Last week, Michigan saw its second government shutdown in the state’s history.  In the history of this country, only two other states have had government shutdowns because of a budget crisis, and Michigan is the only state to have more than one shutdown.  What’s even more sad is that the 2 shutdowns came only 2 years apart.

I ended up watching most of the late-night sessions last week, as I followed the budget crisis, and while there were some humorous segments (such as “I can count!” coming from the chairman of the Senate), most of what I saw was just sad – it’s sad that the Michigan legislature can’t pass a budget on time.

So why does Michigan have problems passing a budget?  There has been a fundamental failure in leadership, as well as the overall impacts of having the state in such a poor economic state.

Michigan is essentially the same position as it was for the 2007 shutdown: a Democratic Governor with terrible economic policies, a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives with Andy Dillon (D-Redford) as Speaker of the House waiting until it is too late to work on the budget, and a Republican-controlled Senate who tried to get the budget done on time, but was unable to overcome the incompetency of the House.

In both the 2007 and 2009 shutdowns, work on the budget started too late, and many legislators (including Republicans) weren’t committed to finishing the budget on time.

While portions of the budget were being passed by the Senate late Tuesday night, the House had already recessed for the day.  We saw the same thing in 2007: Andy Dillon would go would only have the House in session once or twice a week over the summer, and he even took a five-day weekend trip to Mackinac Island after acknowledging that the state was facing a budget crisis.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) had been getting Senate budget bills passed and sent over to the House faster than House bills were coming to the Senate.

But this isn’t to say that all Republicans were trying to finish the budget on time or that all Democrats were uninterested in finishing on time.  While the Senate Republicans seemed to generally work harder as the deadline got closer, NOBODY was working hard enough in the month and weeks beforehand.  Instead of passing a budget 2 hours into the government shutdown, the legislature should be passing a budget weeks or even months beforehand.

Representative Tim Bledsoe (D-Grosse Pointe) has suggested that the Michigan Constitution be amended to require the budget be done by July 1st, and legislators wouldn’t get paid after that date until a budget was passed.  Bledsoe told the Detroit Free Press, “We’ve had every opportunity to get this work done earlier in the year.  There’s no excuse to be moving the budget as late as we did.”

Senator Hansen Clark (D-Detroit) has suggested fining legislators $1,000 a day for each day after the fiscal year that a budget isn’t completed, with the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders paying $3,000.  He told reporters, “Even though many of us work long hours, we don’t have the same incentives as other sectors of the work force.  Typically, our incentive would be to do a good job so we can get re-elected, but apparently that’s not enough. … The leaders have to be accountable for results.  If you don’t perform the core mission of your job, and that’s to enact a balanced budget … there should be a penalty.”

Former Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R) said that the problems run deeper than just legislators not cracking down in time: ”The gap between revenue and spending is so large that there isn’t any structural issue that can compensate for it.  It’s a much deeper issue that legislators don’t want to deal with.  Michigan as a state can’t continue the level of spending it’s enjoyed for many years.  The economy has downsized underneath it.  Until you change the tax structure and the spending process, this kind of paralysis is likely to continue.  There is no process change that is going to make this a rational, timely, decision-making process.  Until there are fundamental changes, you can’t avoid this kind of chaos.”

And in part, I would agree with that.  The Democrats in the legislature have refused to accept that spending cuts are an inevitable result of the state’s deficit.  Taxes can only be raised so many times and only to a certain level, and when you’ve exhausted that option, you have to cut spending.  Michigan is not in a position to raise taxes.  Businesses won’t come to Michigan if we raise taxes, and we’ve even seen film companies come to Michigan now that we have a tax credit for film companies.  Raising taxes is only going to hurt the economy more and drive more people out of the state.

Fortunately, an interim budget was passed and signed by Governor Granholm only 2 hours into this year’s shutdown, but we aren’t in the clear yet.  The legislature gavels into session tomorrow, and a permanent budget still needs to be passed for the new fiscal year.  Unless legislators understand that spending cuts are not and option, but a necessity, and that they have to start cracking down and getting to work, we will wind up seeing a full government shutdown when the interim budget expires.

And we need to learn from our mistakes – this cannot happen in 2010.  It’s just unacceptable.  Fortunately, 2010 is an election year, and lawmakers will be trying to pass a budget on time so that they can get reelected, but unless things change, we will see ourselves back in this same position in 2011.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Come back to join me as I Live Blog from the Capitol, covering the debate, Bills and votes as the clock runs down on a new Michigan budget before a government shut down.
Protest rally outside on the Capitol steps at 2:00pm

Click Here to join the Chat Wed September 30, 2009, about 11:00AM EDT

Sep 26, 5:54 PM (ET)
By Kathy Barks Hoffman

LAINGSBURG, Mich. (AP) – Economically beleaguered Michigan faces a possible government shutdown – shuttering highway rest areas, state parks, construction projects and the state lottery – if lawmakers fail to reach a budget deal in the next few days.

The state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate has a nearly $3 billion shortfall. Federal recovery act money will fill more than half the gap, but the spending cuts or tax increases needed to fill the rest have caused bitter infighting at the state Capitol.

Michigan is one of just two states whose budget year starts Oct. 1. The other, Alabama, already has a spending plan in place, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If lawmakers in Lansing don’t make progress soon, Michigan could join the eight other states that failed to meet budget deadlines – but did not shut down – this year.

That’s something neither Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm nor lawmakers want to do. They’re haunted by memories of the fallout from an hours-long government shutdown in 2007 and want to avoid the resulting voter disgust and national derision.

Continue

By Calvin Palmer

Under a plan devised by its Republican governor, Rhode Island will shut down its state government for 12 days and trim millions of dollars in funding for local governments.

The proposal was announced today by Gov Don Carcieri in an attempt to balance a budget hard hit by unemployment and falling tax revenue.

The shutdown would force 81 percent of the roughly 13,550-member state work force, excluding its college system, to stay home a dozen days without pay before the start of the new fiscal year in July.

The closures come as the worst recession in decades has eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in tax collections and pushed unemployment to 12.7 percent, the second-highest jobless rate in the nation behind Michigan.

Carcieri predicted the state’s fiscal future could grow even bleaker.

“There are going to be inconveniences for the public, and there are going to be sacrifices, as I said, for state employees,” Carcieri said at a Statehouse news conference. “These steps right now are unavoidable if the state is to live within its budget, live within its means.”

Critical workers such as state police, prison guards and child abuse investigators still will report to work during the shutdown, Carcieri said.

He ruled out raising taxes to balance the budget and said the state cannot lay off more workers since it deeply trimmed its work force last year.

Carcieri said he is willing to negotiate a different deal with state employee unions so long as it saves the same amount of money, roughly $22 million. But the first day of shutdown is planned for September 4. Additional shutdown days have been scheduled every month through June.

His plan is certain to spark a legal fight with state employee unions that contend it violates their contracts. In bargaining last year, state workers agreed to give up a pay raise and pay more for their health insurance as state leaders struggled to balance the budget. They also took a day without pay.

“We did what we think is all we can do as taxpayers and state workers,” said J. Michael Downey, president of Council 94, a state employee union that represents around 4,000 workers. “We’re saying to them that enough of the budget problems have been taken on the backs of state employees.”

Besides shutting down state government, Carcieri asked lawmakers to grant him the power to unilaterally cut spending approved in the budget. State lawmakers rejected a similar request from Carcieri earlier this year.

If approved, Carcieri said he would cut about $33 million in local funding for city and town governments.

I wander if Carcieri is also playing politics and has his eye on the presidential election of 2012 and ensuring that President Obama does not get elected for a second term.

The strategy goes like this, make life more unpleasant than it has to be in these tough times and everyone will blame Obama and, therefore, be more likely to vote for his opponent.

Republican employers are also playing their part by giving employees no wage increases this year, effectively a wage cut given that the price for utilities and property taxes has risen. Such a strategy ensures that people have less disposable income and so the recession drags on longer.

That is exactly what Republicans want in order that Obama can be shown to have failed.

I find it strange that a party that values patriotism so highly is so willing to drag America and its people through the mire in order to seize political control.

But politics always was a dirty business and the Republican Party has always excelled at “dirty tricks” politics. I am not so sure that the American people will be so easily duped as they have been in the past but that will not prevent Coulter, Limbaugh and their political masters from trying.

[Based on a report by the Associated Press.]

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is pointing the finger of blame on House Democrats for government shutdowns that could occur if a state budget isn’t approved by midnight June 30th. But some of those Democrats are saying the only thing worse than a government shutdown would be passing the budget Daniels’ endorses. Indiana Public Broadcasting’s Marianne Holland reports.

The rhetoric in Congress over offshore drilling and a government shutdown does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Democratic members appear ready to offer a limited increase in offshore drilling that will be coupled with renewable energy tax credits and conservation provisions.  They are still firmly against any removal of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. They also want to pay for many of the tax provisions with tax increases on oil companies and the like. 

Most Republican members are still looking for ways to remove the offshore drilling ban.  Members in the House are continuing their bold streak by amping up threats to vote against a continuing resolution if it includes an extension of the ban, which would lead to a government shutdown.

Republican leaders in the Senate, however, are taking a more cautious approach to that subject.  They don’t seem as confident that support for more drilling will be enough to fight off attacks that they are leaving people behind by shutting down the government.  “If Republicans want to have a debate about denying senior citizens Social Security checks and health care, that’s a debate we’re willing to have,” a spokesperson for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated.  That is a prime example of such an attack.

Congressional Quarterly outlines a couple of pieces of energy legislation which may hit the Senate next week:

Reid said he plans to bring up a Bingaman-sponsored draft bill that would open new areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling.

While that proposal, along with provisions extending tax credits for alternative energy, would likely enjoy bipartisan support, the bill would offset costs by cutting subsidies to oil companies, which many Republicans would oppose.

Reid also would call up the compromise draft legislation proposed by a bipartisan group of senators — the so-called Gang of 16 — which would allow the Southeastern states to opt into drilling off their shores, as part of a broader package including an estimated $84 billion in investments in conservation and efficiency offset by cutting tax breaks to oil and gas companies.

Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who helped assemble the gang, said an additional five Democrats have expressed support for the plan. But many Senate Republicans remain committed to a complete repeal of the moratorium.

Earlier this month, we reported on a letter sent by some 36 Senate Republicans which essentially threatened a government shutdown if Democratic leaders attempted to attach an extension of the offshore drilling ban onto any spending bill and / or continuing resolution before the body adjourns for the year.

Senator DeMint (R-SC) took time today to reiterate that threat, this time saying that “virtually every Republican” would oppose such a move.

The Crypt reports:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Tuesday that if Democrats attempt to extend a ban on offshore drilling by attaching it to spending bills — as has been done in the past — “virtually every Republican” will oppose the move — effectively shutting down the government on Oct. 1. The ban expires that day and DeMint and other Republicans are calling it “Energy Freedom Day.”

DeMint said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would bear the responsibility for the government shutdown for attempting an approach Republicans have promised to block.  

He added that Democratic suggestions that a government shutdown would delay Social Security checks and Medicare payments is an attempt to scare voters and that only “nonessential services” would be curtailed.

Some thirty-six Republican Senators have sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) stating their intention to fight any attempt to extend the legislative ban on offshore drilling and exploration.

Here is an excerpt of a press release about today’s letter from the office of Senator DeMint (R-SC):

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, announced that 36 Senators have signed the letter to protect October 1 as American Energy Freedom Day, and to “actively oppose” any attempt to extend bans on offshore drilling and oil shale beyond their expiration at the end of September. U.S. Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) is gathering signatures to a similar letter in the House of Representatives.

The text of the letter, which notes that members would “actively oppose” any attempt to extend the offshore drilling ban, has led some to categorize it as an open threat to shut down the government.

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell,

It is our hope that Democrats and Republicans will stand together to support American Energy Freedom Day on October 1, 2008. On this day, the current prohibitions on oil and gas exploration off the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in the oil-shale fields of the West will expire, giving Americans the freedom to access their own energy and providing them with relief from sky-high prices at the pump.

We strongly encourage you to allow the expiration of these prohibitions on American energy exploration and production, as scheduled under current law, and we will actively oppose any attempt to extend them. Now is not the time to deny Americans access to their own energy supply.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with you to ensure a victory for the American people on American Energy Freedom Day.

Since this is a presidential election year, the Senate is not expected to pass any significant amount of spending bills.  Due to that inaction, they will be forced to pass a continuing resolution which would keep the government functioning at current levels until new spending bills are passed next year.  The annual renewal of the offshore drilling ban would be included in such a resolution, which could then lead Senate Republicans to oppose it and create a government shutdown.

Fox News has a response to today’s letter from a spokesman for the Majority Leader.

Isn’t this the same day that Republicans would be endangering the delivery of Social Security checks because of their misguided attempts to promote energy policies that will do nothing to deal with the short term problems facing the country?

Washington Times – Democrats will try to extend drilling ban past expiration: The ban is set to expire at the end of September, but Democratic leaders are expected to include a one-year extension in legislation that they will introduce next month to continue funding the government for the 2009 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1… ‘As far as I’m concerned, on October 1 we should be able to begin the leasing process of drilling and mining in both of those areas of American [energy] supply,’ House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said.

CNN.com – Expectation of drilling ban ending helps reduce oil prices: Talk of political compromise on further off-shore drilling also weighed on crude prices… Analysts say support mounting for an end to some of the off-shore drilling bans has begun to weigh on oil prices. ‘Psychologically, it’s adding to the decline in prices, even though it won’t have an impact on material supply in the next few years,’ said Neal Dingmann, senior energy analyst with Dahlman Rose & Co.

Politico.com – Obama says no to American energy, but he does promise to use millions of tax dollars to buy fleets of new government cars.

I’m trying to understand this one. Senator Obama recently announced his new energy plan. While it is no suprise that the plan includes more support for hybrid cars and renewable energy initiatives, what *is* new is that it also calls for tapping the nation’s strategic oil reserve and recommends being open to the possibility of offshore drilling if it can be done in an environmentally responsbile way. These are new positions for Obama, who previously opposed them:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080804/ap_on_el_pr/obama_energy

Now some will accuse Obama of flip-flopping on these issues for poitical gain. And certainly, with gas prices being what they are, it’s not hard to see how these changes could help Obama with undecided voters. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I think it is also possible that Senator Obama is having a genuine reassessment of these policies based on the reality of the current situation. He’s been accused of a lot of things, but being stupid is not one of them. He knows that if he becomes President he is going to be the one taking the hits if the economy doesn’t improve, and it’s smart to leave his options open a little bit. 

Others will accuse Obama of being a hypocrite for departing from liberal orthodoxy on the energy question. A good liberal after all, views oil (and all fossil fuels) as the spawn of Satan and would be happy to see gas prices go even higher in order to force the unwashed masses to start bicycling to work. But I do not see it as hypocrisy to acknowledge the undeniable need of the US economy for oil in the short term, while continuing to push for changes that will move us away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable, renewable, and clean energy sources in the long term. In fact, it’s the height of common sense. Furthermore, Obama’s announcement probably helped to drive the price of oil even lower in trading today, which means gas prices should continue to fall, for which we can all be thankful.

Here’s the part I can’t seem to figure out, though: At the very same time that Senator Obama is embracing the need for oil, he’s running a campaign ad accusing McCain of being a stooge for the oil companies. Reuters, in an astonishing display of attention to objective facts, points out that while McCain has certainly received more money from Big Oil than Obama, he voted against a 2005 bill that gave the oil companies billions in tax breaks. Obama voted *for* that bill:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0230158220080804?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Meanwhile, McCain has his own ad which compares Obama, probably unfairly, to celebutarts Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I guess the lesson here is that even the most principled of candidates (and I count McCain and Obama among that group) are not immune from the temptation to go negative when the stakes are the highest office in the land. And that’s disappointing. (The only silver lining is that Paris Hilton’s mother Kathy, who is my personal #1 suspect as the Anti-Christ, was ticked off by the McCain ad.)

Turning to pick on the GOP for a moment on oil, the House GOP members are currently staging a “talk-in” on the drilling issue. They want Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call the House back into special session during its summer recess to vote on the drilling issue, so they are continuing to give speeches on the House floor to an amused press contingent even while the House is not actually in session. Good for them – this is not only a valid form of protest but an intelligent one.

However, the GOP congressmen are also threatening not to vote for the budget resolution in September if it contains an extension of the offshore drilling ban, effectively shutting down the federal government by denying it the funds it needs to operate. This I think is excessive. Republicans have already blocked action on some other bills in protest that they have not been allowed a stand-alone vote on the drilling issue. That is protest enough. It’s one thing to force a shutdown when the economy is healthy (as the GOP did in 1995 and was roundly criticized for so doing.) But when the economy is shaky, shutting down the federal government wipes out one of the economy’s biggest demand generators – the purchasing power of all the government agencies as well as their employees who will not be getting paid. That’s tantamount to economic hara-kiri, and you don’t have to be an unreconstructed Keynesian to understand that it’s a bad idea:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/04/lift-drilling-ban-or-risk-shutdown-gop-warns/

Even though we wouldn’t see the very small benefits of offshore drilling for something like 10 years, apparently the GOP finds handing even more money to the oil companies as such an urgent matter that they’re threatening to shut down the government in September over it.

One of the things Democrats haven’t done well is explain to people just how useless offshore drilling is, but perhaps this threat will finally get them to start doing that.

Back in 1995 when I was just starting into my political journey, I remember feeling proud of the Republican Party for allowing the Almighty Federal Government to shutdown. This was when the Republican Party was Conservative, and yes a bit Anti-Federal Government (I don’t have ADD). I can remember all these whiny politico’s on CnnCCP, and ABC’s Nightline complaining about this and that, and how this is bad for everyone. Nothing bad about it in my eyes. In fact, I was hoping it would last longer than it did.

Now comes news from The Hill, that this may once again happen.

Fears of a shutdown

The prospect of a September government shutdown loomed over the Capitol on Wednesday as the two parties fought over rising energy prices. It’s a fight some members of either party are willing to have, but others worry about who will get blamed for a repeat of the 1995 shutdown that President Clinton pinned on a Republican Congress.

Back in 1995 it was over the Budget, now it’s for “Rising Energy Prices”. Which infact is the fault of the Almighty Federal Government, as well as the Federal Reserve. Let’s not get facts in the way. You moron’s in Congress need to read some Economic books, and to Re-read the Constitution.

Back to the article…

Republicans would likely have to make the first move by filibustering a bill, or by President Bush vetoing a spending bill. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said he doesn’t think the GOP would go through with it. “I believe the Republican Party would be risking even more wrath of the American people than they’ve gotten so far,”said Van Hollen, who’s in charge of electing more Democratic House members this fall. “I think the people on the Republican side will pull back.”

Wouldn’t feel my wrath Congressman. It would make me want to vote for them again. And, I may even decide to donate money to them, if this were to happen. But, the majority of the American people have been doped to believe, that if the Federal Government isn’t working, the country will go to hell in a hand basket.

 And that’s the problem. Folks, honesty besides the Defense of America (not our interests, or alleys) what does the Federal Government do to help your daily life? Not much. Well unless you are a parasite that sucks the money from my paycheck. Federal Welfare recipients, Government Contractors, Military Contractors, Federalizing Law Enforcement, just to name a few in the long list Welfare/Warfare collaborators.

So, will the Republican Party renew my faith in them, when they say “Limited Government”? Or will they blink and return to being the Socialists they’ve become.

Referendum: Should We Vote On The Budget?

James Bailey Brislin
The Carpet City Chronicle

The Enfield Press, May 8, 2008

Every year around this time, the issue of budget referendum gains prominence. In many neighboring towns, the municipal budget is subject to popular vote. Since Enfield adopted the council-manager form of government, the budget and tax rates have been set by the Town Council.

Strong arguments can be made both in favor and against the inclusion of referendum in the budget process.

Advocates for the budget referendum will argue that it is more democratic. It subjects municipal spending subject to public scrutiny. This checks the ability of politicians to raise taxes and forces them to limit their spending.

Given the current atmosphere, these concerns are legitimate. In Enfield, rapidly escalating property taxes have been fueled by a school system budget that has doubled in the past decade. Unrealistic and over-generous commitments to unions have hobbled the Town’s ability to control costs.

However, there are legitimate arguments against a budget referendum. Chief among these is efficiency. Anyone who has ever been involved in a budget process will tell you that it has the drama and logistics of a Broadway stage show. It takes weeks of meetings to set priorities and produce the budget. A rejection of the proposed budget sends the entire process back to the drawing board. Some towns have seen proposed budgets defeated multiple times. The other possibility raised by the referendum process is government shut-down. If a budget is not agreed upon by the start of the fiscal year, municipal government shuts down. Let’s be clear what that means: no cops, no fire service, no EMS, and no trash removal.

However, this system has produced less-than-stellar results. It is what has brought us years of steep property tax increases.

Because neither process is effective, I am going to suggest an alternative that retains the advantages of both options. Most individuals who favor a budget referendum are not interested in determining the allocation of budget items. They are interested in keeping their property taxes low. The answer is not a budget referendum, but a tax referendum. Accordingly, any change in the tax rate would be subject to a vote. This would avoid the ugly consequences of a government shut down, but would check the power of politicians to raise taxes and make commitments. This is really a best of both worlds solution. It preserves the role of council in the budget process, while making councilmen more accountable to the people. By reserving the power of appropriation to the Council, you reduce the chances for a government shut-down. A tax referendum process also helps to check unreasonable union demands. Unions that expect major wage increases will have to account for them to the voters.

Although this process is the most equitable and efficient, no town can implement it. Why? State laws do not allow the tax increases to be put to popular vote. Only the budget can be voted on. This is a good example of the overregulation that has strangled Connecticut. If state officials are serious about supporting home rule, they should reduce the state regulations that burden municipalities, beginning with this one.

Former Iowa Rep. Jim Nussle released this statement yesterday:

According to news reports today, House and Senate Democratic leaders are nearing agreement among themselves on a mammoth omnibus spending bill, two-and-a-half months after the end of the last fiscal year.

Although the Administration has not seen the legislation, according to press reports it would include 18 billion in additional domestic and emergency spending above the President’s budget. When added to emergency domestic spending Congress already included in the Defense Appropriations bill, this so-called compromise would result in more excess spending than even the Democrats’ original budget included.

This is not fiscally responsible. Our economic growth and job creation cannot be taken for granted, and Congress should not burden taxpayers with billions of dollars in additional wasteful spending.

Press reports also suggest that the Democrats in Congress believe this excessive spending is the price for providing a fraction of the funding requested for our troops in the field. Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield successes.

If presented a bill like the one described in today’s press reports, the President would veto it. If Congress insists on sending the President a budget-busting bill they know he will veto and that will not become law, they should also pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government running and provides the troops in the field the funds they need without disrupting the operations of the Department of Defense and the lives of hundreds of thousands of its employees and men and women in uniform.

UPDATE: 1:00 AM Monday, Oct. 1…With Democrat Lt. Governor John Cherry casting the tie-breaking vote (19-19) to pass the Granholm Tax Increase. It now goes to the governor for signature.

Taxes are going up. The Michigan House, which is Democrat controlled, just passed the largest tax increase in a quarter century. Here, you can take a look at vote tally as the vote was finalized late Sunday evening.

HB 5194 passed 57-53. Republicans Rep. Gaffney and Ward joined Democrats in voting ‘Yes.’ Senate is now considering the bill. The word is that the Democrats Dennis Olshove (Warren), Jim Barcia (Bay City) and Glenn Anderson (Westland) will be voting NO.

Anderson represents a vulnerable state senate district that is nominally Republican. Barcia was a state senator (before term limits) in 1983 and Olshove a staffer when the senate passed Gov. Jim Blanchard’s “temporary” personal income tax increase. These two saw first hand the bloodletting that occurred in the aftermath of the vote. For those of you who don’t remember, two senators were recalled over that vote and it resulted in Republicans gaining control of that chamber, which they’ve held held ever since.