David A Kinskey

The lawmaker urges a yes vote because the House agreed to delete $3.4 million in funding for employee contributions, aligning with the Senate's position on the bill.

The lawmaker requested a vote against concurrence to allow for further discussion with the House regarding differences in the bill, specifically concerning mental health provisions.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it includes a phased-in contribution increase that accelerates fund solvency and raises death benefits for officers killed in the line of duty.

The lawmaker supports the bill because paying for employee contributions for two years is a small price to secure a long-term solution for an underfunded pension plan.

The lawmaker supports removing the appropriation so that the treasurer can administer Pool A without jeopardizing the final vote on the bill.

The lawmaker supports the bill as a common sense public health measure to ensure safety standards, while also hoping the regulations will force some abortion clinics out of business.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to make a tax exemption effective immediately in 2024, despite having reservations about the required backfill funding.

The lawmaker supports the bill as significant tax relief for people, noting that exemptions are well-established and constitutional challenges can be managed.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to broaden tax relief for as many people as possible, specifically targeting small businesses and trailer house owners by raising the exemption limit.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because following a strict process with Mercer studies is necessary to avoid legal jeopardy and ensure funds are allocated according to Supreme Court mandates rather than political maneuvering.

The lawmaker opposes voting to move the facility out of its current district without more information and notes that state institutions were historically spread across the state.

The lawmaker urges the defeat of the amendment because he believes its language nullifies a separate bill that allows the legislature to determine priorities for ARPA funds.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe it constitutes inappropriate micromanagement of an executive agency and violates separation of powers.

The lawmaker votes against the amendment because he believes federal ARPA funds are permissible for road use and can cover more than the amount requested in this bill.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he states that neither the governor's office nor Homeland Security requested it, and his committee is already briefed on all discussed threats.

The lawmaker opposes the division because bypassing objective prioritization and Mercer studies places the state in legal jeopardy regarding school construction lawsuits.

The lawmaker supports the bill as a simple option to increase the property tax exemption threshold, noting it aligns with existing statutes and includes necessary backfill for schools.

The lawmaker argues that current water rights requirements for simple lot splits are too costly and time-consuming, inadvertently encouraging people to abandon old water rights rather than transfer them. He supports the bill as a repeal of these burdensome rules to allow for simpler transfers.

The lawmaker supports the bill to allow parents who mutually agree on a child's name change to avoid publishing an advertisement in a newspaper, citing privacy concerns and the lack of legal standing for third parties to object.

The lawmaker supports the bill because addressing the fund's downward trajectory early is less costly than waiting, and employees are only asked to contribute a small fraction of the total pension cost.

The lawmaker supports the bill because judges have received substantial raises in recent years, making it reasonable to ask them to increase their pension contribution slightly.

The lawmaker opposes permanently shifting the employee share to the employer side because it removes future flexibility for the legislature to adjust contributions if state finances become desperate.

The lawmaker supports the bill to maintain a strong workforce program that produces tangible results for businesses and ensures an unemployment system admired nationally.