Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2009 Senate Bill 245: Appropriations: 2009-2010 General Government (House Roll Call 481)
facebook  twitter 

Passed 56 to 52 in the House on October 1, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 General Government budget, which funds several departments, the Executive office, the Legislature, and revenue sharing. This would appropriate $3.006 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.158 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. $116.9 million of the total is federal money. $991.6 million of this budget is paid out in revenue sharing to local governments, 11.1 percent less than the previous year.
View All of Senate Bill 245: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 56 in favor, 52 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 481)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 


In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
43 total votes
67 total votes

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)


Appropriations: 2009-2010 General Government



Angerer (D)Byrnes (D)Constan (D)Cushingberry (D)Dillon (D)
Ebli (D)Espinoza (D)Hammel (D)Lahti (D)LeBlanc (D)
McDowell (D)Melton (D)Simpson (D)Slezak (D)Spade (D)


Agema (R)Amash (R)Ball (R)Bolger (R)Booher (R)
Calley (R)Caul (R)Crawford (R)Daley (R)Denby (R)
DeShazor (R)Elsenheimer (R)Genetski (R)Haines (R)Hansen (R)
Haveman (R)Hildenbrand (R)Horn (R)Jones, Rick (R)Knollenberg (R)
Kowall (R)Kurtz (R)Lori (R)Lund (R)Marleau (R)
McMillin (R)Meekhof (R)Meltzer (R)Moore (R)Moss (R)
Opsommer (R)Pavlov (R)Pearce (R)Proos (R)Rogers (R)
Schmidt, W. (R)Schuitmaker (R)Scott, P. (R)Stamas (R)Tyler (R)
Walsh (R)    



Barnett (D)Bauer (D)Bledsoe (D)Brown, L. (D)Brown, T. (D)
Byrum (D)Clemente (D)Corriveau (D)Coulouris (D)Dean (D)
Donigan (D)Durhal (D)Geiss (D)Gonzales (D)Gregory (D)
Griffin (D)Haase (D)Haugh (D)Huckleberry (D)Jackson (D)
Johnson (D)Jones, Robert (D)Kandrevas (D)Kennedy (D)Leland (D)
Lemmons (D)Lindberg (D)Lipton (D)Liss (D)Mayes (D)
Meadows (D)Miller (D)Nathan (D)Neumann (D)Polidori (D)
Roberts (D)Schmidt, R. (D)Scott, B. (D)Scripps (D)Segal (D)
Sheltrown (D)Slavens (D)Smith (D)Stanley (D)Switalski (D)
Tlaib (D)Valentine (D)Warren (D)Womack (D)Young (D)


Green (R)Rocca (R)


Bennett (D)Nerat (D)


Y    Agema (R)Y    Amash (R)Y    Angerer (D)Y    Ball (R)  n  Barnett (D)
  n  Bauer (D)  -  Bennett (D)  n  Bledsoe (D)Y    Bolger (R)Y    Booher (R)
  n  Brown, L. (D)  n  Brown, T. (D)Y    Byrnes (D)  n  Byrum (D)Y    Calley (R)
Y    Caul (R)  n  Clemente (D)Y    Constan (D)  n  Corriveau (D)  n  Coulouris (D)
Y    Crawford (R)Y    Cushingberry (D)Y    Daley (R)  n  Dean (D)Y    Denby (R)
Y    DeShazor (R)Y    Dillon (D)  n  Donigan (D)  n  Durhal (D)Y    Ebli (D)
Y    Elsenheimer (R)Y    Espinoza (D)  n  Geiss (D)Y    Genetski (R)  n  Gonzales (D)
  n  Green (R)  n  Gregory (D)  n  Griffin (D)  n  Haase (D)Y    Haines (R)
Y    Hammel (D)Y    Hansen (R)  n  Haugh (D)Y    Haveman (R)Y    Hildenbrand (R)
Y    Horn (R)  n  Huckleberry (D)  n  Jackson (D)  n  Johnson (D)Y    Jones, Rick (R)
  n  Jones, Robert (D)  n  Kandrevas (D)  n  Kennedy (D)Y    Knollenberg (R)Y    Kowall (R)
Y    Kurtz (R)Y    Lahti (D)Y    LeBlanc (D)  n  Leland (D)  n  Lemmons (D)
  n  Lindberg (D)  n  Lipton (D)  n  Liss (D)Y    Lori (R)Y    Lund (R)
Y    Marleau (R)  n  Mayes (D)Y    McDowell (D)Y    McMillin (R)  n  Meadows (D)
Y    Meekhof (R)Y    Melton (D)Y    Meltzer (R)  n  Miller (D)Y    Moore (R)
Y    Moss (R)  n  Nathan (D)  -  Nerat (D)  n  Neumann (D)Y    Opsommer (R)
Y    Pavlov (R)Y    Pearce (R)  n  Polidori (D)Y    Proos (R)  n  Roberts (D)
  n  Rocca (R)Y    Rogers (R)  n  Schmidt, R. (D)Y    Schmidt, W. (R)Y    Schuitmaker (R)
  n  Scott, B. (D)Y    Scott, P. (R)  n  Scripps (D)  n  Segal (D)  n  Sheltrown (D)
Y    Simpson (D)  n  Slavens (D)Y    Slezak (D)  n  Smith (D)Y    Spade (D)
Y    Stamas (R)  n  Stanley (D)  n  Switalski (D)  n  Tlaib (D)Y    Tyler (R)
  n  Valentine (D)Y    Walsh (R)  n  Warren (D)  n  Womack (D)  n  Young (D)

House Roll Call 481 on 2009 Senate Bill 245



Re: 2009 Senate Bill 245 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 General Government )  by Admin003 on June 17, 2009 


Senator Whitmer’s third statement is as follows:

This amendment is also toward the effort of transparency in government, and this is just another report on the state website from the Attorney General’s office with regard to the item pricing act. Now the item-pricing act, as you are all very well aware, we actually last session had some debate on a measure that I can’t remember who introduced, but there was an effort to eliminate the item pricing act on some dairy items, I recall, and some frozen foods that ultimately failed, but I’m not quite sure. I know I voted “no.” But we had some debate on that.

What this does, though, there have been a number of complaints on violations on the item pricing act, is my understanding, to the Department of Agriculture. It is the standard course of business that those complaints are sent over to the office of the Attorney General. We’ve asked the question of whether or not those complaints have been followed up on and what the outcome of those complaints has been without having a response and an understanding of what has happened with regard to those complaints.

Now to a lot of seniors out there, especially in these difficult times, not only to seniors, but to people who are on the bubble—people who are trying to make ends meet—being able to compare the costs of their food of the items which they are buying in the store makes a huge difference of whether or not they are going to feed their family that day. The item pricing act was enacted by the Legislature to protect consumers. So if this act is being violated, it is an important thing for us as legislators to know.

So what this amendment seeks to do is to get the facts. That’s all we are trying to do is to get the information so that we know whether or not our consumers—our constituents—are having the protection which we sought to afford them when enacting the consumer item pricing law in the first place.

The question should be, what are we afraid of? What are we really afraid of in requiring that the Attorney General give us this information? So I ask for your support on the amendment. It makes a difference to thousands of people when they’re at the check-out line in the grocery store what the cost of their milk is. It makes a difference.

I ask that we require this. I know it’s a budget bill. I know it only has effect in boilerplate for one year, but I ask that we get the facts on this issue, and I ask for your support.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 245 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 General Government )  by Admin003 on June 17, 2009 


Senator Whitmer’s second statement is as follows:

This is another amendment asking for information, transparency out of the Attorney General’s office. What this amendment does is it refers to the MIOSHA act. This is the act that the Legislature enacted to protect the workers of the state of Michigan. We got this law on the books for a reason—to protect people. One of the things we don’t know is how many complaints the office of the Attorney General is receiving annually; whether or not they are being investigated; whether or not those investigations are yielding actual prosecutions for violations and what is being done.

So all that this does is require that when the Attorney General presents his or her report to the Legislature that these details are included in that report. I don’t know that this requires a whole lot of effort on the office, but it certainly would give us a whole lot of information as to whether or not the laws which we enact to protect the people and the workers in the state of Michigan are being enforced, observed, and that the people whom we seek to protect are, in fact, being protected.

So I ask for your consideration of this amendment as well. I know that it has a one-year time frame, but, heck, let’s try it for a year and see if it works. What’s the harm in that? I think that when you are talking about workers’ safety, there was a man who died here in Lansing last year because people were violating the MIOSHA act. So I think that we as a Legislature owe it to our constituents, owe it to the working people of the state of Michigan to at least ask the question. I’m not saying let’s change the laws. I’m not saying let’s impose a new, tough burden on any party. Let’s enforce the laws which are on the books. Let’s ask if they being enforced So let’s ask. Let’s find out. One year. Let’s ask the Attorney General to include this in the report that is already compiled to put it on the website and make sure that we don’t have anyone else fall through an open elevator shaft that should have been properly closed and that this person should not have lost their life. Let’s ask the question and make sure that we are following up and enforcing the laws which are already on the books in this state

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 245 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 General Government )  by Admin003 on June 17, 2009 


Senator Pappageorge’s fourth statement is as follows:

As did the previous speaker, I would like to address all three of these amendments. I must say I agree with her opening paragraph. This is policy stuff. Budgets are only one year. I assume we make policy for longer than a year, and it’s just not appropriate to be putting this stuff in a budget.

So I would ask for a “no” vote; not that I’m arguing about what kind of things ought to be put before the Judiciary Committee. I just don’t like an end run to the Judiciary Committee by putting something in the budget, so I would urge a “no” vote here.

View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.