Steve Harshman

The lawmaker opposes overriding the veto because he fears it might incentivize rushing money out of accounts before July 1st and wants to avoid missing future economic opportunities like data centers.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because the existing one-million dollar exemption already covers nearly all homes in Wyoming, and they believe tax policy should focus on the majority of working people rather than increasing exemptions.

The lawmaker supports an amendment to cap funding at $105 million because they believe it provides necessary certainty and accountability for appropriators given the volatility of oil prices.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes current exemptions constitute true reform and relief that should be maintained for the people who need it, rather than shifting benefits to wealthy areas.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes the proposed hedonic wage index is flawed and fails to accurately reflect the high cost of hiring blue-collar workers in certain counties.

The lawmaker supports the resolution, citing national spending as the biggest threat and believing a convention is necessary to address this math problem that politicians refuse to solve.

The lawmaker supports the third amendment because he wants to maintain a five percent spending guarantee split between the general fund and the reserve account, even though it still eliminates SIPA.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it increases instruction time for high school students without requiring additional funding.

The lawmaker urges a no vote on the amendment, arguing that current earnings are sufficient to fund the increase without depleting the corpus and that future generations will benefit from maintaining this funding level.

The lawmaker fears the bill could be easily abused by students who might take a lump sum payment and then drop out, as there appears to be no mechanism in place to recoup those funds if they do not complete their education.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to address a shortage of rural large animal veterinarians by funding five slots in an out-of-state program with a work requirement for graduates.

The lawmaker supports the bill because his experience as a teacher revealed that many local children face homelessness and hunger, making this assistance vital for those in tough situations.

The lawmaker supports the bill as an important step to solve a problem where corner crossing is legal, while ensuring it restricts vehicles and prevents property damage.

The lawmaker argues that failing to update salary schedules leaves state employees significantly behind market rates, which is unsustainable for retaining a workforce.

The lawmaker opposes selling a state aircraft because it allows board members and executives to travel efficiently across the state, saving money compared to driving or using private charters.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe it adds to and improves the bill's protections without deleting existing provisions, viewing legislative refinement as a positive process.

The lawmaker expresses concern that the bill is too broad and could lead to unintended consequences, such as allowing inappropriate symbols or groups in schools.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it utilizes a formula designed to distribute funds from wealthy areas to assist poorer counties and municipalities.

The lawmaker supports the bill to invest $250 million from the permanent mineral trust fund into Wyoming highways without raising taxes, aiming to match federal grants and fix the state's deadliest roads.

The lawmaker supports the bill to strengthen existing standards by training students and friends to recognize suicide risks, noting that current rates for teens are double the average.

The lawmaker opposes changing the current cap because pushing it too far could invite a lawsuit, resulting in no protection for property tax increases.

The lawmaker urges a vote against the bill because it would cut $250 million in annual revenue from investment income and lead to deficits.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it violates multiple sections of the state constitution regarding appropriations for religious institutions and would require a constitutional amendment to pass.