Introduced by Rep. Fred Miller on December 13, 2007, to impose new regulations on medical waste disposal procedures, and require new medical waste treatment technology to be reviewed and approved by the state. Manufacturers or providers would have to pay $500 for each review. The bill also increases the fees and regulations on health care providers and other entities that generate medical waste, and it adds to the Public Health Code the same registration and regulation of “trauma scene waste management practitioners” that is proposed by House Bill 5574.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
HB 5575, a second bill to further regulate another segment of the economy in this state.
Introduced by Rep. Fred Miller on December 13, 2007, to impose new regulations on medical waste disposal procedures, and require new medical waste treatment technology to be reviewed and approved by the state. Manufacturers or providers would have to pay $500 for each review. The bill also increases the fees and regulations on health care providers and other entities that generate medical waste, and it adds to the Public Health Code the same registration and regulation of “trauma scene waste management practitioners” that is proposed by House Bill 5574.
Regulation of trauma scene waste management practitioners
I bet you never heard of "trauma scene waste management practitioners."
HB 5574 amends the Public Health Code to require all trauma scene waste management practitioners to register with the Department of Environmental Quality. They must submit a written trauma scene waste management plan and pass a background check before receiving approval to begin or continue their existing operations.
There would be a $150 registration fee, and the person would have to meet certain requirements and undertake certain actions specified in the bill. The state would then periodically distribute current list of registered trauma scene waste management practitioners to local health agencies, environmental health administrators, and county sheriffs.
There are billboards along the Indiana/Michigan border. They say "Come on IN...to Indiana for lower taxes, business and housing costs."
Regulation of trauma scene waste management practitioners
I bet you never heard of "trauma scene waste management practitioners."
HB 5574 amends the Public Health Code to require all trauma scene waste management practitioners to register with the Department of Environmental Quality. They must submit a written trauma scene waste management plan and pass a background check before receiving approval to begin or continue their existing operations.
There would be a $150 registration fee, and the person would have to meet certain requirements and undertake certain actions specified in the bill. The state would then periodically distribute current list of registered trauma scene waste management practitioners to local health agencies, environmental health administrators, and county sheriffs.
There are billboards along the Indiana/Michigan border. They say "Come on IN...to Indiana for lower taxes, business and housing costs."
HB 5574 amends the Public Health Code to require all trauma scene waste management practitioners to register with the Department of Environmental Quality. They must submit a written trauma scene waste management plan and pass a background check before receiving approval to begin or continue their existing operations.
There would be a $150 registration fee, and the person would have to meet certain requirements and undertake certain actions specified in the bill. The state would then periodically distribute current list of registered trauma scene waste management practitioners to local health agencies, environmental health administrators, and county sheriffs.
There are billboards along the Indiana/Michigan border. They say "Come on IN...to Indiana for lower taxes, business and housing costs."
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Trial Lawyers win, Insurance companies and their customers lose
It is startling how many ways the Democrats can find to add more regulations to job providers in this state. Here is yet another example:
HB4998 would allow any insured to file a lawsuit against insurers if they do not act in "good faith" for compensatory, consequential, economic, non-economic and exemplary damages. That's right, if you feel that your insurance company acted in bad faith, you may sue them.
We have an agency of government called the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation. It is their job to make sure insurance companies are treating customers fairly. They have the power to assess 12% interest penalties on overdue claims payments, impose penalties of up to $25,000 for violators and suspend or revoke an insurance company's license to operate. Further, reasonable attorney fees are already allowed in claims involving unreasonably delayed or denied benefit payments.
But state regulation is not enough for this administration. Now we need to open the Pandora's box of unbridled litigation by the trial lawyers. All the claimant needs to do is make the accusation that the insurance company "did not act in good faith".
1-800-CALL-SAM will have to open a new division. Well, at least we are creating new jobs in the legal profession.
Trial Lawyers win, Insurance companies and their customers lose
It is startling how many ways the Democrats can find to add more regulations to job providers in this state. Here is yet another example:
HB4998 would allow any insured to file a lawsuit against insurers if they do not act in "good faith" for compensatory, consequential, economic, non-economic and exemplary damages. That's right, if you feel that your insurance company acted in bad faith, you may sue them.
We have an agency of government called the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation. It is their job to make sure insurance companies are treating customers fairly. They have the power to assess 12% interest penalties on overdue claims payments, impose penalties of up to $25,000 for violators and suspend or revoke an insurance company's license to operate. Further, reasonable attorney fees are already allowed in claims involving unreasonably delayed or denied benefit payments.
But state regulation is not enough for this administration. Now we need to open the Pandora's box of unbridled litigation by the trial lawyers. All the claimant needs to do is make the accusation that the insurance company "did not act in good faith".
1-800-CALL-SAM will have to open a new division. Well, at least we are creating new jobs in the legal profession.
HB4998 would allow any insured to file a lawsuit against insurers if they do not act in "good faith" for compensatory, consequential, economic, non-economic and exemplary damages. That's right, if you feel that your insurance company acted in bad faith, you may sue them.
We have an agency of government called the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation. It is their job to make sure insurance companies are treating customers fairly. They have the power to assess 12% interest penalties on overdue claims payments, impose penalties of up to $25,000 for violators and suspend or revoke an insurance company's license to operate. Further, reasonable attorney fees are already allowed in claims involving unreasonably delayed or denied benefit payments.
But state regulation is not enough for this administration. Now we need to open the Pandora's box of unbridled litigation by the trial lawyers. All the claimant needs to do is make the accusation that the insurance company "did not act in good faith".
1-800-CALL-SAM will have to open a new division. Well, at least we are creating new jobs in the legal profession.
Porta-potty proliferation bill
The Dems are working hard to keep you from messing your pants on the job site.
I know we have many difficult challenges to face in Michigan; unemployment, high taxes, struggling schools, lack of funding for important state services, but these issue will just have to wait.
HB5064 would require contractors to provide a minimum of 1 portable bathroom facility for every 10 employees on the job site. Current regulations require a ratio of 1:20.
I have no further comment on this bill.
Porta-potty proliferation bill
The Dems are working hard to keep you from messing your pants on the job site.
I know we have many difficult challenges to face in Michigan; unemployment, high taxes, struggling schools, lack of funding for important state services, but these issue will just have to wait.
HB5064 would require contractors to provide a minimum of 1 portable bathroom facility for every 10 employees on the job site. Current regulations require a ratio of 1:20.
I have no further comment on this bill.
I know we have many difficult challenges to face in Michigan; unemployment, high taxes, struggling schools, lack of funding for important state services, but these issue will just have to wait.
HB5064 would require contractors to provide a minimum of 1 portable bathroom facility for every 10 employees on the job site. Current regulations require a ratio of 1:20.
I have no further comment on this bill.
No Child Left Behind: $25 billion just isn't enough
We are debating HR268 in Education Committee this morning. I assume it will be on the floor today for passage. It is a non-binding resolution calling on Congress to reform the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Why? Well, because they aren't spending enough!
We created the Federal Department of Education in 1979 as a cabinet level function. Today, we spend over $56 billion in federal tax dollars on public education. The NCLB act uses about $25 billion of that. Anyone who gives it a fair hearing would be hard pressed to justify the dollars spent at the federal level. Where is the return on the investment?
Now, Dem leaders in the state House are pushing a resolution which includes this language:
Whereas, NCLB needs to be amended in a number of areas to fulfill its admirable goal. First, while schools are being identified for failing to meet standards, Congress has not met its promises for funding levels to allow schools to correct identified inadequacies. Further, a whole range of initiatives that expand early education, before- and after-school programs, summer school options, and family support, would enhance the ability of our schools to educate all of our children to their full potential...
I support the development of quality public education. The education lobby always brands me as anti-education because I demand more quality and accountability with the tax dollars we spend on public education. There are many in government who talk little about accountability, but ALWAYS push for more funding. It is high time we as taxpayers demand more for our money in the public education realm.
No Child Left Behind: $25 billion just isn't enough
We are debating HR268 in Education Committee this morning. I assume it will be on the floor today for passage. It is a non-binding resolution calling on Congress to reform the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Why? Well, because they aren't spending enough!
We created the Federal Department of Education in 1979 as a cabinet level function. Today, we spend over $56 billion in federal tax dollars on public education. The NCLB act uses about $25 billion of that. Anyone who gives it a fair hearing would be hard pressed to justify the dollars spent at the federal level. Where is the return on the investment?
Now, Dem leaders in the state House are pushing a resolution which includes this language:
Whereas, NCLB needs to be amended in a number of areas to fulfill its admirable goal. First, while schools are being identified for failing to meet standards, Congress has not met its promises for funding levels to allow schools to correct identified inadequacies. Further, a whole range of initiatives that expand early education, before- and after-school programs, summer school options, and family support, would enhance the ability of our schools to educate all of our children to their full potential...
I support the development of quality public education. The education lobby always brands me as anti-education because I demand more quality and accountability with the tax dollars we spend on public education. There are many in government who talk little about accountability, but ALWAYS push for more funding. It is high time we as taxpayers demand more for our money in the public education realm.
We created the Federal Department of Education in 1979 as a cabinet level function. Today, we spend over $56 billion in federal tax dollars on public education. The NCLB act uses about $25 billion of that. Anyone who gives it a fair hearing would be hard pressed to justify the dollars spent at the federal level. Where is the return on the investment?
Now, Dem leaders in the state House are pushing a resolution which includes this language:
Whereas, NCLB needs to be amended in a number of areas to fulfill its admirable goal. First, while schools are being identified for failing to meet standards, Congress has not met its promises for funding levels to allow schools to correct identified inadequacies. Further, a whole range of initiatives that expand early education, before- and after-school programs, summer school options, and family support, would enhance the ability of our schools to educate all of our children to their full potential...
I support the development of quality public education. The education lobby always brands me as anti-education because I demand more quality and accountability with the tax dollars we spend on public education. There are many in government who talk little about accountability, but ALWAYS push for more funding. It is high time we as taxpayers demand more for our money in the public education realm.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Democrats break promise to Right to Life
The leadership of the Democrat majority in the House failed to keep a commitment to Right-to-Life of Michigan last week. They broke their promise...
Is the Right-to-Life Endorsed Speaker of the House Really Pro-Life?
On January 22, 2008, the Michigan Senate passed SB776, a bill that effectively outlaws the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. (If you are unfamiliar with this procedure, you can learn about it here.) Since then, House Republicans have been pushing to get that bill up for a vote in the Democrat controlled House. While the House has a 58 seat Democrat majority, there are 69 Right-to-Life endorsed representatives currently serving.
On April 23, Right-to-Life of Michigan (RLM) held their annual legislative day. Over 350 pro-life volunteers and RLM members came to Lansing to discuss pro-life issues and see the House move SB776. They had been all but promised by the Democrat Speaker that this bill would pass on the 23rd. They went home disappointed.
Democrats refused to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. Speaker Dillon was in a very difficult spot. He is endorsed by RLM-PAC as a pro-life legislator. But, he is leader of a 58-member caucus that has only 17 pro-life members. On the one hand, he is obligated to RLM to do the right thing and move this legislation. On the other hand, he risks being removed from his leadership post as Speaker of the House if he lets this vote move forward. What should he do? Leadership requires making tough decisions. It takes real courage to be the leader.
RLM has been working in good faith with Democrat leadership to get this bill up for a vote. Time and time again, they have been rebuffed or promised a vote only to be disappointed. April 23 was the climactic day in a months-long struggle to get this bill to the Governor's desk. Hundreds of pro-lifers were in the gallery waiting to see if the Speaker had the courage to do the right thing and keep his commitment.
He didn't. In the ultimate act of "courage" the Democrats ran into the caucus room after convening session for the day and stayed there over two hours, until almost all the pro-lifers had given up and gone home. The first vote of the day did not take place until after 4:30 and SB776 never came up.
Perhaps it is time for citizens who value human life to put the pressure on Democrat leadership and ask them to give this bill an up or down vote on the House floor. You can find your legislator here.
Is the Right-to-Life Endorsed Speaker of the House Really Pro-Life?
On January 22, 2008, the Michigan Senate passed SB776, a bill that effectively outlaws the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. (If you are unfamiliar with this procedure, you can learn about it here.) Since then, House Republicans have been pushing to get that bill up for a vote in the Democrat controlled House. While the House has a 58 seat Democrat majority, there are 69 Right-to-Life endorsed representatives currently serving.
On April 23, Right-to-Life of Michigan (RLM) held their annual legislative day. Over 350 pro-life volunteers and RLM members came to Lansing to discuss pro-life issues and see the House move SB776. They had been all but promised by the Democrat Speaker that this bill would pass on the 23rd. They went home disappointed.
Democrats refused to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. Speaker Dillon was in a very difficult spot. He is endorsed by RLM-PAC as a pro-life legislator. But, he is leader of a 58-member caucus that has only 17 pro-life members. On the one hand, he is obligated to RLM to do the right thing and move this legislation. On the other hand, he risks being removed from his leadership post as Speaker of the House if he lets this vote move forward. What should he do? Leadership requires making tough decisions. It takes real courage to be the leader.
RLM has been working in good faith with Democrat leadership to get this bill up for a vote. Time and time again, they have been rebuffed or promised a vote only to be disappointed. April 23 was the climactic day in a months-long struggle to get this bill to the Governor's desk. Hundreds of pro-lifers were in the gallery waiting to see if the Speaker had the courage to do the right thing and keep his commitment.
He didn't. In the ultimate act of "courage" the Democrats ran into the caucus room after convening session for the day and stayed there over two hours, until almost all the pro-lifers had given up and gone home. The first vote of the day did not take place until after 4:30 and SB776 never came up.
Perhaps it is time for citizens who value human life to put the pressure on Democrat leadership and ask them to give this bill an up or down vote on the House floor. You can find your legislator here.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
More info on that big Capital Outlay bill (HB5221)
Here are some key points on the Capital Outlay Budget just given to me by a colleague in the House:
- The bond cap (how much we can borrow) is being raised from $2.7 billion to $3.8 billion. It will cost the general fund budget about $100 million every year, money that would otherwise be used to pay for needed services.
- This bill authorizes spending this year and every year through 2012.
- Because the bond cap is a statutory measure, it can be increased every year.
- This bill spends $400 million more than even the Governor recommended.
- The actual cost of this bill is $1.8 billion in new spending.
One must ask...how many credit cards are we going to max out before the people are broke?
More info on that big Capital Outlay bill (HB5221)
Here are some key points on the Capital Outlay Budget just given to me by a colleague in the House:
- The bond cap (how much we can borrow) is being raised from $2.7 billion to $3.8 billion. It will cost the general fund budget about $100 million every year, money that would otherwise be used to pay for needed services.
- This bill authorizes spending this year and every year through 2012.
- Because the bond cap is a statutory measure, it can be increased every year.
- This bill spends $400 million more than even the Governor recommended.
- The actual cost of this bill is $1.8 billion in new spending.
One must ask...how many credit cards are we going to max out before the people are broke?
Governor wants to max out the credit card.
Who says we cannot deficit spend? There are creative ways to spend money we don't have. It is called debt service. The House wants to pass HB 5221, a capital outlay bill for new building projects on the campuses of our state funded universities and community colleges. This bill, which she is pushing for is loaded with a few extra goodies that have nothing to do with capital outlay for universities and colleges, things like a new warehouse for the Dept. of History, Arts and Libraries, and $14 million for a new energy efficiency initiative...
Meanwhile, she is blowing another hole in the budget which will require debt service payments for the next four or five years. What she is effectively saying is, "I am not borrowing money, I am making my payments on the credit card every month!" But what she's doing is raising the credit limit and just making the minimum payments on the card. But guess who has to pay the extra finance costs?
How does she get this bad legislation it through? By putting money into every campus...who can vote against his own district?
Here is language from the bill analysis:
The Governor is recommending a $ 1.4 billion capital outlay budget of which the state will be responsible for $ 562 million in GF/GP debt service into future budget years. Parts of this budget along with portions of her FY 2008-09 Capital Outlay budget as well as $ 150 million in proposed road construction comprises her "nearly a billion dollars" Economic Stimulus Package she proposed in her State of the State address. The Governor appears to have increased the size of her stimulus plan to nearly two billion dollars since her advisers now claim that the two Capital Outlay budgets comprise $1.65 billion of her Economic Stimulus Package.
The House has added another $ 500 million in construction projects for our community colleges and universities (an additional 15 projects) that will cost the state over $ 200 million in additional General Fund commitments over the life of the bonds that will be taken out to pay for these building projects. This will not necessitate raising the bond cap (currently at $ 2.7 billion) because these projects will not be counted towards the cap until construction has been authorized, not planning. However, in order to maintain spending below the bond cap there will be no ability to approve new capital outlay projects until FY 2012.
Governor wants to max out the credit card.
Who says we cannot deficit spend? There are creative ways to spend money we don't have. It is called debt service. The House wants to pass HB 5221, a capital outlay bill for new building projects on the campuses of our state funded universities and community colleges. This bill, which she is pushing for is loaded with a few extra goodies that have nothing to do with capital outlay for universities and colleges, things like a new warehouse for the Dept. of History, Arts and Libraries, and $14 million for a new energy efficiency initiative...
Meanwhile, she is blowing another hole in the budget which will require debt service payments for the next four or five years. What she is effectively saying is, "I am not borrowing money, I am making my payments on the credit card every month!" But what she's doing is raising the credit limit and just making the minimum payments on the card. But guess who has to pay the extra finance costs?
How does she get this bad legislation it through? By putting money into every campus...who can vote against his own district?
Here is language from the bill analysis:
The Governor is recommending a $ 1.4 billion capital outlay budget of which the state will be responsible for $ 562 million in GF/GP debt service into future budget years. Parts of this budget along with portions of her FY 2008-09 Capital Outlay budget as well as $ 150 million in proposed road construction comprises her "nearly a billion dollars" Economic Stimulus Package she proposed in her State of the State address. The Governor appears to have increased the size of her stimulus plan to nearly two billion dollars since her advisers now claim that the two Capital Outlay budgets comprise $1.65 billion of her Economic Stimulus Package.
The House has added another $ 500 million in construction projects for our community colleges and universities (an additional 15 projects) that will cost the state over $ 200 million in additional General Fund commitments over the life of the bonds that will be taken out to pay for these building projects. This will not necessitate raising the bond cap (currently at $ 2.7 billion) because these projects will not be counted towards the cap until construction has been authorized, not planning. However, in order to maintain spending below the bond cap there will be no ability to approve new capital outlay projects until FY 2012.
Meanwhile, she is blowing another hole in the budget which will require debt service payments for the next four or five years. What she is effectively saying is, "I am not borrowing money, I am making my payments on the credit card every month!" But what she's doing is raising the credit limit and just making the minimum payments on the card. But guess who has to pay the extra finance costs?
How does she get this bad legislation it through? By putting money into every campus...who can vote against his own district?
Here is language from the bill analysis:
The Governor is recommending a $ 1.4 billion capital outlay budget of which the state will be responsible for $ 562 million in GF/GP debt service into future budget years. Parts of this budget along with portions of her FY 2008-09 Capital Outlay budget as well as $ 150 million in proposed road construction comprises her "nearly a billion dollars" Economic Stimulus Package she proposed in her State of the State address. The Governor appears to have increased the size of her stimulus plan to nearly two billion dollars since her advisers now claim that the two Capital Outlay budgets comprise $1.65 billion of her Economic Stimulus Package.
The House has added another $ 500 million in construction projects for our community colleges and universities (an additional 15 projects) that will cost the state over $ 200 million in additional General Fund commitments over the life of the bonds that will be taken out to pay for these building projects. This will not necessitate raising the bond cap (currently at $ 2.7 billion) because these projects will not be counted towards the cap until construction has been authorized, not planning. However, in order to maintain spending below the bond cap there will be no ability to approve new capital outlay projects until FY 2012.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Re-regulation of electric utilities: bad for consumers
This is a complex issue. The opinions expressed here, although shared by many, are mine.
House Bills 5524, 5525, 5548 and 5549 are bad bills. The intent of this package is to bring stability to the delivery of electricity to consumers. There is much that could be said here, but let me just say a couple of key things.
1. In an attempt to increase the amount of electricity generated by "renewable" sources like wind, waves, solar, etc. the package will mandate that by 2015, 10% of all electricity will come from these renewable sources. Today, that is economically unfeasible. So, to make it happen the generation of electricity from renewable sources has to be subsidized. Guess who is going to subsidize it? YOU are. You will have to pay an extra $3 per month on your electric bill. This money will help cover the cost of providing you with electricity from wind, solar, etc. Some will say you are "investing in new jobs". I will tell you that you are being taxed and that the $6 billion in new taxes you will help pay (through the $3 per meter increase) will be redistributed to "create" new jobs.
2. Currently, we have under statute, something called electric choice. Residents and businesses can purchase electricity from "alternative energy suppliers". It is, although somewhat flawed, a free-market approach to providing electricity. It helps keep rates lower. This package of bills essentially wipes out choice. It says that no more than 10% of all the electricity used in this state can come from alternative energy suppliers. Basically, we are making it difficult, if not impossible for alternative energy suppliers in Michigan to compete. How will it affect you? Well, less choice means higher prices...
Feel free to read the bills and the spin from each side of this issue, but in my opinion, this legislation is anti-free market and anti-consumer choice.
Re-regulation of electric utilities: bad for consumers
This is a complex issue. The opinions expressed here, although shared by many, are mine.
House Bills 5524, 5525, 5548 and 5549 are bad bills. The intent of this package is to bring stability to the delivery of electricity to consumers. There is much that could be said here, but let me just say a couple of key things.
1. In an attempt to increase the amount of electricity generated by "renewable" sources like wind, waves, solar, etc. the package will mandate that by 2015, 10% of all electricity will come from these renewable sources. Today, that is economically unfeasible. So, to make it happen the generation of electricity from renewable sources has to be subsidized. Guess who is going to subsidize it? YOU are. You will have to pay an extra $3 per month on your electric bill. This money will help cover the cost of providing you with electricity from wind, solar, etc. Some will say you are "investing in new jobs". I will tell you that you are being taxed and that the $6 billion in new taxes you will help pay (through the $3 per meter increase) will be redistributed to "create" new jobs.
2. Currently, we have under statute, something called electric choice. Residents and businesses can purchase electricity from "alternative energy suppliers". It is, although somewhat flawed, a free-market approach to providing electricity. It helps keep rates lower. This package of bills essentially wipes out choice. It says that no more than 10% of all the electricity used in this state can come from alternative energy suppliers. Basically, we are making it difficult, if not impossible for alternative energy suppliers in Michigan to compete. How will it affect you? Well, less choice means higher prices...
Feel free to read the bills and the spin from each side of this issue, but in my opinion, this legislation is anti-free market and anti-consumer choice.
House Bills 5524, 5525, 5548 and 5549 are bad bills. The intent of this package is to bring stability to the delivery of electricity to consumers. There is much that could be said here, but let me just say a couple of key things.
1. In an attempt to increase the amount of electricity generated by "renewable" sources like wind, waves, solar, etc. the package will mandate that by 2015, 10% of all electricity will come from these renewable sources. Today, that is economically unfeasible. So, to make it happen the generation of electricity from renewable sources has to be subsidized. Guess who is going to subsidize it? YOU are. You will have to pay an extra $3 per month on your electric bill. This money will help cover the cost of providing you with electricity from wind, solar, etc. Some will say you are "investing in new jobs". I will tell you that you are being taxed and that the $6 billion in new taxes you will help pay (through the $3 per meter increase) will be redistributed to "create" new jobs.
2. Currently, we have under statute, something called electric choice. Residents and businesses can purchase electricity from "alternative energy suppliers". It is, although somewhat flawed, a free-market approach to providing electricity. It helps keep rates lower. This package of bills essentially wipes out choice. It says that no more than 10% of all the electricity used in this state can come from alternative energy suppliers. Basically, we are making it difficult, if not impossible for alternative energy suppliers in Michigan to compete. How will it affect you? Well, less choice means higher prices...
Feel free to read the bills and the spin from each side of this issue, but in my opinion, this legislation is anti-free market and anti-consumer choice.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Yet another creative burden on business
The William Van Regenmorter Victim's Rights Act provides crime victims with many rights, including restitution and notices of various kinds during and following disposition of the criminal case.
Oh, but that just isn't good enough for our Democrat colleagues. Once again, they have found a way to demagogue an issue in the name of "the little guy" which will only result in more burdens on businesses, especially the smaller business owners. House Bills 5900, 5901 and 5902 would provide unpaid time off from work, up to 12 WEEKS to attend court proceedings where they have been a victim. This would include felonies, misdemeanors and juvenile offenses. Companies with fewer than 25 employees and civil service employees are excluded.
Once again, we have a situation where government is sticking their nose uneccessarily into the private sector. What might the impact of this legislation be? Think about it; there are thousands of crimes or misdemeanors committed each year where there is a victim who may want time off to attend court proceedings. Sounds like a great way to get an unpaid break from the hum-drum work scene. (Granted, the bill includes a requirement that the victim get a note from the court clerk that they have been in attendance.)
And what will this mean for employers? Well, for one thing, employers will have one more thing to factor in when deciding whether to expand or locate in this state.
Oh, by the way, 93% of all employers already are compassionate enough to do this for their employees already.
Yet another creative burden on business
The William Van Regenmorter Victim's Rights Act provides crime victims with many rights, including restitution and notices of various kinds during and following disposition of the criminal case.
Oh, but that just isn't good enough for our Democrat colleagues. Once again, they have found a way to demagogue an issue in the name of "the little guy" which will only result in more burdens on businesses, especially the smaller business owners. House Bills 5900, 5901 and 5902 would provide unpaid time off from work, up to 12 WEEKS to attend court proceedings where they have been a victim. This would include felonies, misdemeanors and juvenile offenses. Companies with fewer than 25 employees and civil service employees are excluded.
Once again, we have a situation where government is sticking their nose uneccessarily into the private sector. What might the impact of this legislation be? Think about it; there are thousands of crimes or misdemeanors committed each year where there is a victim who may want time off to attend court proceedings. Sounds like a great way to get an unpaid break from the hum-drum work scene. (Granted, the bill includes a requirement that the victim get a note from the court clerk that they have been in attendance.)
And what will this mean for employers? Well, for one thing, employers will have one more thing to factor in when deciding whether to expand or locate in this state.
Oh, by the way, 93% of all employers already are compassionate enough to do this for their employees already.
Oh, but that just isn't good enough for our Democrat colleagues. Once again, they have found a way to demagogue an issue in the name of "the little guy" which will only result in more burdens on businesses, especially the smaller business owners. House Bills 5900, 5901 and 5902 would provide unpaid time off from work, up to 12 WEEKS to attend court proceedings where they have been a victim. This would include felonies, misdemeanors and juvenile offenses. Companies with fewer than 25 employees and civil service employees are excluded.
Once again, we have a situation where government is sticking their nose uneccessarily into the private sector. What might the impact of this legislation be? Think about it; there are thousands of crimes or misdemeanors committed each year where there is a victim who may want time off to attend court proceedings. Sounds like a great way to get an unpaid break from the hum-drum work scene. (Granted, the bill includes a requirement that the victim get a note from the court clerk that they have been in attendance.)
And what will this mean for employers? Well, for one thing, employers will have one more thing to factor in when deciding whether to expand or locate in this state.
Oh, by the way, 93% of all employers already are compassionate enough to do this for their employees already.
More government oversight of auto insurace companies
Do you think your auto insurance rates are too high? Shop around! It seems that every day we hear ads on the radio and TV where insurance companies are offering lower rates on insurance. It is called the free market.
But no. Our Democratic colleagues want to further regulate the auto insurance business by passing HB4993. This bill allows the Office of Financial and Insurance Services or any consumer to challenge their insurance rates, setting up a hearing process where bureaucrats in Lansing can arbitrarily decide whether a private insurance company can raise rates or not.
We can try to bring "equity" to the process, but all we will end up doing is providing enough of a negative incentive to the insurance companies that they will simply decide not to do business in the state. As the number of auto insurance companies decline, the price for auto insurance will, of course, go up.
More government oversight of auto insurace companies
Do you think your auto insurance rates are too high? Shop around! It seems that every day we hear ads on the radio and TV where insurance companies are offering lower rates on insurance. It is called the free market.
But no. Our Democratic colleagues want to further regulate the auto insurance business by passing HB4993. This bill allows the Office of Financial and Insurance Services or any consumer to challenge their insurance rates, setting up a hearing process where bureaucrats in Lansing can arbitrarily decide whether a private insurance company can raise rates or not.
We can try to bring "equity" to the process, but all we will end up doing is providing enough of a negative incentive to the insurance companies that they will simply decide not to do business in the state. As the number of auto insurance companies decline, the price for auto insurance will, of course, go up.
But no. Our Democratic colleagues want to further regulate the auto insurance business by passing HB4993. This bill allows the Office of Financial and Insurance Services or any consumer to challenge their insurance rates, setting up a hearing process where bureaucrats in Lansing can arbitrarily decide whether a private insurance company can raise rates or not.
We can try to bring "equity" to the process, but all we will end up doing is providing enough of a negative incentive to the insurance companies that they will simply decide not to do business in the state. As the number of auto insurance companies decline, the price for auto insurance will, of course, go up.
The New Michigan Business Tax...there goes the family business
Under the new Michigan Business Tax, you have to pay a 22% surcharge unless you are below a certain threshold in total revenue, total net income and total "personal income". That third number is $180,000. So, if your small business pays you a salary of $180,000 or more, you pay the surcharge.
I talked to a small business owner the other day. He has 5 employees. Unfortunately for him, two of his employees are his married daughters. They are part of the family business. The MBT includes a clause for what is called "attribution". Anyone who works for the business who is part of the family is attributed as the same person for total personal income purposes.
So, this poor guy, who paid $10,000 in Single Tax liability last year, has to pay $55,000 this year. Why? Because his personal income from the business, combined with his daughters' personal incomes, amounts to more than $180,000!
Like I said, there goes the family business.
The New Michigan Business Tax...there goes the family business
Under the new Michigan Business Tax, you have to pay a 22% surcharge unless you are below a certain threshold in total revenue, total net income and total "personal income". That third number is $180,000. So, if your small business pays you a salary of $180,000 or more, you pay the surcharge.
I talked to a small business owner the other day. He has 5 employees. Unfortunately for him, two of his employees are his married daughters. They are part of the family business. The MBT includes a clause for what is called "attribution". Anyone who works for the business who is part of the family is attributed as the same person for total personal income purposes.
So, this poor guy, who paid $10,000 in Single Tax liability last year, has to pay $55,000 this year. Why? Because his personal income from the business, combined with his daughters' personal incomes, amounts to more than $180,000!
Like I said, there goes the family business.
I talked to a small business owner the other day. He has 5 employees. Unfortunately for him, two of his employees are his married daughters. They are part of the family business. The MBT includes a clause for what is called "attribution". Anyone who works for the business who is part of the family is attributed as the same person for total personal income purposes.
So, this poor guy, who paid $10,000 in Single Tax liability last year, has to pay $55,000 this year. Why? Because his personal income from the business, combined with his daughters' personal incomes, amounts to more than $180,000!
Like I said, there goes the family business.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Transparency Update
HB5137 was introduced last August. It requires the state to put all expenditures on a searchable database. It has been sitting in the House Oversight Committee ever since. Yesterday, I moved to discharge the bill from the committee to the House floor. The motion passed. The floor leader immediately moved to send the bill to the Appropriations Committee.
The only reason (excuse) we have heard from House "leadership" and the Governor are that it costs too much to implement. In fact, the State Department of Information Technology, a department with a $37 million budget and over 1500 employees, sent a letter that says it could cost up to $150 million to implement this for Michigan Government! While DIT makes that outrageous claim:
- Kansas and Missouri (www.mapyourtaxes.mo.gov) have done it within existing budget. No additional expense.
- Google has written to each state informing them that they are willing to partner with governmental agencies to implement searchable database technology.
- The Texas state comptroller has written in a letter to Americans for Tax Reform that her state has saved millions of dollars as a result of transparency implementation. They have found duplicate contracts and have consolidated functions or purchasing practices.
- The federal government has offered their software, which was used to create a website for the $3 trillion budget, to the states as open source software, FREE OF CHARGE!
There can only be one explanation for the Governor and Dem leadership's refusal to move this bill, they are hiding millions of dollars in waste and mismanagement.
Transparency Update
HB5137 was introduced last August. It requires the state to put all expenditures on a searchable database. It has been sitting in the House Oversight Committee ever since. Yesterday, I moved to discharge the bill from the committee to the House floor. The motion passed. The floor leader immediately moved to send the bill to the Appropriations Committee.
The only reason (excuse) we have heard from House "leadership" and the Governor are that it costs too much to implement. In fact, the State Department of Information Technology, a department with a $37 million budget and over 1500 employees, sent a letter that says it could cost up to $150 million to implement this for Michigan Government! While DIT makes that outrageous claim:
The only reason (excuse) we have heard from House "leadership" and the Governor are that it costs too much to implement. In fact, the State Department of Information Technology, a department with a $37 million budget and over 1500 employees, sent a letter that says it could cost up to $150 million to implement this for Michigan Government! While DIT makes that outrageous claim:
- Kansas and Missouri (www.mapyourtaxes.mo.gov) have done it within existing budget. No additional expense.
- Google has written to each state informing them that they are willing to partner with governmental agencies to implement searchable database technology.
- The Texas state comptroller has written in a letter to Americans for Tax Reform that her state has saved millions of dollars as a result of transparency implementation. They have found duplicate contracts and have consolidated functions or purchasing practices.
- The federal government has offered their software, which was used to create a website for the $3 trillion budget, to the states as open source software, FREE OF CHARGE!
There can only be one explanation for the Governor and Dem leadership's refusal to move this bill, they are hiding millions of dollars in waste and mismanagement.
Hey homeschool parents, the state wants your kids!
The last day of session in March, a bill was introduced, HB5912, that simply requires parents of children being educated at home to REGISTER their children by name, age and address, with the superintendent of the school district they live in.
The sponsor of the bill told me this was about accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY? Home school children score significantly above traditional public school children in any area you want to look at. Meanwhile, Detroit public high schools have a dropout rate of 75%.
And they want to hold the home schoolers accountable? Who is more accountable than Mom and Dad? Did the Democrats who sponsored this forget that the Michigan School code gives the right to educate to the parents?
"380 Sec. 10. It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive environment."
I cannot think of a reason why the state needs to know who is educating their children at home. The bill gives no rationale for this legislation. One cannot help but wonder whether the public education lobby might have had something to do with this...hmmm, come to think of it, every home school child that ends up attending a government school means at least $7,200 for that school.
Hey homeschool parents, the state wants your kids!
The last day of session in March, a bill was introduced, HB5912, that simply requires parents of children being educated at home to REGISTER their children by name, age and address, with the superintendent of the school district they live in.
The sponsor of the bill told me this was about accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY? Home school children score significantly above traditional public school children in any area you want to look at. Meanwhile, Detroit public high schools have a dropout rate of 75%.
And they want to hold the home schoolers accountable? Who is more accountable than Mom and Dad? Did the Democrats who sponsored this forget that the Michigan School code gives the right to educate to the parents?
"380 Sec. 10. It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive environment."
I cannot think of a reason why the state needs to know who is educating their children at home. The bill gives no rationale for this legislation. One cannot help but wonder whether the public education lobby might have had something to do with this...hmmm, come to think of it, every home school child that ends up attending a government school means at least $7,200 for that school.
The sponsor of the bill told me this was about accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY? Home school children score significantly above traditional public school children in any area you want to look at. Meanwhile, Detroit public high schools have a dropout rate of 75%.
And they want to hold the home schoolers accountable? Who is more accountable than Mom and Dad? Did the Democrats who sponsored this forget that the Michigan School code gives the right to educate to the parents?
"380 Sec. 10. It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive environment."
I cannot think of a reason why the state needs to know who is educating their children at home. The bill gives no rationale for this legislation. One cannot help but wonder whether the public education lobby might have had something to do with this...hmmm, come to think of it, every home school child that ends up attending a government school means at least $7,200 for that school.
Back in Circulation
We have been kind of quiet over the last couple of weeks. The House was not in session from March 21 until April 8th. Get ready for some blog-mania.
Back in Circulation
We have been kind of quiet over the last couple of weeks. The House was not in session from March 21 until April 8th. Get ready for some blog-mania.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
