(Ed. Note: This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.)
By Jordyn Hermani
Bridge Michigan
When Michigan House Republicans last month unilaterally cut roughly $645 million worth of previously approved state spending, they did so using an unconstitutional portion of state law, according to an opinion issued Jan. 7 by Attorney General Dana Nessel.
State Budget Office officials say that means money will resume flowing to affected groups – including a cash assistance program for new moms and an organization that provides wigs to kids with cancer – many of whom were quick to decry the cuts when first made back in December.
House Speaker Matt Hall is not giving up the fight, however. The Richland Township Republican quickly vowed to sue over what he called a “clearly political decision from Dana Nessel,” a Democrat.
In a 29-page opinion, Nessel said a state law allowing one legislative committee — in this case, the House Appropriations Committee — to override spending approved by the governor and full Legislature violated both “separation of powers” and “bicameralism and presentment” requirements in the Michigan Constitution.
The former provision limits the ability of one branch of government to act outside of its scope of power; the latter deals with how laws must be debated and passed by both legislative chambers before being presented to the governor for signature.
“By empowering a single legislative committee to negate the state budget director’s work-project designations, the statute reserves the very administrative control that the separation of powers forbids,” Nessel wrote in her opinion.
“This disapproval mechanism effectively creates a ‘legislative veto’ – or, more accurately, a ‘legislative committee veto,’” she continued “This comprises an unconstitutional reservation of administrative control that interferes with the executive branch’s core function of executing the laws.”
Nessel’s opinion comes less than one month after the Dec. 10 vote by the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee to unilaterally and abruptly cut just under $645 million in ongoing state work projects that had initially been allocated for fiscal year 2025 but not yet spent.
In doing so, the committee leveraged a relatively obscure provision in state law that allowed them to lapse the funding without buy-in from the Democratic-led state Senate.
That had resulted in numerous cuts, including:
• $159 million in funding for the Make It In Michigan Competitiveness Fund, an economic development program championed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to secure federal funding from legislation like the CHIPS Act
• $18.5 million in funding for RxKids, a cash-grant program for pregnant women and new mothers
• Grant funding for the Holocaust Memorial Center in Farmington Hills
• $56,600 to provide wigs to Michiganders undergoing cancer treatment
• A $2.5 million pilot study for traffic cameras in school zones
• $1.3 million in funding for the Office of Global Michigan
• $1.9 million in grants to symphony orchestras
• $800,000 for a fire truck in Hamtramck, where officials said they’d already contracted for the new vehicle
Hall has championed the cuts as a way to rein in government spending, which he portrayed as being out of control. Any project funding worth restoring, he argued, would have to re-submit itself to the Legislature for review and reconsideration.
Hall has vowed to take the fight to court.
“We are going to sue, because Michigan taxpayers need someone to fight for them and stop this absurd and incorrect interpretation of Michigan law,” he said in a statement.
House Appropriations Chair Ann Bollin also defended the unilateral cuts on Wednesday, arguing her committee had “acted fully within its legal authority under a law that has been on the books for decades.”
“The Legislature has both the authority and the responsibility to oversee how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Bollin, R-Brighton, said in a statement.
“We exercised that responsibility lawfully and in the best interest of the people of Michigan. Political opinions from the Attorney General’s office will not change that reality, nor will they deter House Republicans from continuing to restore accountability to state government.”
Attorney General opinions are binding on state government departments, including the State Budget Office and treasury, which collect and distribute funding.
While House Republicans can certainly take the fight to court, the opinion appears “very well reasoned,” said attorney Mark Brewer, former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party.
“One legislative committee can’t veto appropriations that have been passed by the entire Legislature and signed by the governor,” he added. “It’s clearly unconstitutional.”
Other Democrats were also swift to praise Nessel’s opinion.
“The opinion issued today by the Attorney General is a lifeline for the countless nonprofit organizations and local governments that have been left in limbo for weeks,” Senate Appropriations Chair Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, added that it was her hope the “thousands of people who reached out in distress over the past month can breathe a little easier, knowing that this will not stand.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer declined to comment on the matter, instead referring Bridge Michigan to State Budget Office officials.
In an email obtained by Bridge Michigan, budget officials told state departments that they “concur with the opinion issued by the Attorney General” and are already working to activate spending on previously-cut work projects this fiscal year.
By Jordyn Hermani
Bridge Michigan
When Michigan House Republicans last month unilaterally cut roughly $645 million worth of previously approved state spending, they did so using an unconstitutional portion of state law, according to an opinion issued Jan. 7 by Attorney General Dana Nessel.
State Budget Office officials say that means money will resume flowing to affected groups – including a cash assistance program for new moms and an organization that provides wigs to kids with cancer – many of whom were quick to decry the cuts when first made back in December.
House Speaker Matt Hall is not giving up the fight, however. The Richland Township Republican quickly vowed to sue over what he called a “clearly political decision from Dana Nessel,” a Democrat.
In a 29-page opinion, Nessel said a state law allowing one legislative committee — in this case, the House Appropriations Committee — to override spending approved by the governor and full Legislature violated both “separation of powers” and “bicameralism and presentment” requirements in the Michigan Constitution.
The former provision limits the ability of one branch of government to act outside of its scope of power; the latter deals with how laws must be debated and passed by both legislative chambers before being presented to the governor for signature.
“By empowering a single legislative committee to negate the state budget director’s work-project designations, the statute reserves the very administrative control that the separation of powers forbids,” Nessel wrote in her opinion.
“This disapproval mechanism effectively creates a ‘legislative veto’ – or, more accurately, a ‘legislative committee veto,’” she continued “This comprises an unconstitutional reservation of administrative control that interferes with the executive branch’s core function of executing the laws.”
Nessel’s opinion comes less than one month after the Dec. 10 vote by the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee to unilaterally and abruptly cut just under $645 million in ongoing state work projects that had initially been allocated for fiscal year 2025 but not yet spent.
In doing so, the committee leveraged a relatively obscure provision in state law that allowed them to lapse the funding without buy-in from the Democratic-led state Senate.
That had resulted in numerous cuts, including:
• $159 million in funding for the Make It In Michigan Competitiveness Fund, an economic development program championed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to secure federal funding from legislation like the CHIPS Act
• $18.5 million in funding for RxKids, a cash-grant program for pregnant women and new mothers
• Grant funding for the Holocaust Memorial Center in Farmington Hills
• $56,600 to provide wigs to Michiganders undergoing cancer treatment
• A $2.5 million pilot study for traffic cameras in school zones
• $1.3 million in funding for the Office of Global Michigan
• $1.9 million in grants to symphony orchestras
• $800,000 for a fire truck in Hamtramck, where officials said they’d already contracted for the new vehicle
Hall has championed the cuts as a way to rein in government spending, which he portrayed as being out of control. Any project funding worth restoring, he argued, would have to re-submit itself to the Legislature for review and reconsideration.
Hall has vowed to take the fight to court.
“We are going to sue, because Michigan taxpayers need someone to fight for them and stop this absurd and incorrect interpretation of Michigan law,” he said in a statement.
House Appropriations Chair Ann Bollin also defended the unilateral cuts on Wednesday, arguing her committee had “acted fully within its legal authority under a law that has been on the books for decades.”
“The Legislature has both the authority and the responsibility to oversee how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Bollin, R-Brighton, said in a statement.
“We exercised that responsibility lawfully and in the best interest of the people of Michigan. Political opinions from the Attorney General’s office will not change that reality, nor will they deter House Republicans from continuing to restore accountability to state government.”
Attorney General opinions are binding on state government departments, including the State Budget Office and treasury, which collect and distribute funding.
While House Republicans can certainly take the fight to court, the opinion appears “very well reasoned,” said attorney Mark Brewer, former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party.
“One legislative committee can’t veto appropriations that have been passed by the entire Legislature and signed by the governor,” he added. “It’s clearly unconstitutional.”
Other Democrats were also swift to praise Nessel’s opinion.
“The opinion issued today by the Attorney General is a lifeline for the countless nonprofit organizations and local governments that have been left in limbo for weeks,” Senate Appropriations Chair Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, added that it was her hope the “thousands of people who reached out in distress over the past month can breathe a little easier, knowing that this will not stand.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer declined to comment on the matter, instead referring Bridge Michigan to State Budget Office officials.
In an email obtained by Bridge Michigan, budget officials told state departments that they “concur with the opinion issued by the Attorney General” and are already working to activate spending on previously-cut work projects this fiscal year.
Huizenga Joins Fiscal Forum Leaders in Introducing Budget Deficit Reduction Measure
By Greg Chandler
Zeeland Record
U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Holland Twp., is one of four members of the House who have introduced a bipartisan resolution to reduce the federal budget deficit to 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic program (GDP) or lower.
Huizenga, who is co-chair of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, introduced what’s been dubbed as the “3% Resolution” Jan. 7 in the House, along with fellow BFF co-chair Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. and Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.
House Resolution 981 proves growing bipartisan agreement that Congress must adopt a concrete, achievable target to begin restoring fiscal discipline and confronting the nation’s escalating debt crisis.
With the federal deficit hovering around 6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2025, national debt at historic levels, and other warning signs flashing across the economy, the 3% Resolution outlines a straightforward, no-nonsense framework for action to put the nation on a more sustainable fiscal path and protect future generations from severe economic consequences, Huizenga said.
“The 3% Resolution demonstrates that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle recognize not only the unsustainable trajectory of our national debt, but the urgency in which it needs to be addressed as well,” Huizenga said. “This resolution sets a fiscal benchmark and emphasizes a disciplined budget process. Adopting this measure will help prioritize federal spending today while protecting the financial wellbeing of the next generation of Americans.
“This is not an aspirational target; it is the minimum standard necessary to preserve America’s long-term economic security.”
The resolution is also cosponsored by the entire BFF Steering Committee, consisting of 10 lawmakers – five Republicans, five Democrats – as well as House Budget Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Tex.
“We cannot let bad fiscal policy crowd out working families. In order to get America’s fiscal house in order, we need to clearly define what success looks like. If we reduce our annual borrowing to 3 percent of the total size of our economy, we will set a goal and benchmark we can look at every year to evaluate: are we doing better or worse than last year?” Peters said.
The resolution has already gained significant support from a variety of organizations.
“This resolution is a first step toward fixing our fiscal trajectory and will help build bipartisan consensus in favor of a sustainable budget framework. A fiscal goal should be aggressive enough to help fix the problem but realistic enough to be achievable, which is exactly what this resolution encourages. I am hopeful that this resolution will serve as a catalyst toward reducing deficits,” said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Demian Brady, vice president of research for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said that the resolution “provides a meaningful benchmark for getting our fiscal house in order.”
“The best way to meet this target is for Congress to pursue thoughtful, long-term spending reforms and tax policies that encourage investment, work, and innovation. The resolution also gives the Congressional Budget Office an important role in assessing how major legislation would affect progress toward meeting these deficit-reduction goals, helping to keep lawmakers on track,” Brady said.
“It isn’t a moonshot; it’s the minimum viable level of protection a modern economy needs to avoid drifting into a debt crisis. Getting back under 3 percent isn’t fiscal heroism but merely the price of keeping optionality, stability, and control in our own hands,” said William Glass, Policy Director for the Millennial Debt Foundation.
Zeeland Record
U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Holland Twp., is one of four members of the House who have introduced a bipartisan resolution to reduce the federal budget deficit to 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic program (GDP) or lower.
Huizenga, who is co-chair of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, introduced what’s been dubbed as the “3% Resolution” Jan. 7 in the House, along with fellow BFF co-chair Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. and Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.
House Resolution 981 proves growing bipartisan agreement that Congress must adopt a concrete, achievable target to begin restoring fiscal discipline and confronting the nation’s escalating debt crisis.
With the federal deficit hovering around 6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2025, national debt at historic levels, and other warning signs flashing across the economy, the 3% Resolution outlines a straightforward, no-nonsense framework for action to put the nation on a more sustainable fiscal path and protect future generations from severe economic consequences, Huizenga said.
“The 3% Resolution demonstrates that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle recognize not only the unsustainable trajectory of our national debt, but the urgency in which it needs to be addressed as well,” Huizenga said. “This resolution sets a fiscal benchmark and emphasizes a disciplined budget process. Adopting this measure will help prioritize federal spending today while protecting the financial wellbeing of the next generation of Americans.
“This is not an aspirational target; it is the minimum standard necessary to preserve America’s long-term economic security.”
The resolution is also cosponsored by the entire BFF Steering Committee, consisting of 10 lawmakers – five Republicans, five Democrats – as well as House Budget Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Tex.
“We cannot let bad fiscal policy crowd out working families. In order to get America’s fiscal house in order, we need to clearly define what success looks like. If we reduce our annual borrowing to 3 percent of the total size of our economy, we will set a goal and benchmark we can look at every year to evaluate: are we doing better or worse than last year?” Peters said.
The resolution has already gained significant support from a variety of organizations.
“This resolution is a first step toward fixing our fiscal trajectory and will help build bipartisan consensus in favor of a sustainable budget framework. A fiscal goal should be aggressive enough to help fix the problem but realistic enough to be achievable, which is exactly what this resolution encourages. I am hopeful that this resolution will serve as a catalyst toward reducing deficits,” said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Demian Brady, vice president of research for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said that the resolution “provides a meaningful benchmark for getting our fiscal house in order.”
“The best way to meet this target is for Congress to pursue thoughtful, long-term spending reforms and tax policies that encourage investment, work, and innovation. The resolution also gives the Congressional Budget Office an important role in assessing how major legislation would affect progress toward meeting these deficit-reduction goals, helping to keep lawmakers on track,” Brady said.
“It isn’t a moonshot; it’s the minimum viable level of protection a modern economy needs to avoid drifting into a debt crisis. Getting back under 3 percent isn’t fiscal heroism but merely the price of keeping optionality, stability, and control in our own hands,” said William Glass, Policy Director for the Millennial Debt Foundation.
Victory Announces Run for MSU Board
By Greg Chandler
Zeeland Record
As state Sen. Roger Victory winds down his tenure as a state lawmaker, the Hudsonville native has a new elected office in his sights.
Victory announced Jan. 7 that he will run for the office of trustee on the Michigan State University board.
The owner and operator of Victory Farms, a fourth-generation family farm, Victory is finishing his second four-year term in the state Senate and cannot seek re-election to that office due to term limits. He also served in the state House from 2013 to 2018 before being elected to the Senate.
Victory has served in an advisory role supporting MSU’s agricultural programs for many years. As a lawmaker, he secured funding for the university’s Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research Center. In a press release announcing his candidacy, he said MSU “needs to get back to its roots as a land grant university.”
“We need common sense representation at MSU. This is a great university, with thousands of alumni making a difference in the world,” Victory said. “The challenges that the university has faced in recent years are serious. They need practical leadership to refocus on the foundational principles the university was established for. I know I can bring that to the table.”
Victory Farms specializes in root vegetables, winter squash, fall ornamentals, and other crops. Victory is involved in many organizations including the Ottawa County Farm Bureau, where he previously served as president; as a board member of the Careerline Tech Center; on the board of various local farm co-ops, and as an elder and deacon at First Christian Reformed Church in Hudsonville.
“One issue I am passionate about is that food is health. MSU is a leader in agricultural research with an excellent medical school. MSU should be a leader nationally on the connection between what we eat and our health,” Victory said. “I believe that more accountability and transparency is needed at MSU. For the first time our leading land grant university is without a voice representing agriculture on its board. I can fill that gap.”
Zeeland Record
As state Sen. Roger Victory winds down his tenure as a state lawmaker, the Hudsonville native has a new elected office in his sights.
Victory announced Jan. 7 that he will run for the office of trustee on the Michigan State University board.
The owner and operator of Victory Farms, a fourth-generation family farm, Victory is finishing his second four-year term in the state Senate and cannot seek re-election to that office due to term limits. He also served in the state House from 2013 to 2018 before being elected to the Senate.
Victory has served in an advisory role supporting MSU’s agricultural programs for many years. As a lawmaker, he secured funding for the university’s Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research Center. In a press release announcing his candidacy, he said MSU “needs to get back to its roots as a land grant university.”
“We need common sense representation at MSU. This is a great university, with thousands of alumni making a difference in the world,” Victory said. “The challenges that the university has faced in recent years are serious. They need practical leadership to refocus on the foundational principles the university was established for. I know I can bring that to the table.”
Victory Farms specializes in root vegetables, winter squash, fall ornamentals, and other crops. Victory is involved in many organizations including the Ottawa County Farm Bureau, where he previously served as president; as a board member of the Careerline Tech Center; on the board of various local farm co-ops, and as an elder and deacon at First Christian Reformed Church in Hudsonville.
“One issue I am passionate about is that food is health. MSU is a leader in agricultural research with an excellent medical school. MSU should be a leader nationally on the connection between what we eat and our health,” Victory said. “I believe that more accountability and transparency is needed at MSU. For the first time our leading land grant university is without a voice representing agriculture on its board. I can fill that gap.”
