Rep. Jeff Irwin, Democrats defeat GOP-backed effort to take away domestic partner benefits
State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, joined fellow Democrats in the state House today in defeating Senate Concurrent Resolution 9, a Republican-backed effort to do away with promised domestic partner benefits for state employees.
The measure, which needed buy-in from Democrats to pass, had a 66-41 showing of support but failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote that was required.
"The state of Michigan made a promise to our employees that their families could get health insurance, and today House Democrats blocked a crass attempt by the Republicans to revoke that promise," Irwin said in a statement.
Jeff Irwin
The resolution would have rejected the Michigan Civil Service Commission's decision to grant benefits to individuals who live with non-married state employees. Those on the left saw the legislation as an attack on collective bargaining and gay rights, while the GOP has framed the issue as a matter of fiscal responsibility.
House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, issued a statement today accusing House Democrats of "turning their backs on their responsibilities to taxpayers."
"The Civil Service Commission has been incredibly irresponsible, saddling taxpayers with $11 million in additional spending at time when we are dealing with a huge deficit," Bolger said. "We have a duty as a state Legislature to stand up for taxpayers when this kind of absurd spending spree occurs, and yet, today not even a handful of Democrats were willing to do that."
Irwin pointed out Gov. Rick Snyder's budget relies on $180 million in concessions by state workers. He said revoking promised benefits would only make negotiations more difficult.
Jase Bolger
"The Republicans are trying to politicize the state work force and revoke benefits that were bargained for in good faith," Irwin said. "As we approach tough budget negotiations and employees are asked to once again make significant cuts to their wages and benefits, the Snyder administration and the House Republicans shouldn't be trampling our workers' collective bargaining rights. It sends the wrong message and won't help us move Michigan forward."
Overturning a Civil Service Commission decision requires a two-thirds vote of the state House, or 74 votes. Bolger pointed out 63 House Republicans voted to overturn the decision but House Democrats failed to provide the 11 votes needed for bipartisan support.
Ari Adler, press secretary for Bolger, wrote in an e-mail to AnnArbor.com prior to today's vote that a House roll call vote was being taken "so people can have a record of whether the Democrats stood up for taxpayers and the state Constitution or not."
State Rep. David Rutledge, D-Superior Township, joined Irwin in voting against the resolution. Reps. Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township, and Rick Olson, R-York Township, voted for the resolution.
Olson issued a statement saying he was appalled that House Democrats voted to extend insurance benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends of state employees.
"This Civil Service Commission has been abusing the public trust, taxpayer money and their authority for several months now," Olson said. "It seems House Democrats have decided to join them in spending Michigan taxpayer money about as responsibly as a group of young children would spend their allowance."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
GoBlue1984
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 6:27 a.m.
I see people arguing for getting rid of these benefits by saying we need to be fiscally conservative... I agree. Now let's remove that pesky tax free status that the church receives and give those dollars to the corporations. Here here!
Sully
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
This is a silly issue where the Democrats in Lansing are putting social issues ahead of the taxpayer. The MCSC did not like the fact that the voters in Michigan decided that the state should not recognize gay marriage, so they took a backdoor approach to get around this by expanding who can receive benefits and therefore costing the taxpayers money. I personally have no problem with gay marriage, but the fact is that gay marriage is not recognized in Michigan, and it is disgusting that MCSC and the House Democrats are punishing taxpayers because their social agenda isn't recognized. Rep. Irwin is being quite dishonest and hypocritical when he accuses others of politicizing the labor force, when that is exactly what he is doing. It is just plain silly that the MCSC decided to expand benefits to the unmarried partners of state workers, gay or straight, during a budget crisis, and the House Democrats are backing them up. If Rep. Irwin and House Democrats really want to push their social agenda, they should at least do it honestly and put a resolution up to reverse Michigan's anti-Gay marriage law.
information please
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
Actually, if you want to talk about disgusting, it's those who pushed for the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, while claiming all along that it wasn't about taking benefits away from anyone. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/michigan_glbt.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/michigan_glbt.pdf</a>
Oregon39_Michigan7
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 5:41 a.m.
Sully, Err, the GOP introduced this bill, not the Dems. Further the GOP controls the State House, so they decide what gets brought down for a vote. So I believe that would be the GOP putting social issues ahead of the taxpayer. /Just Sayin'
Oregon39_Michigan7
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.
And how would this help create jobs or grow Michigan's ecomony? Hey State GOPers, if taking away benefits for domestic partners will save a little cash, why not take it away for African Americans too? Or Women, do they really need all those extra benefits that are bankrupting the country? You were elected to focus on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, and then JOBS; not to push through your radical neocon agenda. I thought the tea party (err, opps that's right you're actually neocons pretending to be libertarians) was all about personal freedom and keeping the government OUT of personal business? Why does/should the State Government of Michigan care about the personal choices that some of its hard working, tax paying, freedom loving citizens make? PS, special note to all of those against of equal marriage and basic rights for all Amercians (including LGBT): I'd keep an eye on Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy actually subscribes to a true libertarian political belief. The man thinks that governments should have a very limited role in society (build roads, schools, police, and fire, call it a day) and there should be absolute PERSONAL FREEDOM. Especially PERSONAL FREEDOM from Government. Take a look, if you will, at Lawrence v. Texas or Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Further, if you follow SCOTUS, you'll see hints in his concurring opinions that he is getting close to raising a persons sexual choice to the same level of protection and gender for Equal Proteciton (essentially, almost the highest form of protection, only race/national orgin receive higher protection). That would mean that all of your homophobic marriage "defense" laws would go away. Justice Kennedy has sided with the four progressive Justices on these issues before, and he'll do it again (especially since he'd get to write the opinion).
Gill
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
This seems like discrimination to me. You either provide benefits to all families of State workers, or none of them. Why don't we also propose to eliminate benefits to any State worker whose spouse is older than them, or has more than two children, because hey, that is probably more expensive than a domestic partner?
Martin Church
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.
Broken Promises by republicans how about Granholm's broken promise on the scholorships to our kids. the state has broken many promises and we keep statng them back to office. Mr. Irwin how about state law, does not that also matter. the civil service commission needs to be retooled and replaced. their opinion violates the definiation of Marriage act that the voters of this state passed. We need to stop spending money like it grows on tress. it does not it comes from us hard working tax payers. Let's really cut the spending and start with the benefits of the legislature. return state control back to the local governent with our money.
A2democrat
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
Wow what a surprise another A2.com slanted article. First off, there was not one Republican who voted with the Democrats so lets put that rumor to bed right now. As for the demonizing of Republicans lets take some time to look at the bill. This bill allows for any one who lives with you for more then a year to be put onto your benefit plan at the cost of the taxpayers. If you brother who does not have a job lives with you for a year he can be covered under the language of this law. Those who supported this law did so for financial reasons not personal political agendas.
A2democrat
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
@DDOT1962-That would be fine with me put it on the ballot and let the voters decide will be the first to sign the petition.
DDOT1962
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
We could solve the dilemma you've outlined by legalizing marriage between same sexes. I'm for that. How about you?
joe baublis
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:44 a.m.
As the lone Tea Party Patriot, I rise to defend those who you've impugned although I have not spoken with Rick or Mark, or Governor. I just want to defend those people who aren't here to defend themselves. As for Mr. Irwin, he acted as a representative of thousands of people, as did Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Olson. Each gentleman was elected by propounding his own views to his constituents, and each gentleman did the right thing by voting in a manner consistent with his belief. There is no victory for Mr. Irwin, nor is there a loss for Mr. Ouimet or Mr. Olson. Rather, if there is a victory, it is for "the people" - not the figurehead. Mr. Dunbar is welcome to his opinion regarding bigotry. However, he has made no connection regarding intolerance and claims for benefits. Therefore, Mr. Dunbar's opinion has no apparent basis. Mr. Briegel's opinion regarding the Tea Party is similarly baseless. Mr. Briegel cannot fathom the collective minds of thousands of different Tea Party Patriots, any more than I can fathom his. I can tell you what I understand of the Tea Party Patriots based on my direct communications with many of them. They DO believe in promise. They believe in the promises expressed in the Constitution. They also believe in the "law". They believe in the "law" and the "constitution" as they are written - not as interpreted. This does not make them bad, and I request your tolerance. Now I advise you gentlemen to take notice, that our governments have been breaking promises to "the people" for over 200 years. That's why the American Indians were slaughtered, butchered, poisoned, and relegated to worthless reservations, and that's why our "government" endorsed slavery of our black skinned brothers and sisters for 100 years, and then endorsed segregation for another 100, and that's why both liberal and conservative presidents engaged our Nation in war. We should not divide ourselves, and we shoul
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
"They also believe in the "law". They believe in the "law" and the "constitution" as they are written - not as interpreted." This would be fine as long as their actual knowledge of the law and constitution was nearly as deep as they think it is. Instead we hear a lot of blather, with little actual coherence. Their "knowledge" is mostly emotional.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
@kilalqaeda: Say what you wish, but even some GOPer went along with the Dems to maintain these benefits. What is wrong is to deny people anything based on their sexual orientation, which is perfectly normal, unless you get your definition of normal by twisting the words in a book written by people, and a book that is not fact. And there is no way for you to know what any divine being has to say about sexual orientation since the existence of such beings is something you may believe, but something you cannot in any respect, prove. It's tiresome when people say "God would not approve of this". I think if such a being did exist, they would be quite tired of hearing humans tell other humans what God says we should be intolerant of.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.
"God would not approve of this" I guess the two of you have had a conversation? Good Night and Good Luck
Moscow On The Huron
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:43 a.m.
God would not approve of this
InsideTheHall
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
State Rep. Fluff Irwin strikes again! Come on this is a sideshow issue. The building is on fire and Irwin and his DEM mates are looking for marshmallows!
snapshot
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:10 a.m.
Great job Jeff, now I get to pay for more state benefits when I can't afford my own health insurance. I hope this "fell good" spending lets you sleep better at night while you put our whole country in financial jeapordy. Government employees shouldn't have the ability to "collectively bargain" every president prior to JF Kennedy thoght it was a bad idea. Kennedy saw it as a way to win elections when he issued his Executive Order in 1961 allowing Federal employees to collectively bargain so he could win the election. Guess he was right. Irwin also advocated for extended unemployment benefits with money borrowed from the Feds with an annual interest payment of 111 million dollars per year. How much is that per unemployed worker in just interest payments to the f Feds. Obama suspended this years interest payment. Show me the money folks, oh, wait.....there isn't any but you keep spending it on "special interest".
snapshot
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:22 a.m.
"feel good" spending.
Bob Martel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
So much for Mark Ouimet being a moderate and "his own man." He's just a spineless Republican hack after all. Oh well, there is always 2012 to forward to! I hope that the progressives who supported him because "he's a nice guy" now realize their mistake (YOU know who you are.) Even Rick Snyder wasn't especially fond of this bill, but he said he would sign it if it was the will of the Legislature and came before him. Mark's vote on the other hand was directed at actually enabling the bill. I'm glad that the Democrats hung tight. Perhaps their daily drives to Lansing for the next 18 months won't be a total waste of time after all.
samseaborn
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
@ Bob- How do you know the thought process that Rep. Ouimet went through when making this decision? Maybe your spineless Dem friends should have made some of these decisions over the past eight years instead of putting band aids on problems. The CSC's decision to allow these types f benefits started at 11 million dollar and it will only continue to grow more and more as time goes on and people discover loopholes within it. Also, I find you telling people who voted for the Representative that they made a mistake proves who one sided you are.
Ross Dunbar
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:58 a.m.
Congratulations to Jeff Irwin for doing what's right, and truly standing up for all families in Michigan! To use the "we don't have the money" excuse to deny people basic equal rights and the benefits that should be afforded to all couples is not just disingenuous, it's dishonest. The failed Senate Resolution was not a push to "save money" – it was a push for bigotry.
katie
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:14 a.m.
Jeff, you did the right thing. It took courage. Hat's off to you! About Snyder, it's a typical bait-and-switch. He's no nerd and he's certainly not tough. He only plays tough with those who he thinks can't fight back, like the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. His rich buddies won't feel a pinch since our wealth is being sucked upwards to them. Preserving health care promises are a way to preserve the lives and health of those who can't afford their own private doctors and health care. I'm hoping we won't have to wait the full term for Snyder to leave. Lots of people are talking about recalling him.
shepard145
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.
Yea! Yea! Democrats celebrate yet another way to spend more money Michigan doesn't have!! ...and of course the fact that Snyder stated he has nothing against homosexuals but in a year with a shrinking economy and a $1.8 billion dollar budget deficit is not the time to lavish extra benefits on state employees. Of course the argument offered no deterrence to the democrat party. FULL SPEND AHEAD!!
Oregon39_Michigan7
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
Your homophobia and xenophobia is showing. I'm sure the State can save even more money if they take away benefits for anyone who is Catholic too. Or maybe those pesky Methodists, they really are saddling the next generation with debt.
Ignatz
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
snapshot, You don't need a blood test, if you get married in some other places. If you want to have proof of marraige, then allow them to get married.
snapshot
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
How do we know they're gay? Do they have to sign a document under penalty of perjury. How do taxpayers know it's just not providing a "friend" benefits at taxpayer expense? A marriage needs a state sanctioned license and a blood test. It is a recognized legal document. What is required for a partner to recieve taxpayer funded benefits? Talk about "special interest". What makes government employees so "special"? Are they better than the general public? Or are they just able to "pool" their "purchasing" power?
Tony Livingston
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
If you are so concerned about money, take the benefits away from all family members. Why just take it away from gay people? Take it from all of the spouses. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let's go to it and really save some money here.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
"Moderate" Rick Olson in lockstep with the right-wing fanatics in the state legislature. Enjoy your single term, Rick. Clearly you misrepresented yourself when you knocked on my door last fall. But, then, you're a Republican, aren't you? Good Night and Good Luck
voter
Tue, Apr 19, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
Snyder did not go completely in the opposite direction. Matter of fact he gave very little indication of what he was going to do in the debates. I can call them all crooks, you just blindly support them because they are democrats just like some support republicans becasue of the party. One comes to mind though and that is Joe Biden who said in the debates that Obama is not qualified to be president but when he was tapped to be his running mate he did a complete bout face. This can be found on utube. And I vote for Indepentant by the way. Quick to label though. Also how about giving solutions instead of just tearing them down.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
@voter: Please let us know when a Democrat for whom YOU voted based on their promises goes completely in another direction upon their election. Good Night and Good Luck
voter
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
And Democrats are all honest. Both parties are crooked and only worry about keeping their jobs by any means possible.
Bob Martel
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
How did the supposedly moderate Republican State Representative Mark Ouimet vote on this?
shepard145
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
He better vote with the Republicans. We did not send him to Lansing to coddle the bankrupting democrat party.
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
I added in a few paragraphs to the story. He voted with the Republicans.
David Cahill
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.
Congrats to Jeff and the other legislators with backbones!
JSA
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
They don't have backbones, they have skulls of solid bone, no brain.
snapshot
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
Fiscal restraint takes "backbone" anyone can spend someone else's money. And special interest unions have a "license to steal" taxpayer money.
Basic Bob
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.
Just more of the same from Jeff Irwin. Making promises he can't keep with other people's money.
Linda Peck
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.
Great news!
David Briegel
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
Just another reason to be proud of Jeff Irwin and the Dems for keeping the promise of the State. Promises are meaningless to the TeaPublicans!
Forever27
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.
@snapshot, I wouldn't call equal protection under the law "feel good" spending
snapshot
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
More "feel good" spending for special interest.
Bertha Venation
Thu, Apr 14, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
Got that right, David!