RightMichigan.com || House Dems trying $1.2 BILLION tax hike... again...

Tax Hike Wall of Shame

House Dems trying $1.2 BILLION tax hike... again...

By Nick, Section News
Posted on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:39:59 PM EST

Update [2007-9-16 0:23:51 by Nick]:Happy Sunday! Just like this time "yesterday" the House cleared the board just before midnight, adjourned, gaveled back into session and then heard a "prayer" from Rep. Ed Clemente. He read a quote from Ghandi and talked about Hindus and harmony. Later came the pledge (which still contains the phrase "under God" by the way).

They checked back in, re-opened the board on the Democrats massive job-killing $1.2 BILLION tax hike and things sit pretty much where they've sat all weekend.

A few changes in the last hour or so... Rep. Gino Polidori decided he'd like to rob his constituents of a little more of their hard earned income despite the state's 7.2% unemployment rate and skyrocketing foreclosure and poverty rates. He's joined Dillon's caucus in supporting the giant tax hike. He was joined by Reps Clemente, McDowell and LeBlanc. Rep Wojno had been voting no and now she's just not voting.

When you mix it all up and shake it all out it leaves 10 Democrats who refuse to vote. Reps Brown, Byrum, Corriveau, Dean, Ebli, Griffin, Law, Simpson, Spade, Valentine and Wojno. Their political courage is inspiring. Apparently the Hindu goddess Kali helped Ed Clemente find harmony with his caucus.

Our GOP Representatives are all still holding strong without a single defection! A big THANK YOU to each of them! You're doing an awesome job!!!

Looks like nothing will change tonight... errr... this morning... and they'll get back to work in six or seven hours.

Update [2007-9-15 22:45:22 by Nick]:I just spoke with someone close to Rep. Ed Gaffney. According to my source the only reason the board recorded him without a vote earlier in the day was because he'd stepped away from his desk to attend to a personal matter.

After the call of the House was issued he immediately returned and voted NO. He's holding strong with the rest of the caucus! Thanks for your efforts, Representative... Wanted to clear that up.

Here it is at 10:30 Saturday evening and the House just re-opened the board on the $1.2 BILLION Democrat tax-hike, HB 5194.

And what do you know...

43 Democrats voting to raise our taxes.

All of the Republicans present voting NO on the Democrat tax hike. Remember, Rep. Green is away grieving with his wife. Reps Agema, Caul and Palmer are on their way back to the chamber to register their NO votes right now.

And yes, that means Rep. Ed Gaffney has gone from NOT VOTING to NO. Welcome back, Representative.

1 Democrat voting NO on the Democrat tax hike... Lisa Wojno! Welcome to the good side, Representative! Thanks for standing up for taxpayers!

14 Democrats refusing to vote.

Reps Brown, Byrum, Ebli, Corrivuea, Clemente, Dean, Ebli, Griffin, LeBlanc, McDowell, Polidori, Valentine, Simpson and Spade.

I wouldn't have thought it was possible but the Democrats are actually in WORSE shape than they were the last time they had the board open! They'd just gotten Lemmons back and had every voting Dem voting yes... now they've lost Wojno and they haven't picked up a single Republican in the exchange. In fact, the one squishy R they had has now voted NO.

Hope that sleeping bag was comfy last night Andy. Looks like another all-nighter...

< House Dem Tax-Hike Saturday Update 2 | My budget saving idea... >

House Dems trying $1.2 BILLION tax hike... again... | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)

Let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#1)
by DanaP on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:31:26 PM EST

Basically, Dillon keeps opening and closing the board until he gets what he wants, right?

Doesn't this kind of remind you of when kids ask their mom if they can have something, and she says no, so then the kids go to the dad? Hoping and waiting until they get the answer that they want?

Good Grief.

Yeah, except (none / 0) (#2)
by Nick on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:47:57 PM EST

he keeps asking his OWN caucus if he can have what he wants and his OWN caucus keeps telling him no!

They just... (none / 0) (#3)
by DanaP on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:49:13 PM EST

Cleared the board AGAIN! This is ridiculous!

They'll re-open it at 12:01... new day. (none / 0) (#4)
by Nick on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:50:42 PM EST

Procedure after procedure. The tax-hikers are making quite the spectacle of themselves.

They didn't break for sleep, did they? (none / 0) (#5)
by moderateme on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:24:38 AM EST

It's a little after 12 and the board looks like it's 48-48. But it's blurry so I'm not sure. Where the heck are Agema, Caul, & Palmer?

They've by Nick, 09/16/2007 12:29:32 AM EST (none / 0)

thank you (none / 0) (#7)
by moderateme on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:31:08 AM EST

for the update. I was afraid they'd be able to twist one D arm, then close the board without the other Rs putting up a vote.

No problem... and remember... by Nick, 09/16/2007 12:35:29 AM EST (none / 0)

I totally forgot about that (none / 0) (#9)
by moderateme on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:41:14 AM EST

I think I'm just too tired and worried about the shutdown. I'm really not interested in being out of work in two weeks due to this ridiculous delay. They've had 8 months to strong arm their caucus. Ugh!

Bishop plan (none / 0) (#10)
by jbuch on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:00:42 AM EST

If the Republicans don't want to raise taxes and think you can fully cut your way out of this deficit then why didn't they vote in favor of the Bishop plan?

Tally Board Photo Question. (none / 0) (#11)
by KG One on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:37:28 PM EST

I saw an image of the tax hike vote and of the sales tax hike vote, but does anyone have an image of the vote to institute a "progressive" income tax?

I've been sending out copies like crazy and am looking to include that one as well.

Thanx in advance.

Bishop's plan response (none / 0) (#12)
by NoviDemocrat on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:12:46 PM EST

"If the Republicans don't want to raise taxes and think you can fully cut your way out of this deficit then why didn't they vote in favor of the Bishop plan?"

Don't you know, the Republicans now claim that it wasn't Bishop's $1.7 billion in cuts that were put up, it was some other $1.7 billion in cuts. Apparently, those cuts are cuts they can't support but they can support some other cuts. But just don't ask them to vote on it.

I think that this speaks volumes... (none / 0) (#13)
by KG One on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:06:31 PM EST

...about the lack of "leadership" on the democratic side.

If coming to an agreement is so important to Speaker Dillion as he has claimed over the past few days, wouldn't it stand to reason that you introduce the cuts that were already agreed to?

Why? (none / 0) (#14)
by NoviDemocrat on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:38:33 PM EST

So Republicans can vote for the cuts, vote again the tax increases and then attack the Democrats for both? The real question is why every House Republican voted against $1.7 billion in cuts after saying that the budget could be balanced with cuts alone. Just goes to show that they don't even believe their own rhetoric.

You've just answered your own question... (none / 0) (#15)
by KG One on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:45:59 PM EST

...you just haven't realized it yet.

The cuts that were proposed in the House were not the cuts that came from the Senate side.

I can't make it any more simple.

And? (none / 0) (#16)
by NoviDemocrat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:21:28 AM EST

Republicans never claimed that there was only one set of $1.7 billion in cuts that they would vote for to balance the budget. To listen to the rhetoric here, there was multi-billions in cuts that could have been made. When given the opportunity to vote for the cuts, they refused. So answer this, what was so objectionable about the list of cuts that were presented that not one House Republican could vote for them?

Grasping at straws, are we? (none / 0) (#17)
by KG One on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:19:45 AM EST

Republicans never claimed that there was only one set of $1.7 billion in cuts that they would vote for to balance the budget.

I went back through the material from the last week and I failed to locate any source to coorberate your claim that we're dealing with Michigan FY 2007-2008 Sentate Proposed Budget Cuts # 1, # 2, # 3, etc.

Nice try, though.

WHICH REPUBLICANS? (none / 0) (#18)
by John Galt on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:39:33 AM EST

Don't you know, the Republicans now claim that it wasn't Bishop's $1.7 billion in cuts that were put up, it was some other $1.7 billion in cuts. Apparently, those cuts are cuts they can't support but they can support some other cuts. But just don't ask them to vote on it.

Liberal liar. Which Republicans now claim this?

You have a funny way of playing fast and loose with facts, but then you demand all sorts of facts from everyone else.

Time to start being a bit more concise, NoviDem. Which Republicans?

Also, give us the 1.7$ billion that the entire HOUSE CHAMBER voted against. You say they are Bishop's cuts... go ahead and post the bill's cuts.

More lying liberal troll hot air.

Eat your words JG! (none / 0) (#19)
by NoviDemocrat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:46:41 PM EST

The truth is out! The $1.7 billion in cuts that every last House Republican voted against included every one of the cuts that was on Senator Bishop's list! In addition to Bishop's list (which did not close the gap), the House proposal also included the revenue sharing cuts and the cuts in grants included in the SFA presentation that were necessary to close the $1.7 billion gap. The two proposals can be compared here:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0229-8.pdf

and

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/main/sacpres0911.pdf

You can no longer deny the truth. Your House Republicans are frauds.

I can (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by NoviDemocrat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:14:54 PM EST

"The cuts that were proposed in the House were not the cuts that came from the Senate side.

I can't make it any more simple."

I can. You're wrong and you were misinformed or you lied? Which was it? The proposal included all of the cuts that were proposed on the Senate side.

Do you even read your posts... (none / 0) (#21)
by KG One on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:53:01 PM EST

...before posting them here?

In your own words, NoviDemocrat,

In addition to Bishop's list (which did not close the gap), the House proposal also included the revenue sharing cuts and the cuts in grants included in the SFA presentation that were necessary to close the $1.7 billion gap.

You've just confirmed what we were saying all along: That the two lists are not identical.

You decide (none / 0) (#22)
by NoviDemocrat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:44 PM EST

So Nick was lying when he said:

"BUT... Mike Bishop today went ahead and did it. He unveiled $1.7 BILLION in spending cuts to avoid the multi-BILLION dollar tax-hike Lansing Democrats seem to prefer."

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2007/9/11/141348/549

Then I decide that this is a red herring... (none / 0) (#23)
by KG One on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:53:12 PM EST

...and you know it as well as I do.

Quit being a coward (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by NoviDemocrat on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 12:12:21 AM EST

Nick claimed that Bishop had produced $1.7 billion in cuts and linked to the SFA proposal that included Bishops cuts as well as other proposals that resulted in a $1.7 billion total. Bishop's list and those other proposals were presented to House Republicans who voted them down. Try again:

Was Nick lying when he claimed that Bishop presented $1.7 billion in cuts?
What are the cuts that House and Senate Republicans will support that will total $1.7 billion?

If you all are so confident that you can cut the $1.7 billion gap with cuts alone, why has not one House or Senate Republican or one person here been able to produce such a list?

Lets play this game for just a second... by Nick, 09/18/2007 07:33:51 AM EST (none / 0)

Come on Nick (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by NoviDemocrat on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:45:57 AM EST

Were you wrong when you claimed that that Bishop presented $1.7 billion in cuts?

Let me make it easier for you - on WJR this morning, Bishop told Paul W. Smith that he had presented a plan last week that would have balanced the budget with just cuts. Sounds to me like Bishop owning the entire plan. If that's correct, I would say that you were right last week and that Marty Knollenberg, JG and KG One are wrong. But is also means that every House Republican voted against the Bishop Plan. So whose side are you on, Senator Bishop or the House Republicans, because they both can't be right.

That's not an answer... (none / 0) (#27)
by Nick on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:06:49 AM EST

But nice try.

It's easy (none / 0) (#28)
by NoviDemocrat on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 01:51:19 PM EST

Nick claimed that Bishop had produced $1.7 billion in cuts and linked to the SFA proposal that included Bishops cuts as well as other proposals that resulted in a $1.7 billion total. Today on Paul W. Smith, Bishop took ownership for the entire $1.7 Billion proposal. Those cuts were presented to House Republicans who voted them down.

1. What are the cuts that House and Senate Republicans will support that will total $1.7 billion?

House Dems trying $1.2 BILLION tax hike... again... | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)

Login

Make a new account

Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!

Tweet along with RightMichigan by following us on Twitter HERE!

Tax Hike Wall of Shame

House Dems trying $1.2 BILLION tax hike... again...

Menu

Login

Related Links