Q&A with state Rep. Dian Slavens: Eliminate retiree health care benefit for all current lawmakers
Some of our state lawmakers made a courageous move this past week, approving legislation that would slash lifetime health care for themselves and their families. The House bill, which still must be approved by the Senate, would eliminate the state paid health care insurance for retired lawmakers, a perk the Michigan Legislature has enjoyed since the 1950s. However, the measure would impact only lawmakers elected after January 2007.
State Rep. Dian Slavens, D-Canton, had been trying to enact a tougher bill that called for further cuts. She talked with me on 1290 WLBY shortly before the House vote.
State Rep. Dian Slavens
Rep. Slavens: So many of our citizens are having to share the sacrifices for our state. I really feel now is the time more than ever that we, as legislators, give up our perks also. Lucy Ann: We pay out more than $5 million a year for the state legislators’ health benefits.
Rep. Slavens: That’s right. We’re taking money away from our children’s schools unnecessarily. That money was there to be kept in the K-12 and they pushed that out. We’re now taxing our senior citizens. We’re pushing our middle-class, hardworking folks. What have we legislators sacrificed? Absolutely nothing. I think it’s time we step up to the plate and do just that.
Lucy Ann: Perhaps, but some of your colleagues would say, “We just took a 10 percent pay cut.”
Rep. Slavens: That’s not enough. I don’t know anywhere where you can work six years and get lifetime health care benefits paid for. It’s just ridiculous.
Lucy Ann: What did your original bill hope to do?
Rep. Slavens: What my bill would do is get rid of lifetime health care benefits for anybody who’s in office currently. The difference is that the weaker bill allows anybody elected into office 2007 and earlier (to keep these benefits.) There are a few House representatives and many of the senators who would continue to get this perk, and that is not shared sacrifices. We need all of us, both in the House and the Senate, to share the sacrifices that all of the Michigan citizens are doing right now.
Lucy Ann: What about health care for those who are currently in office? Do you think there’s going to be any movement to get you to pay more into your health care like many other public sector and private businesses have had to do?
Rep. Slavens: Absolutely. Rep. Lisa Brown does have a bill where we would pay 25 percent of our health care costs and hopefully that bill will get passed.
Only 17 states provide retirement health care benefits to legislators with most requiring them to pay the premiums. In previous bills calling for cuts to retired lawmakers’ health care the Michigan House and Senate never passed the same version, stalling any progress. That makes one question just how serious lawmakers really are about cutting their own benefits. All the more reason to track House Bill 4087 as it advances to the Michigan Senate.
Lucy Ann Lance co-owns Lance & Erskine Communications, which produces “The Lucy Ann Lance Business Insider” (M-F, 8 a.m.-11 a.m.) and “The Lucy Ann Lance Show” (Saturdays, 9 a.m.-12 p.m.) on 1290 WLBY. The programs are live streamed at www.1290WLBY.com, and podcast on www.lucyannlance.com. The above interview is a condensed version of a longer conversation that is edited for clarity. The complete audio interview is posted online at www.lucyannlance.com.
Comments
nekm1
Tue, Jun 28, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
wow, a Democrat I would vote for! Finally, someone not a selfish as most D's are!
15crown00
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
government officials,at all levels in my opinion have pay and benefits that are absolutely outlandish. cut all wages 50%,health care should b minimum,qualify for a small pension at 65 because there is no more "double dipping",health care benefits stop when you end state or federal employment,u get to serve 6 years in the legislature and no more ever-any combination of Rep. and Senator is acceptable but ONLY 6 YEARS TOTAL.
shepard145
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
Gibberish. So you think you've decided all those running for office are comfortably retired old guys who don't need any benefits or if younger people who do need them, they have nothing of value to contribute and don't deserve them? That logic could only come from a liberal and is largely contrary to some of the best minds in the legislator!! And while there are plenty of hacks like the one featured here, who sit around in drum circles coming up with legislative nonsense designed to get their toothy picture in the paper, there are excellent folks as well. Again, cutting benefits will not improve the budget in any measurable way - which is why this is a GIMMICK. It may very well, however, discourage those BEST AND BRIGHTEST from entering political service. ....WE VOTERS DECIDE WHO FAILED AND WHO WILL BE PUNISHED BY LOSING THEIR JOBS - STAY TUNED FOR 2012 DEMOCRATS. Your complaint that democrats have created programs that they and their friends (unions and big political contributors, corporate fat cats and wall street) are not subject to is a national rather then a state issue. ...and it would not be such an issue if those writing the legislation were not so ignorant, hateful and corrupt. If the greasy boot of obamacare goes into effect, the standard of living in this nation will be irreversibly damaged.
Hot Sam
Mon, Jun 27, 2011 : 1:48 a.m.
While I meant to paint with a broad brush, there is no mention in my post of "all" or "never" or any other definitive adjectives. Of course there are exceptions to what I pictured. To imply that I am a "liberal" is really amusing...libertarian maybe... My main point remains...legislatures should not be allowed to create different rules and benefits for themselves that are not shared by all...
Hot Sam
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 : 12:05 p.m.
While we agree that having the best and brightest is a goal, I have a different take on this benefit question. The quality business leaders and professionals I see entering public service are generally either retired, close to it, have recently sold the business, or have it running under trusted hands. They are successful and enter the race to create a better environment for their children and grandchildren. They don't need the benefits. The people I see wanting the benefits are the lifelong politicos and those whose best asset is the delivery of speeches and soundbites. With that said, the most important aspect of this debate is the fact that we have allowed elected representatives to create programs for the rest of us that they are not subject to, and benefits that we are not privy to. This is the antithesis of everything our country is about.
shepard145
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
Granholm slinked away to CA, but her legacy of nonsensical legislative gimmicks lives on with the remaining democrats! In typical fashion, while their budget and economic efforts FAILED over EIGHT YEARS, her cronies now spring into the newspaper with sophomoric gibberish like this! How much of an impact will this have on the state's budget!? NONE. It's another democrat bill she knows adults in the Senate will never pass. ….and if they did, of course it would have no measurable impact on the state's budget….. more of the same… Sitting around wasting time cooking up foolish legislation that will get them in the paper. There are good reasons to offer perks to politicians who drive the destiny of the State of Michigan!! WE WANT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. Diane fails to understand that punishing failed legislators it the job of voters – as her party suffered during the last election and will again in 2012. Poor performers like Diane here, are removed from office each election cycle and those who take there places become the valued leaders of our state. ...so cutting pay, benefits or whatever only serves to discourage SUCCESSFUL PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS MEN from running for office.
Mr. Tibbs
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.
like this pig is going to slaughter itself. every one of these lawmakers have the ways and means to make connections to get health care from the fatcats they support. cut their health care make them all part time legislators. and NO HEALTH CARE until they fix the budget and come up with a flat tax so that thier is proof that everyone, rich or poor are paying thier fair share!
PattyinYpsi
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
Thank you, Representative Slavens, for your courageous and common-sense approach. In the 1950s, this perk might have made sense. Today--when health insurance costs have gone through the roof and, as you point out, we're slashing money for schools, infrasctructure, and other necessities--it's a luxury the state cannot afford. Brava!
Bob Krzewinski
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
When Kirk Profit was my State Representative, I wrote him to ask for his support for legislation at the time that would support single payer, or "Medicare For Everyone" health care. I viviidly remember getting the most condescending, insulting letter from a politician in my life. He basically accused me of being duped and that such a system would never work. So Kirk doesn't worry about health care, because he basically has "State" Medicare for "retired" politicians. The rest of us have to deal with the nightmare of dealing with insurance companies, that is if we have jobs that offer health "insurance". Legislators in Michigan need to have the same healthcare options the citizens they represent. Period.
Maxwell
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Political Grand Standing - that's all this is...
SonnyDog09
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
"But, were are the Republican legislators ...." The state House approved a measure by a 107-3 vote, sending the bill to the Senate. So, I'm pretty sure it got some Republican votes. In fact, the three lawmakers voting against the bill Thursday were Democrats Doug Geiss of Taylor, Richard LeBlanc of Westland and Jimmy Womack of Detroit.
snoopdog
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Thank you Dian Slavens, we appreciate what you are attempting to do. Good Day
Monica R-W
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
And this measure is coming from a Democrat. Excellent job! I totally agree that Representative Slavens' bill, need to be passed in its' current form. But, were are the Republican legislators who voted to increase taxes on working citizens and health care costs for state union workers. A little silent, perhaps?
Ruth
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
Along with decreasing these excessive benefits, please get rid of the term restrictions. We need to balance the turnover to give the people an opportunity to keep good legislators in office.
BioWheels
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Kudo's to Representative Slavens. I couldn't agree more. Since senior citizens and low income wage earners in Michigan have been forced to "share the responsibility", then it's time the legislators got a check on reality. While we're at it, let's cut their salaries in half as well. The average legislators salary in the U.S. is $32,363. Michigan legislators make $79,650, plus expenses (per diem is approximately $10,000 for Michigan legislators). I find it hard to believe that in this economy the legislators of this state can continue to get such salaries! It's also time Governor Snyder show his support for this proposed legislation - for current and future legislators - and backs up his own campaign slogan of "shared responsibility". If he doesn't, then I guess his real concern wasn't the economy of the State of Michigan, but the economy of his corporate "partners".
Gordon
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.
I don't think anyone complains about anyone rceiving a pension. What is grossly un-fair is the little time it takes for an elected offcial to recieve that pension - 6 years? Plus, the amount is excessive as legislators have other full-time jobs and being a State legislator is considered part-time. Don't get me wrong there is a lot of work / time spent being part-time as a legislator more then other part-time jobs; but there are additional benefits to those legislators. If the 1950's created the rise in pension / retirement benefits then the 2000's will be the downfall of those retirement benefits. From a rational view it's the usual excesses of too much to not enough cycle of human endeavors. If a legislator is able to hold office by the grace of his voters for a number of terms then at some point in time those voters do owe that person some benefit for the future. But it should be the equilavent of part-time not more then most recieve as a full-time worker.
SonnyDog09
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
"but the problem its that many legislators are giving up goos jobs with good retirement plans mid-career. " Your 401k will still be your 401k after your "public service."
Hot Sam
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 11:51 a.m.
The old "we'll never get good people unless we let them become vanguards of the proletariat" theory...how's that working out for ya?
Rob
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.
This sounds good in theory, but the problem its that many legislators are giving up goos jobs with good retirement plans mid-career. Cutting these benefits will make it much more difficult for those who aren't well off to make the choice to enter public service. In other words, it will make the state legislature look less like the state of Michigan than it already does.
BenWoodruff
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 11:03 a.m.
Betcha it dies in the committee in the State Senate, as usual. I know Congressman Walberg get a $57000 pension and lifetime health benefits for "serving" 16 years in a state legislature that meets no more than 100 days per year! So much for fiscal conservatism.
Hot Sam
Sat, Jun 25, 2011 : 10:36 a.m.
All elected officials, from the president on down, should be in both the medicare and social security systems starting yesterday!