Welcome back.

Representative Ann Bollin, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee is in the queue.

And so are you.

So sit in with us as we get the inside out.

Off the Record.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether Public Relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com.

And now, this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Thanks very much.

Welcome back to Off the Record in Studio C. Beth start us out here.

The Republicans mad some budget decisions this week that a lot of folks in this town and town are not too happy about.

Yeah.

So it was sort of a historic vote among House Republicans.

Each year, the state budget office approaches the House and Senate with a list of projects that expired at the end of the last fiscal year.

And they asked for permission to sort of convert them into work projects so they can continue using that funding over the next several years.

usually this is a very routine process.

Is is basically procedural.

But instead, Republicans with frankly, very little notice, eliminated about $650 million in work projects from last year's budget.

It caused quite a stir in the Capitol, and, took a lot of people back, I believe.

Why was there a thud?

Well, I mean, this was something that was seen as sort of like a norm.

The idea that the executive branch would have these big projects effectively rubber stamped.

But of course, the legislature's had all along the authority to disapprove this funding if they want to.

It only takes one chamber.

And that was a source of considerable consternation among Democrats in the Senate in particular, given that there's effectively nothing they can do to stop this.

And all it takes is one vote from either, Appropriations Committee.

But if anybody surprised that given the opportunity, our guest and the Republican speaker having a chance to cut the budget would take it.

I mean, I think that, yes, this has been something a continual theme within House Republicans this whole time.

Right.

And cutting what they say is waste, fraud and abuse.

But even at the press conference, when you talk to Speaker Hall, when you talked to Representative Bollin, they said not everything cut was waste, fraud and abuse.

And this is something where some of these spending hours will have a chance to come back later.

But I think the bigger issue is, again, I don't think anyone was expecting this because I don't think it's happened before, or at least I can't think of any examples in Michigan history.

But the one that got a lot of attention was the doctor Mona Hanna's money for the kids.

And why was that?

spotlighted?

Yes, there is about 18 million, I believe, in a work project for our kids.

that was some of the money that was eliminated.

and, yeah, I mean, that that money is for prenatal an infant support for for mothers.

I believe it was piloted in Flint.

And, that they were relying on that money to continue the program.

So there was a lot of upset over there.

There was also about 7 millio for student supports for Flint students who were affecte by the LED crisis ten years ago.

there are a lot of a lot of different items tha caused a lot of consternation.

Like, and this isn't like an event that is without politica liability for Republicans either some of these programs or things that you could envision coming up in a political ad come election season.

There was, I think, about 56 or $15,000 that was given to children undergoing cancer treatment so that they could have wigs.

Another program was, to provide counseling services for children who had been, survivors of sexual assault.

And so these are things that Democrats are highlighting and saying that, you know, it's beyond the pale that you can consider cutting funding for these programs.

But these were things that were passed under a Democratic trifecta.

And this is an ability for House Republicans to say we didn't negotiate for them.

So if you want this continued funding you have to come to the table.

You also had seven Republicans over in the Senate who went, what, some of their projects were on.

Now the governor's office is looking into an alternativ to see if they can put the money back in.

Yeah.

I mean, at some point, I kno that you have to close the books on the fiscal year 25 budget and that will require, you know, sometimes, often, new appropriations at different points.

And this is something that Republican leadership has floated, you know, adding these back into a supplemental of some sort.

But these would have to go through that new appropriations process, which is you have to submit the request, put your name to it, wait 45 days, have hearings on it, etc., and that gives the House Republicans more of a chance to have a little bit more control over these spending items.

Or you can has somebody haul the House Republicans back into court, where they seem to have set up a residence on a number of issues and challenge them on this as well?

Not a short term fix.

Yeah.

You could I don't know, it'd be interestin to see what mechanism they used to pull them back into court because this is.

Unconstitutional.

We'll star there and work backwards.

Sure.

But this law has been used before by Senator Thomas as recently as the Covid 19 pandemic, albeit in a very limited capacity compared to what happened on Wednesday.

But yeah, I mean, this this could be something that halls everybody back into court.

And, you know, Tim, the thing is, I know Republicans, Democrats, they're involve in a lot of lawsuits right now.

I think what's important to remember is that it is the taxpayer who is paying for those lawsuits.

they're also paying for this pot lawsuit, which we did get a ruling this week, which was what?

Yeah.

So essentially they blocked the, Michigan Cannabis Industry Association from getting an injunction, which is what they were seeking to block this 24% wholesale tax, the centerpiece of a road funding plan as part of the budget deal that was forged earlier this year.

And they're looking to have this money stopped while they hopefully have this tax repealed.

They're arguing that they unconstitutionally amended the law that, initially legalized marijuana in Michigan for $420 million is a big piece of this road fix pie.

It's absolutely a big piece of this road fix pie.

And this was something that was a big hangup throughout the negotiations.

Where was the new revenue going to come from?

This was eventuall the thing that lawmakers sat on.

And so if anything does happen to this revenue, eventually it's going to be a long time for lawmakers to figure out how to replace that revenue.

Well, the money supposed to kick in on July, excuse me, on January 1st, and there could be an appeal in the process that may, you know, shut the money off?

Yeah.

I think, you know, I think they're planning an appeal to to try and get an immediate order on this.

I think there's also a question of, 420 million is what the House Fiscal Agency, in what they imagined it woul produce, Senate fiscal as well.

but there is a lot of fluctuations in the marijuana market right now.

So whether or not that comes to fruition, I think is yet to be seen, too.

Regardless of the lawsuit, I want to revisit one of the governor's favorite stories her running for president.

Okay.

She was out in Arizona at a ritzy joint last weekend, was elected the vice chair of the Democratic Governors Association, which is a nice get for her.

And now her name is back in place.

So let me ask the pane once.

Two simple questions one.

Do you think she is running for president?

Yay or nay?

Right.

as of this moment, sure.

I think that she hasn' taken the option off the table.

All right.

That was not a yes or no, but I'll give it.

I'll let you off th hook on that.

What do you think?

I don't know, I I frankly don't know, I agree.

Yes or no.

I'll continue to try and I don't think she knows.

I think she does And I think she's not running.

But here's the second question.

She will not kill this story because it helps her image.

And it also helps the state of Michigan.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah, I would agree with that.

If I can expand a little bit, I would say I think that maintaining a national profile also.

I mean, when you look at he objectives throughout this year, which is, you know, curry favor with President Trump to try to get wins for the state of Michigan, maintaining a national profile, showing the president that you're a popular political figure and that maintaining that relationship with her can have benefits for him politically, helps her have sway with him in the Oval Office.

You know, that her sort of charm offensive with him, is something that requires maintenance, you know, especially as some of these initiatives from his administration come down the pike.

Yes, yes.

If we remember Rick Snyder, do you remember Rick Snyder being vice presidential candidate?

You all remember that story, do you?

Tim, it's been a while.

I believe it preceded the Flint water crisis.

So if but here's the point that I want to make.

In a private moment, he finally confessed to me that he says, I was never going to run for vice president, but it was, quote, good for Michigan.

And Governor Whitmer has used exactly the same language.

You do remember this story when her name was out there for vice president?

In fact, she said it on camera.

She said it's good for the state.

I mean, look at this facial publicity.

A governor can use this story and segway from I don't what I'm going to do.

But by the way, we got a great state of Michigan and we got jobs coming in and I'm-I'm focused on blah, blah, blah.

You get where I'm going.

I think publicity is also political capital to a certain extent.

And I think that what you said, this helps to make the case that Michigan is on the map and put Michigan as a leader of the national conversation, also helps her, again, curry favor with the white House, which can also deliver things for Michigan like the Selfridge Air National Guard Base.

on top of that, she also has fundraising and other just political practical matters, like she has to fight like hell PAC.

And I think the more her name is out there, that's another donation opportunity for her and another way for her to also fundraise some money that she can funnel to races around the country and reiterate, kind of in a recursive process.

I mean, did you notice the gigantic press release that came out a couple of days after the gig gig down in Arizona from the, give me what is it like help fight like hell.

Okay.

I thought it was given help, but let's do it.

Let's not argue about the words, okay?

But it was all the news accounts of what happened out there, and it was rather a glowing press release.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, this is sort of been her political arm, as we sort of, as the speculation continues about whether or not she'll pursue a presidential candidacy.

And we've seen the PAC fle its muscle on a national stage.

And I think, I think that's probabl a sure sign than what you see.

See, the governor's political activities, I think, are not as good of an indicator of whether she's going to run for president as what that PAC does.

Because if you're fundraising with the intentio of exerting national influence, that says that you'r still trying to sort of maintain that presence on a national if you want to be part of the process.

Well, and I think what wha Simon was saying, too, is like, if if she's not running for national office, if she doesn' have these high ambitions for, for where she's going to go next, what is why is she raising so much money?

Yeah, I mean, there's still a lot of money coming into her PACs and nonprofits and, I, I don't know why else she would be raising money.

Well I think she wants to have a say other than just sitting on the sidelines like she wants to be a player, and she clearly is.

Okay.

And being the vice chair of the Democratic governors thing gives her a great platform to do whatever she wants.

And money is the thing that people pay attention to.

Yeah, yeah, I would agree with that entirely.

Even before this, she was, part of it.

She was a, vice chair o the DNC at one point or another.

And then now she has this with the Democratic Governors Association and help keep her name on the national, profile, especially going into her last year as governor.

Something's got to propel her if she does decide to keep going for 2028, something's got to keep her in this conversation up until the finish line.

And money helps you do that.

All right.

Mr.

speaker said in this chair last week and said he's going to work on property tax relief center proposal.

A and Simon, his his pitch wa we're going to draft a property tax relief plan.

We have to find revenue from somewhere.

He thinks one of the revenue sources could be the sales ta has decided on the second one.

But when you heard that, if you did hear it, what did you think?

I remember, another sale tax proposal about ten years ago that was put before voters by a prior governor, I think, with the intention of fixing the roads.

Right.

Rick Snyder's proposal.

How many votes to that did?

Not a lot.

It lost by 80%.

Yeah.

And I think that, you know, that's always the difficulty when you're trying to shift revenue around and find new sources.

putting that before voters often it's not the, the magic sauce here.

That was very clear.

You're giving the voters their choice.

We'll give you the property tax relief now, folks.

Which do you want to replace the revenue.

So it's on.

The monkey is off his back and it's on the voters.

I think it was John Hagler's idea way back in the day.

Yeah, but the messaging of that is hard.

And as they say, if you're explaining, you're losing.

And so yes, you can say I'm goin to give you a cut here, but yes, I might raise your taxes here I might raise your taxes here.

We give you a cut here.

But most people are just going to hear, oh, so you're going to raise m taxes here and not necessarily think about the carrot at the end of that state?

Well, here's the bottom line proposal.

We passed boys and girls.

But fundamentally, everybody pay sales tax and not everybody is a homeowner and pays property tax.

And I don't think that we're going to see rents go down if property tax relief doesn't arrive.

You know, it's an interesting story yet to come.

Let's call in the chair of the House Appropriations Committee representative.

Come on in.

Representative welcome back to Off the Record.

It's nice to see you, you had a busy weekend.

There's a lot of people in this town that they don't like you.

I'm not surprised.

All right, let's let' do the tick tock on this story.

When did you first find out that this money was going to lapse and wasn't going to be spent?

When I became a legislator in 2019.

Okay, so you knew this was coming?

Well I knew about the work projects.

I've sat on the Appropriations Committee since I came into the legislature and is always something that, I have questioned and asked about, you know, written letters to departments asking what is the status of work projects.

And when I was appointed the appropriations chair, it's something that I also aske all of our subcommittee chairs to be looking into.

Okay, so when you did that, at any point did you say to yourself, maybe I should go to doctor?

Hanna, Mona Hanna and give he a heads up that this is coming.

Maybe we could work something out.

Did you think to do that?

Well, do you understand that there?

You know, we have to disapprove these work projects by line item.

There are over 100 in some of these line items.

And my responsibility is to the taxpayers.

It's not necessarily to thos that that receive these grants.

And that is what my job was to d is the chair of appropriation.

Okay.

So you didn't feel you had an obligation to some of these people to give them a heads up?

This, that, this, this ball was rolling down.

It was going to hit him.

Well, I honestly don't think it should be that muc of a surprise to, anybody that, we were looking at these work projects.

We've said it.

Well, they didn't know what they would have called you.

The department should have been contacting the stakeholders.

You know, we have a very tight time frame here that the letter comes the recommendation from the state budget office comes to us 45 days after the fiscal year ends, and the legislature has 30 days.

I think even some of you have reported on that.

Some of the departments were like, oh my gosh, they've asked for this information.

We can't possibly do this.

We're on break.

Well, the legislature was on break, too, and we managed to look through and come to a conclusion and some of these as well.

Yeah.

It seems like going back to what Tim was saying about our kids and some of these line items, I know that in the press conference with you and Speaker Hall earlier, you had mentioned that, you know, you just felt like you had to get rid of them all, and then not everything was waste, fraud and abuse.

But some of those can possibly find new funding, streams later on through mayb a supplement or something else.

So it kind of seems like from the outside looking in, it seems like the process was almost small and then let the legislature sort them out later.

And I'm wondering how much of this also is about giving the house and giving the legislature more power in the budget process?

Well, one of the main functions of the legislatur is the appropriations process.

Okay.

So I think what we di is we fulfill their obligation in what we took an oath to.

As far as the our kids, please understand that, there was 20 millio appropriated in 25 and only 18.

There was $18 million not spent.

We appropriated 250 million in the 26 budget.

So I think that what we ought to be looking a is why wasn't the money spent?

Okay And that is just as important.

Question is like, why was thi included if not more important?

We have project after project that the money was not spent and I think that that we have an obligation to be holding government accountable.

That's what the taxpayers sent me to do and that's part of that process.

Right.

Well, it's clear as a legislature that this has been a long tim goal to have stringent oversight at this stag of the appropriations process.

This is also the rubber stamping of the continuation of these funds.

It's somethin that's been a norm for decades.

And since there wasn't prior notice to this, what is this and what messag to send to external stakeholders with the state people, you know, maybe businesses seeking economic incentives, non-profits who are in search of grants.

Does this undermine the state government's reliability as a funding partner?

Well, one is shoul the state government be funding all of these projects?

And the answer is probably very clearly no.

Should the state government be helping some of these programs?

Yes.

But not all.

And so that's, I think that one thing need to be taken into consideration.

And I also will look at the context.

We have $10 billion sitting on the balance sheet of work projects.

That is money that is encumbered, that cannot be spent for other things.

And I think w well, it's not been exercised.

But one time, as one of you mentioned, this is something that dutifully the legislature, the Appropriations Committee, had the obligation to do every year.

And also when these work projects or these conversion from year to year are important, it is something that generally is noted in the boilerplate or negotiated through the budget process.

This is a bunch of about three people in this tow read well, that's unfortunate.

And, I still think we, you know just because people don't read it doesn't mean that, you know, we shouldn't be.

But these groups are saying, Madam Chair, with all due respect, you blindsided them?

No, we did not blindside them at all.

All right.

I think that what they have to do is look at the department and see where the failure is really in these.

And I would say that when yo enter into contracts, there's, no legislature can bind the next legislature on appropriations.

And departments when entering into these contracts.

No, it is a one year appropriation.

Why would they not put people on notice in generally speaking, the contractual language says should the money be appropriated?

Now, I you know, we have been very clear in our approach, in that it is not just waste, fraud and abuse.

It is about accountability for the taxpayer dollars.

There are a lot of pressures on state government and people, everyday people, to make life more affordable.

Representative.

In the November 14th recommendation from the state budget Office, there is about 247 million in work projects for the Soar program.

money, millions of dollars benefiting big companies like dow wealthy university like U of M. Can you explain to me how you prioritize that for money and kept it as a work project over, let's sa $5 million for Flint students?

All right.

So, thank you for the question.

As far as we saw, it is money that was obligated.

You know, we got I got some recommendations for our subcommittee from subcommittee chairs.

We had conversations with the leadership, and Speaker Hall and I met with all of our subcommittee chairs.

It was based on feedback from some of them.

These were projects that, were included because if I was the only one that I would tell you that I wouldn't have voted to keep those in there.

But I am trying to do the best for the most.

And that's one of it.

But let's talk about the Flint money.

All right.

And again, you know, we have millions of dollars over 30 million appropriated in 2026.

The Flint declaration, has ended.

But we have resources in next year's budget that actually provide broader support testing.

support for families, lead line replacement.

So I don't think that we hav shortchanged what we simply done put money back that was not spent.

And there is money moving forward in 26 or I. I want to revisit that though, because, I mean, this this shore money.

You said it was obligated.

There's plenty of mone that you ax that was obligated.

In fact, they're still trying to sort through what was obligated and what wasn't, because those line items contain so many items.

this is the short program has been one that you've criticized repeatedly, and yet you kept that funding in.

And it raises questions about whether it's becaus it's in Bill shooting's district or it's in a Senate district that you're trying to win.

A lot of these decisions appear to be political.

Well, for me, I really don't where the political lens I am much more practical and principled.

And, the decision is not only mine.

You know, we have 17 member on the Appropriations Committee, and we are trying to work through it.

And, you know, I don't think this is, not retaliation.

It is not, political.

This is a matter of tryin to have greater accountability.

And I think what we have to look at is, why hasn't money gone out the door?

Why haven't these contracts be initiated?

In this case, the person that you do work for is somewhat political.

And he said, we're doing this, that being the speaker.

Well, I wouldn't say the speaker did that.

This was based on conversations and discussion.

We have set out what our priorities are as a Republican caucus.

It's working on behalf of the Michigan taxpayers to make sure that we're making life more affordable.

Well, see, here's the interesting thing.

You did have discussions on tha before you decided what to do.

Why didn't you follow the same kind of discussions with these groups that were going to get hit if you did this?

Well, we didn't go to stakeholders.

We had these conceptual conversations.

And I think that, you know, you also have to look at the time frame again, these departments, these projects have not gone out.

They are some of these.

Yes, they received great support, some not.

Unfortunately.

It is the process, you know, that we go through.

It's my line item.

You can't just cherry pick a project.

You know, this town works on relationships.

In good relationships.

Up until now you've had a good one with the your counterpart in the Senate, Miss Anthony.

Correctly.

Yes.

Here's her quotes.

This is there is no trust.

It's pretty disgusting.

This is irresponsible and disrespectful.

Warm litter to fall.

what do you make of these remarks from the person that you supposedly work well with?

Well, certainly I'm discouraged.

I'm sure the Senator Anthony's.

But I do think that we continu to have a strong relationship.

we will continue to, nurture that.

I will tell you that my office did reach out to Senator Anthony's office very early on when we got the letter late on a Friday before, a break, that we were going to be reviewin and vetting these work projects, and they indicated that they were fine with them that they weren't going to show, you know, the house is able to do this and continue on their own.

So at that point, you didn't think you'd get a response like thi if they were hunky dory with it?

Well, you know, I'm never surprised by any response that we get in Lansing.

I mean, the point is you know, at the end of the day, I need to put my hand on my pillow.

And I think that we moved in the right direction on behalf of the taxpayers.

On the transparency front, why wasn't there a discussion before voting at the House Appropriations Committee meeting this week?

Well, no discussion is this really is somewhat of a housekeeping item.

there are plenty of opportunities.

It really would have gotten into a tit for tat.

we saw the foul language that was Mike dropped, and, I thought it was important just to take care of the business at hand and move on to the next step.

Are we having a norm shift here now, where each time a legislature changes hands in terms of majorit party, that then that would be requested.

Work projects can no longer be counted on?

I think that's a fair question, but I would say not.

If you look in the 25 supplemental that was approved with the 26 budget, you will see a number of work projects that actually were jointly.

They were negotiated and approved.

So I don't think that, this is is a tool that's going to be used in that way.

I think that, what we did in 26 and 25.

But I'm not saying it's a one time thing.

My point is that there are plenty of opportunities to be negotiating these work projects, and some of them do make sense.

So you wanted to negotiate previously appropriated money before this vote that you didn't tell anyone was happening?

No.

What I and that's not at all what I said or what I intended to say.

This is a responsibility and an obligation in the legislature, okay?

Just because it's never done before doesn't mean it's not our responsibility to do that.

And again I think that we have to look at what's going on with inside of the departments and the bureaucracy.

That's not getting these hand it out.

I mean, there are projects in there.

Unfortunately.

They're very good projects.

We have BMP, the, the wigs, all right.

For kids.

We've appropriated 150,000.

I will tell you.

That's one that I hold personally as a son who had craniofacial birth defects.

And I'm very concerned about making sure that we we can help these kids regardless of what the reason is.

So, you know, there's money for many of these projects appropriated, but we have, a continuous work project, for a private developer for housing project that used it to pay property taxes back.

I mean, we'r trying to avoid some of these, some of the non-profit that really were non-existent.

And I think that unfortunately, some of them, some of the good ones had to go.

There is an opportunity to bring them back through the supplemental process.

How many days before the vote did discussions begin abou which word projects to cancel?

Well I think the discussion started the day after we got the letter on November 14th.

let' talk about economic development.

We could not develop.

We're not going to have that package ready to go by the end of this year.

Right.

Well I think that's what the speaker indicated last week when he was on your show.

but I know he said there was a show you could do it.

Well, I think that he said there's a shot that we're going to work through it.

And I thin that we still have a commitment.

We know that we want a state that's going to prosper from its neighbor.

On the details.

Well, I wouldn't say that.

I think, you know, this tow is a very fickle town sometimes.

And we'll continue to work on it.

You know, it's a goal.

A common goal with House Republicans is that we want to make Michigan a, a great plac for economic prosperity for all.

And what's your one quick idea for making more jobs come to Michigan?

I think we have to cut regulations, cut taxes.

Not raise them?

Absolutely not.

Madam chair, good to see you.

Thanks for doing our program.

Also our thanks to our panel.

Next week, more Off the Record so everybody tune in.

Won't you please?

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Bellwether Public Relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com.

For more off the record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan Public Television Stations have contributed to the production costs of Off the Record.