Share the pain, Legislators: Help pay for your own health coverage
If 2011 is supposed to be the year of shared sacrifice in Lansing, it’s time for the Legislature to do its share. Lawmakers should give up the cushy lifetime health-care benefits they can receive after serving just six years in office.
And not just some members of the Legislature should stop giving this unjustifiable perk to themselves. All of them should -- and now.
Members of the state House were patting themselves on the back last month after voting 107-3 to approve House Bill 4087, which would eliminate lifetime health care for members of the Legislature who began serving after Jan. 1, 2007.
While this is a welcome step in the right direction, it doesn’t go far enough. There still are about 10 current members of the Legislature who would continue to receive these benefits. We find that indefensible.
At a time when a new pension tax is being imposed on the elderly, funding to public education has been slashed, and public employees are being pilloried for benefits that are out of line with the private sector, it is the height of hypocrisy for any current lawmaker to expect taxpayers to provide him or her with lifetime health-care coverage after leaving office.
State Rep. Dian Slavens, D-Canton, has been vocal on this issue in Lansing. In a recent interview with radio personality Lucy Ann Lance of the Business Insider, she advocated for House Bill 4081, legislation she’s sponsored that would prevent any of the current state lawmakers to collect lifetime health-care. Â “I don’t know anywhere where you can work for six years and get lifetime health-care benefits paid for,’’ she told Lance. “It’s just ridiculous.’’
Yes, it is. And expensive, too. The Senate Fiscal Agency says the state retirement system is currently paying more than $5 million a year to provide this benefit to ex-lawmakers and their dependents. Â At a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet, it’s galling to think that these former elected officials continue to enjoy such a sweet deal that they secured for themselves while in office.
The way it works now, a lawmaker typically vests in the system after serving six years in office, and begins to receive this “retiree” health-care coverage at the age of 55. There currently are about 350 former lawmakers and family members who receive this coverage, and they only contribute about 3 percent of the cost out of their own pocket. The state picks up the rest.
We don’t think there was ever a case to be made for giving state lawmakers health-care benefits for life. And in the current climate, when both citizens and public employees are feeling the blunt end of state budget cuts, the idea of lawmakers not stepping up and making deep sacrifices of their own would be unconscionable. And by that, we mean all lawmakers, not just the more recently elected ones who understand the voter anger that sent them to Lansing. We call on the Senate to amend H.B. 4087 so that it eliminates the retiree health care benefit for all currently serving members of the House and Senate.
While they are at it, lawmakers also should answer the call for them to begin paying a reasonable share of the health-care benefits that they receive while in office. Right now, they do not contribute toward the cost of their health care -- though members of their staff have to. That’s a double-standard and it should end.
There currently is a bill in the state House that would require lawmakers to contribute 25 percent toward the cost of their health care coverage. So far, House Bill 4575 has languished, and we find that troubling at a time when the Legislature has moved so decisively on issues that affect other employees.
Right now, the House and Senate are trying to reach agreement on another piece of legislation that would require all public employees in Michigan at the state and local level to pay at least 20 percent of their cost of health-care. If Senate Bill 7 is approved, it would include current lawmakers, which would be one way to address the issue. By whatever means, lawmakers should do their part to bring their health-care benefits in line with what’s become the norm in the private sector.
We understand that lawmakers have already felt some of the same budget pain that they’ve had to inflict on others in order to deal with the gaping deficit facing the state. This year, they took a 10 percent pay cut that reduced the salary of a legislator from $79,650 to $71,685. That is indeed a significant loss of income.
But these are extraordinarily difficult fiscal times, and members of the Legislature need to lead by example. There is nothing we’re calling on them to do that they themselves are not seeking to impose on other public employees. It’s a matter of basic fairness. Share the pain, lawmakers. Get your own benefit costs under control, and you’ll be in a much stronger position to demand the same of others.
Comments
Hot Sam
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
Once again, the real problem is that we allow elected officials to create programs they are not subject to, and benefits the rest of us are not privy to. They should all be on social security and medicare...
Monica R-W
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Tony, this should make one question why are a majority of Republican legislators so willingly able to write bills adding costs to state workers health premium payments, taxing our seniors, staving our schools by taking away state shared revenue, raiding the school rainy day aid fund with its' 900 million dollar SURPLUS and more BUT can't manage to write into Senate Bill 7 their version of equally "shared sacrifice". Make one wonder what was their true intent? Also, where is our "shared sacrifice" Governor Snyder on this? Why is he not using his "bully pulpit" to demand the people's support behind all legislators cutting the "6 years retiree vested benefit" program? He has no problem mandating the SAME THING but....WORSE for state workers. If we add Governor Snyder's Emergency Financial Manager that can destroy a city, village, county or school board with the stoke of a pen and a private for-profit industry ready to take the slack; more regular workers and elected local leaders are sidelined, outsourced or jobs just plain eliminated....with no such thing as a "6 years retiree vested benefit". It is have time that we call this "shared sacrifice" crap out for what it is. The fleecing of Michigan's Middle/Poor/Working/Young and Senior classes, at the expense of rich for profit corporations, state politicians who believe they are immune by their positions, CEO's and buddies of Rick Snyder. I believe a better term for so-called "shared sacrifice" the future should be "SELECTED SACRIFICE". Also, I hope Ann Arbor.com and every other state news resource will start using the correct terminology on this, from now on. MonicaRW Writer-Reach Out Job Search Blog/Host-ROJSPodcast <a href="http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com" rel='nofollow'>www.reachoutjobsearch.com</a> <a href="http://www.blogtalktadio.com/detjobexaminer" rel='nofollow'>www.blogtalktadio.com/detjobexaminer</a>
Townie
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
Heardoc - I think Warren Buffet captured it best: "There's class warfare, all right," Mr. Buffett said, "but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." When Eisenhower was president we had a solid middle class (and plenty of very rich folks). Now the middle class has utterly stagnated while the wealthiest have amassed a huge portion of our country's wealth. Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%. The nice legislative health benefit underlines our health insurance mess where we have over 51 million people without health insurance (many of these are working, too). I've talked to MI legislators who have said the lifetime health benefit was a strong incentive to seek re-election. For the under 65 but over 50 age group getting affordable private coverage is a high hurdle; especially if you are self employed, etc. It would have been nicer if the legislature had tried to solve the insurance gap for all of us instead of just for themselves. The Affordable Care Act was an attempt to provide affordable health insurance but many in our legislature want to block that. Perhaps ending their cushy coverage might change their mind.
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
Shouldn't their salaries be tied to supply and demand just like people want for other jobs? It seems to me 1000's of people WANT the job of being a lawmaker. Let's make their salaries equal to supply and demand numbers. I also wonder in what world you get to decide your own pay AND the pay of others. How about we put their pay and benefits to a vote. Snyder and the boys believe they have the right to do that for teachers and governmental units.
David Briegel
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
"the far left is alive". You left out evil, socialist, communist, marxist, neo-marxist! And lazy.
Heardoc
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
Oh Boy -- the far left is alive and well in Ann Arbor.....
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.
Tony, Sorry to see that you've bought into the Snyder "shared sacrifice" mantra. The sacrifice is not being shared. The governor's business buddies got a $1.5 billion tax break at no cost. Most Michiganders will see a reduced income tax rate this year *while* Programs to the poor are being devastated Pensioners got their pensions taxed. Public employees are being laid off. Funds to school districts and to municipalities are being cut severely. These are policy decisions and if one supports these policy decisions, fine. But let's not kid ourselves that any of this represents SHARED sacrifice. Shared sacrifice must be . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . SHARED Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
heardoc wrote: "Sounds to b e a bit of class warfare here ... Pointing to one american and saying that they have 'more' than another american is very wrong and then stating that there is something wrong with one american having 'more' than another american is class warfare. Equal opportunities, Tony, not equal outcomes........" Nothing like consistency, heardoc. How many times have you complained about teachers pay and benefits? Class warfare, indeed!! Good Night and Good Luck
Heardoc
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 12:04 p.m.
Sounds to b e a bit of class warfare here ... Pointing to one american and saying that they have 'more' than another american is very wrong and then stating that there is something wrong with one american having 'more' than another american is class warfare. Equal opportunities, Tony, not equal outcomes........
Milton Shift
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.
"You had the choice to live in the countryside, and not by a coal power plant, where you inhaled carcinogens for years, leading to your development of lung cancer. But you are not guaranteed the same outcome as everyone else. So cough up the house, I need to sell it to buy a boat. Oh, already lost it? You'd die in Cuba too, so stop whining, you freeloading communist."
The Watchman
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 11:16 a.m.
"I don't know anywhere where you can work for six years and get lifetime health-care benefits paid for. It's just ridiculous.'' State Rep. Dian Slavens, Apparently she hasn't worked for the City of Ann Arbor. After 5 years one can vest and receive lifetime health care benefits, The one caveat is that one must be 60 years of age. This is another perk established by Neil Berlin. It benefits the City Administrators that come in and wreak havoc with the long term employees and leave as soon as 5 years. Ask the previous administrator (9 years with the city) or human resources director (five years with the city). This benefit has should be prorated for the amount of time served with the City of Ann Arbor but since it benefits upper management and not the hourly worker it is not addressed.