-Hancock

Kathleen Law, D-Gibraltar

Richard LeBlanc, D-Westland

Gabe Leland, D-Detroit

LaMar Lemmons Jr., D-Detroit

Steven Lindberg, D-Marquette

Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City

Gary McDowell, D-Rudyard

Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing

Andy Meisner, D-Ferndale

Tim Melton, D-Pontiac

Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens

Gino Polidori, D-Dearborn

Michael Sak, D-Grand Rapids

Bettie Scott, D-Detroit

Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch

Mike Simpson, D-Liberty Township

Alma Smith, D-Ypsilanti

Virgil Smith Jr., D-Detroit

Dudley Spade, D-Tipton

Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit

Aldo Vagnozzi, D-Farmington

Mary Valentine, D-Norton Shores

Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor

Lisa Wojno, D-Warren

Coleman Young, D-Detroit

Voting NO

Daniel Acciavatti, R-Chesterfield Township

Fran Amos, R-Waterford

Richard J. Ball, R-Bennington Township

Darwin Booher, R-Evart

Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township

Brian Calley, R-Portland

Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba

Bruce Caswell, R-Pittsford

Bill Caul, R-Mt. Pleasant

Marc Corriveau, D-Northville

Craig DeRoche, R-Novi

Kate Ebli, D-Monroe

Kevin A. Elsenheimer, R-Bellaire

Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan

Ed Gaffney, R-Grosse Pointe Farms

John Garfield, R-Rochester Hills

Kevin Green, R-Wyoming

Goeff Hansen, R-Hart

Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell

Jacob Hoogendyk Jr., R-Texas Township

Kenneth Horn, R-Frankenmuth

Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland

Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township

Rick Jones, R-Oneida Township

Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy

Philip LaJoy, R-Canton Township

David Law, R-West Bloomfield

Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion

Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive

Kimberly Meltzer, R-Clinton Township

John Moolenaar, R-Midland

Tim Moore, R-Farwell

Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham

Neal Nitz, R-Baroda

Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek

Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt

Brian Palmer, R-Romeo

David Palsrok, R-Maninstee

John Pastor, R-Livonia

Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Township

Tom Pearce, R-Rockford

John Proos IV, R-St. Joseph

David Robertson, R-Grand Blanc

Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights

Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton

Rick Shaffer, R-Three Rivers

Fulton Sheen, R-Plainwell

John Stahl, R-North Branch

John Stakoe, R-Highland Township

Glenn Steil Jr., R-Cascade

Howard Walker, R-Traverse City

Chris Ward, R-Brighton

Lorence Wenke, R-Richland

NOT VOTING

David Agema, R-Grandville

Michigan Senate

Vote: 19 YES; 19 NO; 1 TIE BREAKER

Voting YES

Jim Barcia, D-Bay City

Ray Basham, D-Taylor

Patricia Birkholz, R-Saugatuck

Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor

Deb Cherry, D-Burton

Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit

Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit

Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit

Valde Garcia, R-Howell

John Gleason, D-Flushing

Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods

Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks

Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland

Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming

Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek

Martha Scott, D-Highland Park

Mickey Switalski, D-Roseville

Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit

Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing

Voting NO

Jason Allen, R-Traverse City

Glenn Anderson, D-Westland

Mike Bishop, R-Rochester

Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township

Nancy Cassis, R-Novi

Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt

Tom George, R-Kalazmazoo

Jud Gilbert, R-Algonac

Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood

Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township

Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw

Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau

Dennis Olshove, D-Warren

John Pappageorge, R-Troy

Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township

Randy Richardville, R-Grandville

Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond

Tony Stamas, R-Midland

Gerald VanWoerkem, R-Muskegon

TIE-BREAKER VOTE

Lt. Gov. John Cherry

New Granholm/Democrat Sale TAX Expansion

Information on the extensive list of services being covered under the bill (plus the amount of revenue expected to be raised) as of FY 2008 includes:

- Business Service Centers ($9.5 million)
- Carpet/Upholstery ($5.2 million)
- Couriers and Messengers ($3.1 million)
- Document Prep Services ($4.8 million)
- Investigation Guard/Armored Car ($27.0 million)
- Janitorial ($43.8 million)
- Investment Advice ($16.8 million)
- Landscaping ($40.5 million)
- Mini-warehouse and self-storage ($3.9 million)
- Transit and Ground Passenger, limo and cab ($10.5 million)
- Office Administration ($79.2 million)
- Other Personal Services ($48.2 million)
- Other Travel and Reservation ($6.7 million)
- Personal care, no haircuts ($14.1 million)
- Scenic Transportation ($14.2 million)
- Security System Services ($14.2 million)
- Service Contracts ($23.5 million)
- Skiing ($2.2 million)
- Interior Design ($27.8 million)
- Tour operators ($2.6 million)
- Consulting ($188.2 million)
- Packaging and Labeling services ($20.8 million)
- Warehousing and storage ($21.0 million)

Newt's Speech at the Mackinac Conference!

Thanks to Right Michigan for the video coverage!

www.rightmichigan.com

Republic Congressman Urge "NO" on Tax Hike Vote

5 Michigan Congressmen Urge ‘NO’ on State Tax Hike Vote

Mike Rogers: ‘You Can’t Tax Michigan Into Prosperity’

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 19, 2007 – U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, MI-08, and four other members of the Michigan Congressional delegation stood with Republican leaders in the Michigan Legislature today against Gov. Granholm’s plan to raise taxes on every Michigan taxpayer.

Joining Rogers in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and House Republican Leader Craig DeRoche are Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, Fred Upton, and Tim Walberg.

“A huge new financial burden on Michigan’s families and their job providers will not bolster our economy, nor will it create jobs,” said Rogers, who took the lead on a letter to the Senate and House GOP leaders. “In fact, the massive tax increase the Governor wants will slow our state’s sagging economy even more, pushing Michigan out of the nation’s economic basement and further down into the sub-basement.

“The flight of Michigan citizens to other states where taxes are lower, and most important, jobs are available, is already a huge problem.  If this tax increase occurs, the Governor will have to use some of her money for billboards reminding the last folks leaving the state to turn off the lights.”

The letter highlights the Congressional delegation’s efforts at the federal level to help Michigan’s economy, including a battle to support the struggling U.S. auto industry, and moving forward a crackdown on illegal Chinese trade practices like currency manipulation, counterfeiting products, and stealing intellectual property.

“We stand firmly with you in the challenge of protecting Michigan taxpayers and job providers,” the letter states, calling on state legislators to hold the line and not surrender to the Governor’s pressure.

“Keeping taxes low will stimulate the economy and help create jobs to keep Michigan citizens living, working and raising families in Michigan,” Rogers said. “You cannot tax your way to prosperity.”

Engler Deputy Treasurer Gary Wolfram's Letter

Comment on Role of State Party Chairman

Comment on Role of State Party Chairman
By Gary Wolfram, Ph.D.
George Munson Professor of Political Economy at Hillsdale College

September 11, 2007

A recent article in the Detroit News reported that some Republican lawmakers have been irritated by statements of Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis that Michigan does not need a tax increase.  The claim is that this makes it harder to gain a compromise on the state budget.  This leads to two questions.  First, is Mr. Anuzis right that it would be bad for Michigan to increase taxes at this time?  Second, is it the proper role of the party chairman to express his personal opinion regarding public policy?

Michigan every month has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. The sad economic data are well known: the only state to be losing population, leading the United Van Lines study in outbound migration, 46th in best states for business, in the top states for foreclosure rates, declining personal income, etc..  You would be hard pressed to find an economist who would say that the best way to turn this economic situation around is to raise taxes.  Studies beginning with the 1978 Harris Bank Study show that taxes reduce state economic activity.  Professor Richard Vedder of Ohio University has authored several studies demonstrating the link between state taxation and state economic activity and has testified to this effect in the recent past at both Michigan House and Senate committee hearings.  Certainly Mr. Anuzis is on firm ground with his position that increasing taxes would be harmful to Michigan citizens.

It is also certainly within the prerogative of the state party chairman to voice his opinion on matters of public policy.  Mr. Anuzis was elected by the delegates to the Michigan Republican Party state convention and as such represents the Republican Party in Michigan.  Individual legislators represent their districts and may agree or disagree with the party chair.  It may be that on certain policy issues that the interests of the constituents of a particular Republican legislator are at odds with what the party chair thinks is to the benefit of the state or to the Republican Party as a whole.  But it seems rather odd for the elected leader of a party to remain silent on important matters of public policy.

It may be that Frank Zappa was correct when he said that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you and that you do not change people’s minds.  Asking your party chairman to remain in the background when the state is in dire economic straights seems to be giving up on the idea of Nobel Prize winning economist, Friedrich Hayek, that a major benefit of democracy is that the debate over ideas advances the state of knowledge, and accepting the less hopeful attitude of the founder of the Mothers of Invention.

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter on Iraq

By Rep. Thaddeus McCotter

As a person’s word is their bond, a nation’s word is its bond. Once broken, “its word is no good.”

In 2002, with the world – and especially our enemy – watching, America gave its solemn vow to the oppressed Iraqi people we would emancipate them from a tyrant to experience their God-given right to liberty. Over four years later, in Iraq our soldiers and civilians continue striving and sacrificing to honor America’s pledge; but, on the home front, the Left is bent upon breaking America’s promise to liberate the Iraqis, in particular, and forsaking America’s dedication to liberty, in general.

Before acquiescing to this execrable outcome, Americans must demand the Left answer this quartet of critical inquiries regarding Iraq:

Read on . . .

1. If America breaks its vow and abandons the Iraqis to be slaughtered, who in the region or the world will trust our word?

2. If America belies its professed commitment to liberty, what can we possibly offer the Middle East’s – indeed, the world’s – oppressed to turn them away from the enemy and toward us?

3. After Iraq is abandoned, how soon will the Left demand America’s immediate retreat in the other “war without end” – Afghanistan?

4. What are the consequences to America if we are defeated in Iraq and Bin-Laden is proven right: “America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation”?

These questions and others will not and can not be answered by the Left. Offering constructive alternatives to and measuring the consequences of national security policies is neither their goal nor inclination. Their contempt for America as the greatest threat to “world peace” precludes it.

Possessed of our sanity, let us provide the answers to these questions.

1. No one.

2. Nothing.

3. Immediately.

4. A war without end.

Should the Left prevail and these answers become bitter realities, present and future generations of Americans will be faced with the dark specter of nuclear armed terrorist states in a war without end against an implacable enemy bent upon our destruction; and, our just God so disposed, the Left will be held to account for betraying the integrity of America’s word in this crucible of our nation’s War for Freedom.

And, make no mistake, we will not escape the history’s inquiry of us:

What did you do to win it?

United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee

"Yellow" Dog Democrats...Don't Vote???

House Democrats have 58-52 MAJORITY...every Republican on the board voting NO on the income tax increase.

Yellow Dog Democrats Refuse to Vote...they won't vote yes...won't vote no.

They have no one to blame but themselves...the "Yellow Dog Democrats".

Rep. Terry Brown (D-Pigeon)
Rep. Barb Byrum (D-Onondaga)
Rep. Marc Corriveau (D-Northville)
Rep. Robert Dean (D-Grand Rapids)
Rep. Kate Ebli (D-Monroe)
Rep. Martin Griffin (D-Jackson)
Rep. Mike Simpson (D-Liberty Twp.)
Rep. Dudley Spade (D-Franklin Twp.)
Rep. Mary Valentine (D-Muskegon)
Rep. Lisa Wojno (D-Warren)

Democrats Control the House of Representatives…58-52 Democrat Majority…they don’t need a single Republican vote to pass ANY bill…NO excuses…any delay, any problems are solely the fault of the Democrat Majority which refuses to act/vote/lead!

The “Yellow Dog Democrats” who REFUSE to vote…are they too “yellow” to either to support taxes or oppose taxes???  Who are they working for?  Apparently not the taxpayers of Michigan.

Petraeus Report...Summary

Below are excerpts from General David Petraeus's opening statement before a joint session of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Armed Services Committee. Attached are the full statement and accompanying slides used by General Petraeus.

Excerpts from

Report to the Congress on the Situation in Iraq

General David H. Petraeus

Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq

10-11 September 2007

Overview

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met…Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.

Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq.  Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.

Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. 

Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks.   

In what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produced such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.

Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.

I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, though doing so will be neither quick nor easy.

The Nature of the Conflict

The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources.  This competition will take place, and its resolution is key to producing long-term stability in the new Iraq.  The question is whether the competition takes place more—or less—violently. 

Current Situation and Trends

While there have been setbacks as well as successes and tough losses along the way, overall, our tactical commanders and I see improvements in the security environment.

The level of security incidents has decreased significantly since the start of the surge of offensive operations in mid-June, declining in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June 2006 and with the number of attacks this past week the lowest since April 2006.

Civilian deaths of all categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December… [and] by some 70% in Baghdad.  Periodic mass casualty attacks by Al Qaeda have tragically added to the numbers outside Baghdad, in particular.  Even without the sensational attacks, however, the level of civilian deaths clearly is still too high and continues to be of serious concern.

The number of ethno-sectarian deaths…has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. 

Iraq-wide…the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, and it would have come down much further were it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric Al Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence. 

In Baghdad, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by some 80% since December.

We have, so far this year, already found and cleared over 4,400 [weapons] caches, nearly 1,700 more than we discovered in all of last year.

Monthly attack levels in Anbar have declined from some 1,350 in October 2006 to a bit over 200 in August of this year.  This dramatic decrease reflects the significance of the local rejection of Al Qaeda and the newfound willingness of local Anbaris to volunteer to serve the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police service. 

To be sure, trends have not been uniformly positive across Iraq…The overall trajectory in Iraq—a steady decline of incidents in the past three months—is still quite significant.

The number of car bombings and suicide attacks has also declined in each of the past 5 months.

Our operations have, in fact, produced substantial progress against Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq…Al Qaeda is certainly not defeated; however, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively.

It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.

The most significant development in the past six months likely has been the increasing emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists...A year ago the province was assessed as “lost” politically.  Today, it is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose Al Qaeda and reject its Taliban-like ideology…Other tribes have been inspired by the actions of those in Anbar and have volunteered to fight extremists as well.

Iraqi Security Forces

Iraqi Security Forces have continued to grow, to develop their capabilities, and to shoulder more of the burden of providing security for their country.

There are now nearly 140 Iraqi Army, National Police, and Special Operations Forces Battalions in the fight, with about 95 of those capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some coalition support.  Beyond that, all of Iraq’s battalions have been heavily involved in combat operations that often result in the loss of leaders, soldiers, and equipment.

Significantly, in 2007, Iraq will, as in 2006, spend more on its security forces than it will receive in security assistance from the United States. 

To summarize, the security situation in Iraq is improving, and Iraqi elements are slowly taking on more of the responsibility for protecting their citizens.  Innumerable challenges lie ahead; however, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security.

Recommendations

The essence of the approach I recommended is captured in its title:  “Security While Transitioning:  From Leading to Partnering to Overwatch.”  This approach seeks to build on the security improvements our troopers and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to achieve in recent months.  It reflects recognition of the importance of securing the population and the imperative of transitioning responsibilities to Iraqi institutions and Iraqi forces as quickly as possible, but without rushing to failure. 

Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008; however, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time.  In fact, our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous.

One may argue that the best way to speed the process in Iraq is to change the MNF-I mission from one that emphasizes population security, counter-terrorism, and transition, to one that is strictly focused on transition and counter-terrorism.  Making that change now would, in our view, be premature.  We have learned before that there is a real danger in handing over tasks to the Iraqi Security Forces before their capacity and local conditions warrant.

Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq’s problems will require a long-term effort.  There are no easy answers or quick solutions.  And though we both believe this effort can succeed, it will take time.  Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences.

A 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report…concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals; and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.