Michigan Legislative Activity Ledger

Script-free related records · Release 2026-07-28.3

Related roll calls

Follow collected relationships through the same typed, immutable public API used by the enhanced record.

← Back to the script-free parent record

Showing 4 related records on this page. A total was not computed.

  1. Related record

    The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    Here’s an example. In 2015 I was a newly elected State Representative. I had never held political office before so I was looking at things with a fresh set of eyes. Shortly after taking office, we began constructing our state budget for the upcoming fiscal year. What I found surprised me. In our projection, we were expecting to collect about $850 million in corporate business taxes. On the other side of the ledger sheet, we were expecting to pay out about $850 million in business tax credits. At that point, why do we even have a business tax? It certainly isn’t efficient to take money from all the various businesses that pay into the system, run it through the Department of Treasury, over to the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, then to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, into the Michigan Strategic Fund, and finally paid out to the select few privileged corporations that have enough muscle and legal compliance attorneys to qualify for and obtain the credits. Aside from that, how is it morally fair to collect taxes from the thousands of businesses paying into the state treasury, only to pay that same money out to larger businesses or even others that may be in fact a direct competitor to an existing business in our state? But we can’t just stand by and do nothing, they say. Other states will step in, they’ll poach our talent, they’ll take our companies, so we have to engage in this arms race between states now. I think it’s fair to ask if there is in fact a better way to spend the resources we have than what is on the table before us. Consider this. Site Selection magazine calls itself the leading publication in corporate real estate, facility planning, location analysis, and foreign direct investment. They consider themselves a leader in innovative economic development news coverage. Site Selection magazine conducts a survey each year to determine what these corporate executives look at to make their decision where to locate and where to expand and invest. I think we should look at what they told us. In October 2020, they ranked the following in order for site selection criteria. Existing workforce skills was No. 1 and workforce development was No. 2. Transportation and infrastructure was third, regulatory environment, state and local tax structure, right-to-work status, utility costs and reliability, quality of life, and No. 9 on the list out of ten was incentives. The top items on this list are all topics we can affect through legislation and policy, yet incentives, which are much lower on the list, receive all of the attention. Incentives are really only necessary to make up deficiencies on items higher on that list of priorities. I mentioned earlier the hundreds of millions paid out in incentive credits that were locked in our state budget, but incentives rank very low on the list of consideration. Imagine instead how much difference in the quality of infrastructure an additional $850 million per year would make? How many potholes could we fix on our darn roads? In 2013 one estimate was that it would cost about $10 per pothole to repair, but 2013 was a long time ago. Let’s assume the cost of labor, material, brand, inflation, etc., that it has doubled since 2013 and cost $20 per pothole. That alone could still fix more than 40 million potholes every single year. If you believe that repairing 40 million potholes is a bit outrageous, consider how many miles we could pave of a two-lane highway. According to figures drawn from a 2019 Senate Fiscal Agency analysis, $850 million could pave a two-lane highway from this State Capitol Building all the way to the Mackinac Bridge, fully funded in cash with no debt and we would still have money left over. Again, that’s money that is every single year without raising anyone’s taxes. Would we not be wiser to invest in the needs we knew from empirical evidence that are higher on the list of priorities for companies looking for site locations, and also at the same time benefit all of our residents? Would major corporations rather have reliable transportation with smooth roads to get their goods to market or would they rather have cash in their pocket as a settlement to make up for the potholes outside their facility? Some of you have heard me talk about my Charlotte Wal-Mart test. I talk about it frequently in my office with my staff — they usually roll their eyes—and other times too. To summarize it bluntly, I just pose the question that if we were to gather together a handful of people shopping at the Wal-Mart in Charlotte together, what would they think of this idea? In other words, does it pass the Charlotte Wal-Mart test? Just yesterday my wife contacted me on my way home from work to pick up some essentials we needed at home and I stopped at the Wal-Mart in Charlotte. While waiting to check out, a couple in line next to me struck up a conversation about politics going on today. I mentioned this package of bills coming before us to gauge their reaction. The husband asked me, What about my friend who owns a bunch of sandwich shops? Will he qualify for this incentive program? Of course not. But his friend can’t find workers to operate fully staffed. His friend was shut down off and on throughout the pandemic and has struggled to get by, but nothing in this bill will benefit the sandwich shop owners in each of our districts or any of the other small businesses out there just looking for a fair shot at living their dreams. He’s not trying to be the next Subway and have restaurants all over the world; he’s just trying to chase his dream and provide a livelihood for his family along the way. I think everyone here is familiar with the story of The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. The Giving Tree strikes up a friendship with a boy and continues to give more and more to the boy at every turn. By the end of the book, the tree is nothing more than a stump. I don’t want that to happen to the resources we have here in Michigan. Unlike the Giving Tree, those fruits are our fruits, paid for by our taxpayers; those branches are our branches paid for by our taxpayers—hardworking people just trying to live their lives. Mr. President, maybe I’m nostalgic for a simpler time, one where we competed against other countries, not against our fellow countrymen in other states. And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe these will be different, and maybe this will be something that truly operates as has been presented by those advocating for its passage. But because of the concerns I raised, I cannot place my vote and the voice of 275,000 constituents to this legislation today. I truly wish those who are looking to invest in our state the warmest of welcomes and my hope is that we can work toward a future of opportunity that applies equally for every employer in Michigan—the large, the medium, and the small. The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 764, entitled A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” by amending section 30 (MCL 206.30), as amended by 2020 PA 65. The question being on the passage of the bill, The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    1
    Measure id
    measure-9266
    Motion text
    The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    3
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    passed
    Sitting id
    sitting-1048
    Vote date
    2021-12-09
    Vote id
    vote-9887
    Vote number
    484
    Yeas
    34
  2. Related record

    The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of Messages from the House Senate Bill No. 764, entitled A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” by amending section 30 (MCL 206.30), as amended by 2020 PA 65. The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill. The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows: A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “An act to meet deficiencies in state funds by providing for the imposition, levy, computation, collection, assessment, reporting, payment, and enforcement by lien and otherwise of taxes on or measured by net income and on certain commercial, business, and financial activities; to prescribe the manner and time of making reports and paying the taxes, and the functions of public officers and others as to the taxes; to permit the inspection of the records of taxpayers; to provide for interest and penalties on unpaid taxes; to provide exemptions, credits and refunds of the taxes; to prescribe penalties for the violation of this act; to provide an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 30 (MCL 206.30), as amended by 2021 PA 120. Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day, Senator Lauwers moved that the rule be suspended. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House, The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    2
    Measure id
    measure-9266
    Motion text
    The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    3
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    unknown
    Sitting id
    sitting-1049
    Vote date
    2021-12-14
    Vote id
    vote-9906
    Vote number
    503
    Yeas
    33
  3. Related record

    The resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    Whereas, Throughout the Pandemic, the Michigan Senate has taken action to support Michigan businesses and worked to support the economic recovery. Funds have been appropriated to provide relief to small businesses. Legislators have listened to the testimony of and advocated for the interests of business owners; and Whereas, The long-term vitality of small business in this state is critical to Michigan’s economic recovery. The Michigan Legislature is preparing to appropriate an unprecedented amount of state and federal dollars to Michigan business through various means and the state of Michigan has the opportunity to enact policies that ensure more state and federal dollars are appropriated to Michigan companies and that Michigan companies are more competitive in the state’s procurement process; and Whereas, Michigan businesses and their employees pay a significant portion of taxes in this state. Failure to partner with these businesses within the procurement process at a higher rate will lead to more closures and lost jobs, hindering our economic recovery; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate, That we reaffirm our support for Michigan businesses by encouraging the state to direct as many procurement dollars as possible to Michigan-based business; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the director of the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget; the Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; the Chief Executive Officer of the Small Business Association of Michigan; and the Michigan State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business. Pending the order that, under rule 3.204, the resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Operations, Senator Lauwers moved that the rule be suspended. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. The question being on the adoption of the resolution, Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor. The resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    2
    Measure id
    measure-9266
    Motion text
    The resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    0
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    adopted
    Sitting id
    sitting-1049
    Vote date
    2021-12-14
    Vote id
    vote-9907
    Vote number
    504
    Yeas
    36
  4. Related record

    as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    house
    Context text
    Nays—0 In The Chair: Hornberger The House agreed to the title of the bill. Rep. Frederick moved that the bill be given immediate effect. The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor. Rep. Frederick moved that Senate Bill No. 764 be placed on its immediate passage. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. Senate Bill No. 764, entitled A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” by amending section 30 (MCL 206.30), as amended by 2020 PA 65. Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
    Excused
    Not recorded
    Measure id
    measure-9266
    Motion text
    as follows:
    Nays
    30
    Not voting
    Not recorded
    Result
    unknown
    Sitting id
    sitting-860
    Vote date
    2021-12-14
    Vote id
    vote-8883
    Vote number
    630
    Yeas
    72