(AP) – The Associated Press emailed all 148 members of Michigan’s Legislature asking them to answer three questions about the May 5 ballot measure that would increase the state’s sales tax to trigger more money for roads:
1) Will you vote for or against Proposal 1? 2) Why or why not? 3) If it is defeated, how would you come up with the minimum $1.2 billion a year in additional revenue needed to repair roads and bridges?
Thirty-one, or 21 percent, replied. Here are their responses and how the 101 legislators who were serving in December voted on whether to put the constitutional amendment before voters. When possible, a non-responsive lawmaker’s stance is included if it could be found in news reports or on social media:
___
HOUSE
___
Chris Afendoulis, R-Grand Rapids Township: No response, not in office last session.
Brian Banks, D-Harper Woods: 1) I am still gathering information and getting feedback from constituents and local leaders on this issue. 2) I am currently undecided. 3) Any deliberations on an alternative plan should ensure that our roads are fixed that right way without further hurting our schools or putting further tax burden on working families. Banks voted for ballot proposal.
Tom Barrett, R-Potterville: No response, not in office last session.
John Bizon, R-Battle Creek: No response, not in office last session.
Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids: 1) I am voting for Proposal 1. 2) Though not perfect, this package of legislation will adequately fund and positively address our crumbling roads and infrastructure. It will also reduce income taxes for working families and protect funding for local schools. If the proposal doesn’t pass, I have concerns that more financial burdens will be shifted to working families, and schools and public safety will be negatively impacted. 3) Proposal 1 is not perfect but it is our best option to address our transportation problems while still protecting our schools, public safety and working families. Any deliberations on an alternative plan should ensure that our roads are fixed the right way without further hurting our schools or putting more tax burden on working families. At this time there is no viable alternative plan that accomplishes these goals.
Charles Brunner, D-Bay City: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jon Bumstead, R-Newaygo: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Wendell Byrd, D-Detroit: No response, not in office last session.
Mike Callton, R-Nashville: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Edward Canfield, R-Sebewaing: No response, not in office last session.
Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit: No response, not in office last session.
Lee Chatfield, R-Levering: No response, not in office last session.
John Chirkun, D-Roseville: No response, not in office last session.
Paul Clemente, D-Lincoln Park: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Tom Cochran, D-Mason: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Triston Cole R-Mancelona: No response, not in office last session.
Speaker Kevin Cotter, R-Mount Pleasant: No response, voted to put measure on ballot. Cotter has expressed his support for Proposal 1.
Todd Courser, R-Silverwood: No response, was not in office last session. Courser has called the plan a “sham” and reintroduced a plan – initially proposed last session by then-Republican Speaker Jase Bolger – to gradually repeal the sales tax on fuel and increase fuel taxes by an equivalent amount, effectively redirecting money that would go to schools and local governments to roads.
Laura Cox, R-Livonia: No response, not in office last session.
Kathy Crawford, R-Novi: No response, not in office last session.
George Darany, D-Dearborn: 1) Yes, will support. 2) While Proposal 1 is not perfect, it is our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure while still protecting our schools, public safety and working families. 3) If this proposal doesn’t pass, then I would be interested in looking at a similar proposal that would still protect our schools, municipalities and communities.
Scott Dianda, D-Calumet: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids: 1) I will be voting YES on Proposal 1. 2) While not perfect, Proposal 1 will not only make dramatic improvements in the condition of our infrastructure, it will also allow us to make increased investments in public transportation. 3) If Proposal 1 does fail, the legislature must act swiftly to enact measures that would raise the required $1.2 in revenue without taking it from other critical priorities, such as education and public safety.
Gretchen Driskell, D-Saline: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Fred Durhal III, D-Detroit: No response, not in office last session.
Pam Faris, D-Clio: 1) I will vote for Proposal 1. 2) I will vote for Proposal 1 because there doesn’t seem to be an alternative solution. 3) I don’t think this legislature will come up with additional revenue if Proposal 1 fails.
Jeff Farrington, R-Utica: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Anthony Forlini, R-Harrison Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Ray Franz, R-Onekama: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Cindy Gamrat, R-Plainwell: No response, not in office last session. Gamrat has spoken out against Proposal 1 and joined Courser in co-sponsoring a reintroduction of Bolger’s old plan.
Daniela Garcia, R-Holland: No response, not in office last session.
LaTanya Garrett, D-Detroit: No response, not in office last session.
Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, D-Detroit: No response, not in office last session.
Erika Geiss, D-Taylor: No response, not in office last session.
Ben Glardon, R-Owosso: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Gary Glenn, R-Midland: 1) Against. 2) I am against raising taxes of any kind, and it is not necessary to do so in order to redirect existing tax dollars to repair of roads and bridges. 3) Both the 2014 Bolger plan (which I’ve reintroduced) and Representative Lucido’s proposal regarding the catastrophic fund are worthy of consideration. Repeal of prevailing wage law. Constitutional amendment to at least temporarily redirect Natural Resources trust fund moneys to road repair.
Ken Goike, R-Ray Township: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Joseph Graves, R-Linden: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Christine Greig, D-Farmington Hills: 1) Yes. 2) While this plan is not perfect and is not what I would have preferred to support had I been in the legislature last December, Proposal 1 is the best solution we have to fix this very serious problem. It provides a number of Constitutional safeguards to ensure that the money generated will be used to fix our roads the right way, and requires warranties so that if the roads are not built correctly, the road builders will pay for the repairs rather than taxpayers. 3) Currently there is no viable alternative that accomplishes that goal and does not involve shifting more financial burden on working families or devastating cuts to schools and public safety.
Minority Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills: No response, voted to put measure on ballot. Greimel has expressed his support for Proposal 1.
Vanessa Guerra, D-Bridgeport: 1) Yes. 2) I am voting for Proposal 1 because our roads are in dire need of improvement. I was not a member of the legislature when this proposal was drafted, however, I do believe this is the best compromise the legislature could have reached under the circumstances. The current gas tax system allots very little of the money collected at the pump for roads, with much of it going to our schools. This proposal will ensure that money paid for gas will be used to directly fund road improvement projects, while ensuring that the money that was previously allocated to schools is replaced and protected. 3) If Proposal 1 fails, the legislature will need to return to the drawing board and create a plan that fixes our roads WITHOUT cutting critical funding for our schools and communities. So far, no alternative plans have been put forward that meet that criteria. Should this proposal fail, I am dedicated to working with my fellow legislators to design and implement a fair and effective approach to transportation funding in this state.
Kurt Heise, R-Plymouth: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jon Hoadley, D-Kalamazoo: 1) I will vote for Proposal 1, 2) I believe this is the most viable route to fix our roads in the current political environment that doesn’t decimate our schools or communities. I appreciate there are some measures that reduce the regressive nature of the tax increase, although they are imperfect. 3) Proposal 1 is not perfect but it is our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure while still protecting our schools, public safety and working families.
Thomas Hooker, R-Byron Center: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Marcia Hovey-Wright, D-Muskegon: 1) Yes I will vote for Prop 1. 2) Because it is the only viable, reasonable option out there which won’t hurt education and local government. 3) The reality is, it doesn’t matter what Democrats come up with, it won’t go anywhere. I really don’t know any better plan that could pass the current legislature, not hurt schools and local government and raise enough funds to do the job.
Martin Howrylak, R-Troy: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Holly Hughes, R-White River Township: No response, not in office last session.
Brandt Iden, R-Oshtemo Township: No response, not in office last session.
Larry Inman, R-Williamsburg: No response, not in office last session.
Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor: 1) I will vote yes. 2) Bad roads cost more than a 1% point increase in sales tax. I’m also happy that the tax is coupled with some tax relief for low income workers. 3) Implement a strong fix-it-first policy, increase fees on the heaviest trucks and increase the tax on fuel.
Bradford Jacobsen, R-Oxford: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Nancy Jenkins, R-Clayton: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Joel Johnson, R-Clare: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Tim Kelly, R-Saginaw Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Klint Kesto, R-Commerce Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
John Kivela, D-Marquette: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Robert Kosowski, D-Westland: I am in favor of Proposal 1 because I think it is the best plan we have to get our roads and bridges repaired. If Proposal 1 is defeated I would like to revert back to the House Plan and add extra fuel taxes to get to the $1.2 billion number.
Andrea LaFontaine, R-Columbus: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Marilyn Lane, D-Fraser: No response, voted to put measure on ballot. Lane has expressed support for Proposal 1.
Dan Lauwers, R-Brockway: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Bill LaVoy, D-Monroe: 1) I will be voting for the Proposal. 2) Proposal 1 will provide needed funding to fix Michigan’s roads. There is much debate on its faults and merits, yet this is the only plan to come from the current leadership of the last four+ years. It is a bipartisan plan that was the result of compromise. While it is a bit complex, it pays down debt and invests in infrastructure. It also provides a long term solution to the dual problems of shrinking revenue and increasing costs without relying on yearly budget “surpluses” that ignore the accrued debt of the state. This makes it a fiscally responsible plan. Proposal 1 is the best way I have yet seen to raise the revenue necessary to fix our roads while protecting funding for education, public safety and local governments. 3) I would propose a .75% sales tax increase that goes directly to road repair through Act 51. This would provide the majority of funds needed to fix our roads as well as assist in paying down current Michigan Department of Transportation bonding debt. The additional funding necessary could be generated through various other means, such as fee increases for overweight vehicles, possibly dropping truck weights and finding other efficiencies in road building processes. I would include a 10 year sunset provision.
Tom Leonard, R-DeWitt Township: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Eric Leutheuser, R-Hillsdale: No response, not in office last session.
Frank Liberati, D-Allen Park: No response, not in office last session.
Leslie Love, D-Detroit: 1) YES. 2) The current state of Michigan’s infrastructure is unsafe, unacceptable and must be addressed. While not perfect, Proposal 1 is the best solution we have to fix this very serious problem. Proposal 1 provides a number of Constitutional safeguards to ensure that the money generated will be used to fix our roads the right way. All revenue generated at the pump in taxes on gas is Constitutionally guaranteed to go to transportation. Additionally, all road construction projects would include pavement warranties. So if the roads are not built correctly, the road builders will pay for the repairs rather than taxpayers. If the proposal doesn’t pass, it’s highly unlikely that the majority in the legislature will reach a solution that does not involve shifting more financial burden on working families or devastating cuts to schools and public safety. 3) Proposal 1 is not perfect but it is our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure while still protecting our schools, public safety and working families. Currently there is no viable alternative that accomplishes all of these goals.
Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township: 1) NO. 2) We should explore alternative options on how to raise money for road funding without raising taxes. 3) Use the money generated by the 4% interest rate on the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association fund that has over 18 billion dollars in it.
Lisa Posthumus Lyons, R-Alto: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
David Maturen, R-Vicksburg: 1) I believe in the sanctity of the ballot box. My role is to inform my constituents. If I had been part of the decision to place or not to place the issue on the ballot it would have been obvious where I stand. 2) See above. 3) Start with the discussions to which I was not privy at the end of 2014. Pros and cons. I have always said that the gas tax and registration fee approach to roads is about as close to a user fee as one can get.
Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Michael McCready, R-Bloomfield Hills: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Aaron Miller, R-Sturgis: No response, not in office last session.
Derek Miller, D-Warren: No response, not in office last session.
Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield: 1) I am voting yes on Proposal 1. 2) As a major business address in metro-Detroit, Southfield’s population increases nearly threefold during the day as it welcomes several thousand workers into the city daily. As a result, the roads in my district suffer some of the worst wear and tear statewide, and I invite anyone against Proposal 1 to tour the potholes in Southfield with me. Last year Southfield residents approved a bond proposal to repair our local roads with 65 percent support. The residents in my district understand we cannot cut our way to the more than one billion dollars needed annually to repair crumbling roads. 3. With the composition of the current legislature, it’s unlikely a better plan will emerge. I would support an alternative plan that adjusts taxes at the pump to pay for transportation projects as long as it holds the funding to our schools and local communities harmless. Any proposal that cuts revenue sharing makes no sense because it slashes the money that local governments use to repair local roads.
Paul Muxlow, R-Brown City: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Sheldon Neeley, D-Flint: No response, not in office last session.
Aric Nesbitt, R-Lawton: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Rick Outman, R-Six Lakes: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Kristy Pagan, D-Canton Township: 1) I will vote Yes on Proposal 1. 2) The condition of Michigan’s infrastructure is unsafe, unacceptable and must be addressed. Presently, 27% of Michigan’s bridges are in need of repair or replacement, and 48% of roads in Michigan’s largest cities are in poor or mediocre condition. Proposal 1 is not the perfect solution, but it is the most viable option we have to fix this problem. There are many benefits to the passage of Proposal 1, including a number of Constitutional safeguards to ensure that the money generated would be used to fix our roads the right way. All of the revenue generated at the pump through taxes on gas would be Constitutionally guaranteed to be spent on transportation. Moreover, all future road construction projects would include pavement warranties. This means that if the roads are not built correctly, then road builders will pay for the repairs as opposed to taxpayers. Proposal 1 also incorporates a number of measures that would benefit local communities and working families. These include the restoration of the Earned Income Tax Credit, increased funding for K-12 public schools, revenue sharing for local governments, and dedicated funding for public transportation. If Proposal 1 doesn’t pass, it’s unlikely that the conservative majority in the legislature will find a better solution. Instead, I worry that “Plan B” will shift more of the financial burden for these repairs onto working families or make devastating cuts to schools and public safety. 3) Proposal 1 is not perfect, but it is currently our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure while still protecting our schools, public safety and working families. Any other viable alternative would have to accomplish all of these goals.
Dave Pagel, R-Berrien Springs: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Peter Pettalia, R-Presque Isle: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Phil Phelps, D-Flushing: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Julie Plawecki, D-Dearborn Heights: 1) Yes vote. 2) Proposal 1, while not perfect, is the best solution we have to fix Michigan’s crumbling infrastructure, given the current legislative makeup of the House and Senate. This ballot proposal protects education, public safety, and local government funds from being raided, while also providing tax relief for working-class families through the Earned Income Tax Credit. If the proposal does not pass, it is extremely unlikely that our roads will be fixed without hurting other areas of the state’s budget – such as our schools. 3) Increase the fuel tax from 19 cents per gallon to 14.9% of the wholesale price per gallon to be adjusted annually. Leave the 6% sales tax in place which would continue to fund schools and local governments. Eliminate the depreciation tax rate on vehicle registrations. Increase registration taxes on trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds (gross vehicle weight). Create a registration tax surcharge on hybrid and electric-powered motor vehicles. Increase the EITC from 6% to its original 20% to help the struggling working class deal with the increase in fuel tax. All revenue created from the fuel tax and the vehicle registration taxes should be constitutionally guaranteed to be used for transportation and infrastructure. While corporate tax breaks may have been a necessity during Michigan’s recession, they are no longer feasible in our economy. Providing well maintained roads and a large pool of talent should be the carrot we dangle for incoming businesses.
Earl Poleski, R-Jackson: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Philip Potvin, R-Cadillac: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Amanda Price, R-Park Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Al Pscholka, R-Stevensville: No response, voted to put measure on ballot. Pscholka told reporters this week that he has already voted “yes” with an absentee ballot.
Bruce Rendon, R-Lake City: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Brett Roberts, R-Eaton Township: No response, not in office last session.
Sarah Roberts, D-Saint Clair Shores: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Jim Runestad, R-White Lake: 1) Against. 2) There are too many other ancillary items added into this proposal. It should have been a roads only proposal. 3) Use the “Bolger Plan” combined with prioritizing the spending of existing funds and reducing our expenses.
David Rutledge, D-Ypsilanti: 1) I will vote in support. 2) For so many reasons (economic and public safety among the most critical), Michigan’s roads and bridges must be supported immediately. I fear that without quick, decisive action, our state’s transportation infrastructure issues will become a crisis. Although the proposal is not perfect, it is a good policy that will make sure Michigan’s roads are safer. 3) As of this writing, I don’t see a viable alternative to the policy, should Proposal 1 fail.
Harvey Santana, D-Detroit: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Andy Schor, D-Lansing: 1) For. 2) We have had a need for newly dedicated revenues for roads and our transportation for over 10 years. This is the first time there is a real option on the table and this was the only compromise that could get through the Legislature. It provides dollars from the pump to be used for roads, increases funding for education, ensures that everyone pays because everyone benefits from the roads, counters the regressivity of the sales tax increase with an EITC increase, has consumer financial protections such as warranties, has overweight trucks paying more, and ensures safety of Michigan drivers by having fixed roads. The citizens will be paying one way or another, and I would rather people pay to have their roads fixed than pay to have their cars fixed (rims, tires, bumpers, etc.). 3) I am open to many suggestions, but the only ones that are realistic are the ones that can get 56 votes, 20 votes, and be signed by the Governor. I am happy to look at a weight-distance tax, tolls, gas tax increase, income tax dedicated to roads, taxing trucks more, or any other proposal that may be out there. What I will absolutely not support is taking money from education and local governments to pay for the roads (the so-called Bolger Plan which I voted against last year). But regardless of what I may support, the only thing that can pass is something with the support of the majority party in the Legislature (which are currently the Republicans). If Proposal 1 fails, I am happy to be part of the debate and discussion, but the Republicans in the Legislature have to be willing to work with the Governor and legislative Democrats to raise revenues. If they are not, then we will continue to have bad roads and a meaningless policy discussion that will yield little structural changes (as we have done for the last 10 to 15 years).
Jason Sheppard, R-Temperance: No response, not in office last session.
Sam Singh, D-East Lansing: 1) Yes, I will be voting in support of Proposal 1 on May 5th. 2) While this proposal is not perfect, it does accomplish three important goals. First, it provides much needed funding for the roads. Second, it protects funding for our schools and local governments. And third, it provides some tax relief for low-income families who will be most impacted by a tax increase. 3) The cost to fix our roads and keep them in good condition is really much closer to $1.5-2 billion according to expert estimates. I was ready to vote in support of the original proposal that came out of the Senate last year. I would not support legislation that shifts funding away from our schools and local governments, as some of my Republican colleagues have proposed.
Charles Smiley, D-Grand Blanc: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Pat Somerville, R-New Boston: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Jim Tedder, R-Clarkston: No response, not in office last session.
Lana Theis, R-Brighton: No response, not in office last session.
Alberta Tinsley-Talabi, D-Detroit: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Henry Vaupel, R-Handy Township: No response, not in office last session.
Robert VerHeulen, R-Walker: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Roger Victory, R-Georgetown Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Michael Webber, R-Rochester Hills: No response, not in office last session.
Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park: 1) I will vote YES on Proposal 1. 2) The current state of Michigan’s infrastructure is unsafe, unacceptable and must be addressed. We simply cannot afford another construction season without addressing this pressing problem. While not perfect, Proposal 1 is our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure while still protecting our schools, communities, public safety and working families. Further, there is currently no other viable alternative that accomplishes all of these goals. 3) Proposal 1 is our best option to address the serious issues facing our crumbling roads and infrastructure. If the proposal doesn’t pass, it’s highly unlikely that the majority in the legislature will reach a solution that does not involve shifting more financial burden onto working families or devastating cuts to schools and public safety. Any deliberations on an alternative plan should ensure that our roads are fixed right way without further hurting our schools, jeopardizing our public safety, or putting more tax burden on working families. If Proposal 1 is defeated, I believe we should revisit our tax code on families and business, and explore a more equitable structure where large corporations and those at the top pay their fair share and use the additional revenue to restore our crumbling infrastructure.
Henry Yanez, D-Sterling Heights: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Ken Yonker, R-Gaines Township: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor: 1) I am voting for Proposal 1 and speaking publicly in support of it. 2) I support Proposal 1 because it is a good solution to raise the funding needed to fix our infrastructure that simultaneously holds education, local government and the working poor harmless. It also constitutionally further protects transportation and education funding, both things that I continue to hear from constituents about. 3) I don’t think we’ve seen an effective, politically-viable solution outside of Proposal 1 as of yet. I’m not sure that we will either, considering the alternatives that have been proposed this term are not things that I will support.
___
SENATE
Minority Leader Jim Ananich, D-Flint: No response, voted to put measure on ballot. Ananich has expressed support for Proposal 1.
Steven Bieda, D-Warren: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Darwin Booher, R-Evart: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township: 1) Against. 2) I do not vote for massive tax increases when there are other means to procure the funds. 3) First and foremost we need to look at our existing budget to prioritize spending but I really think it is to get off the status quo and look at the law that distributes road funding dollars, PA 51, which was written in 1951. We also need to repeal prevailing wage. Lastly, I am not sure we need $1.2 billion right away, all at once, to start getting our roads into better shape.
Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot. Colbeck has opposed Proposal 1.
Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Mike Green, R-Mayville: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Goeff Hansen, R-Hart: As chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, Sen. Hansen plans to support Proposal 1. While he voted for the Senate version of the transportation package, he believes the plan before voters was the best alternative that could have passed the Legislature last year. He’s committed to supporting a plan that invests in Michigan’s economic future by improving the condition of our roads and bridges. Michigan has an aging transportation infrastructure that requires investment. Taxpayers must see the value of any new revenue. Just as in education funding or funding for local units of government, so too must our transportation planners show how these monies will be used to maximize value and show lasting results. Before asking motorists to pay more at the pump, it was critical to redirect the funding stream so that what is paid at the pump actually funds our road and bridge program. Sen. Hansen is committed to positioning Michigan for future economic growth and that includes the issue of road funding. Developing the right map to help “get us there” is key. Our sole focus is making sure Proposal 1 passes in May.
Curtis Hertel Jr., D-East Lansing: 1) I will be voting in favor of Proposal 1 on May 5th. 2) The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has indicated an immediate increase of over $1.1 billion is needed to bring most state roads and bridges up to good or fair condition by 2025. This proposal will also allow the state to use money for its intended use, i.e. gas tax money on roads, school aid fund dollars to schools, and general fund money to local government to pay for things like police and fire protection. While I understand it is not the perfect solution, this is the solution we have before us. 3) If Proposal 1 is defeated, both parties will have to work together to come up with a creative idea to generate the needed funds. This will not be an easy task, but each year that we delay and debate, the cost of repairing our crumbling roads and bridges will continue to rise. The only plan the majority party has discussed would cut further money from education through the school aid fund. This would gut education, and still not fund enough of our roads to make a dent in what we need to do. The people of the State of Michigan deserve a reasonable solution from their legislators to fix our deteriorating infrastructure.
Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Morris Hood III, D-Detroit: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth: No response, not in office last session.
Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
David Knezek, D-Dearborn Heights: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy: No response, not in office last session.
Mike Kowall, R-White Lake: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Peter MacGregor, R-Rockford: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive: 1) I support Proposal 1. 2) I supported the legislation when it came before the Senate. While it is not a perfect solution, it untangles the complicated road funding structure currently in place. With passage of Proposal 1, the money paid at the pump by those using the roads will be spent to maintain the roads and money generated from our sales tax will create a more stable funding source for our schools and local communities. 3) Prior to voting in favor of the legislation to put Proposal 1 on the ballot, I also voted in favor of legislation passed by the Senate which would have generated necessary funds to adequately maintain the roads without seeking additional support from the voters. In the event that Proposal 1 does not pass, I will be ready to go back to the drawing board to come up with a solution.
Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Margaret O’Brien, R-Portage: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
John Proos, R-St. Joseph: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
David Robertson, R-Grand Blanc: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake: 1) For. 2) Although Prop 1 is far from my preferred solution, it is the only fix that all legislators (Republican and Democrat) could mutually agree upon last year. Attempting nothing was not an option. 3) There may not be another accomplishable path for that amount of money, but we would reintroduce many of the bills we introduced under the “House plan” last year that would partially get us there.
Virgil Smith, D-Detroit: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Jim Stamas, R-Midland: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.
Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor: 1) I will vote for Proposal 1. 2) I am supporting Proposal 1 because it will raise the revenue necessary to fix our roads, while keeping our schools and communities whole, protecting public transit dollars, and fully restoring the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for millions of residents and families throughout our state. 3) I continue to support the plan passed by the Senate last year to slowly replace Michigan’s flat 19-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax and 15-cents-per-gallon diesel tax with a tax on the average wholesale “rack” price of gas over the next four years. This legislation would have also provided for the $200 million restoration of the Homestead Property Tax Credit to help offset the cost for our most vulnerable citizens. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have also repeatedly introduced legislation to institute a graduated income tax, which I believe is the fairest and best way to raise revenue for critical public programs and services.
Coleman Young II, D-Detroit: No response, voted against putting measure on ballot.
Dale Zorn, R-Ida: No response, voted to put measure on ballot.