×

U.P. legislators react to governor’s vetoes

Lawmakers weigh effect on region

ESCANABA — Although the state budget was adopted in time to avoid a government shutdown in Michigan, around $1.6 billion in funding was line-item vetoed or cut and transferred to other areas by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Local legislators weighed in on the state budget line-item vetoes and cuts, how it affects the Upper Peninsula and what the next steps are for the state.

Since the passing of the budget, Whitmer has expressed reviving some of the vetoed spending if a budget deal can be reached with the Republican-led legislature.

On Thursday, Whitmer proposed undoing some of her vetoes. Much of the $476 million in supplemental spending Whitmer proposed reinstating reflects her priorities, but also includes either fully or mostly restoring four of her 147 line-item vetoes.

Rep. Beau LaFave explained when the budget was adopted, the governor cut over $600 million in state programs and redistributed the funding to other areas and also line-item vetoed around $950 million for a total cut of $1.6 billion in state programs.

“I think it all comes down to the 45-cent gas tax increase,” he said. “I’m disappointed in the whole process where the governor refuses to negotiate and throws a temper tantrum when she doesn’t get her 45-cent gas tax increase.”

He added the governor promised when she got elected she would fix the roads and help schools, however, he believes actions speak louder than words and her line-item vetoes of nearly $400 million for roads and $218 million for schools speak volumes.

“The people have spoken loud and clear that they don’t want a 45-cent gas tax increase. She’s going to have to find another way,” LaFave said.

Sen. Ed McBroom said he agreed with some of the 147 vetoes, as he didn’t find them necessary.

“But the vast majority of the line-items are between puzzling and troubling to be vetoed,” he said.

He explained, in his opinion, when you look at all of the vetoes — money for tethers for parolees, for sheriff departments, for schools, for hospitals, for student aid for colleges, for state employees and their retirements, for veterans and their services, and payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) funding — it is difficult to find justifications.

The overall state budget and cuts to programs affects the whole state, but some cuts have larger impacts on the U.P. According to McBroom, any support or lack-thereof towards rural hospitals, rural schools, rural police work and PILT funding is going to affect the U.P. more than densely populated areas of Michigan.

McBroom said he was shocked when the governor vetoed rural hospital funding — specifically OBGYN services — as those funds are needed by many hospitals, and without the state’s help, some hospitals may be facing closure in a few months.

“The other two (line-items) very surprising to me were isolated school district funding and the secondary road patrol funding,” McBroom said. “The secondary road patrol funding was particularly puzzling because the funding couldn’t by law be sent anywhere else but secondary road patrol.”

LaFave noted besides the cuts from road repairs and schools, there are around 34 items and programs cut that directly affect U.P. citizens.

He explained the citizens of the U.P. are resilient and could withstand budget cuts, but it’s the cumulative affect of hundreds of line-items and programs being cut that has a drastic affect on the U.P.

According to LaFave, a $4 million program that helps county veteran service officers connect with veterans in need was cut. He said the program provided $50,000 to each county. On Wednesday, LaFave introduced a bill to restore the funding for the program.

He added one of the more shocking line-item vetoes, in his opinion, was $2,500 for a feasibility study to bring a veterans’ cemetery to the U.P.

“The governor line-item vetoed that,” he said. “The only reason to veto $2,500 is because you’re mad at the lawmaker that got it in the budget and you’re playing politics to get a 45-cent gas tax increase.”

With the budget approved and $947 million in nixed proposed funding, Whitmer on Thursday proposed two supplemental bills that would total $476 million, not including $100 million that would go into a reserve fund. The proposed spending equals half of the total amount vetoed, but it would also partly or fully restore some funding that Whitmer unilaterally shifted within department budgets.

Four of the 147 line-item vetoes would be fully or mostly restored in the new proposal, including a Medicaid reimbursement rate increase for rural hospitals and funding for an autism non-profit, county-based veteran services and road patrols done by sheriff’s deputies.

LaFave explained the governor can at any time tell the Speaker of the House she made a mistake and would like the funding to be restored, or lawmakers can re-introduce the items that were vetoed. He added if the items are re-introduced, Whitmer can either accept or veto them again. If the items are vetoed a second time, the House and Senate could override the governor with a majority vote.

McBroom said the legislature also could skip that process and override the vetoes now.

“I’m supportive of doing veto overrides or voting on each of those as supplemental. However, the governor’s action of transferring funds makes it difficult to vote for supplemental or overrides with confidence that the money won’t be transfered elsewhere again,” he said.

Redistributing funds when adopting the budget is technically within the authority of the governor. However, McBroom said the authority granted years ago wasn’t designed to be used as a way to bypass the Legislatures appropriation process.

“Utilizing the administrative board as the governor has done, and has been done in a smaller way by John Engler, is a significant departure from the authority granted by lawmakers many years ago,” McBroom said. “They never envisioned a situation where the Legislature appropriation process could be rendered so completely irrelevant. The governor must know this from her time in Legislature and partner with us to reform this antiquated law.”

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today