Dillon advocates legislative pay/benefits cuts, but will we actually get it?

by: LiberalLucy

Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:15:34 PM EST

It's easy to want to beat up on Speaker Andy Dillon on the blogs. Personally I like the man, quite a bit actually. But the bane of many politicians and politicos is that you can like the person and but not their policies. Hence, this has often been the case of Liberal Lucy and Speaker Dillon. 

Fortunately for both he and I, yesterday's remarks at the opening of the 95th Legislative Session, proves that was not at all the case. 

Eric mentioned one of the points of Dillon's speech - the major debate over state property taxes, but for me, a couple of the other points mentioned really caught my attention. 

For one, the cutting of legislative pay and benefits. From Chris Christoff at the Freep:

In remarks after he was elected to a second term as speaker, Dillon also said a streamlined state government must do more to help people facing job losses, home foreclosures and mediocre schools.

"If we are going to ask others to sacrifice, we must lead by example," Dillon said in remarks to the 95th House, where 46 of 110 members are new.

As with anything, there's a catch, but it leads up to an interesting debate...

Christoff continues:

But they could only cut pay and benefits for legislators elected in 2010 because of constitutional restrictions.

They could voluntarily give up a portion of their salaries, but a separate commission sets pay for state officials and judges, not the Legislature.

And while the Legislature could reduce benefits for future lawmakers, it couldn't cut benefits for current members.

Retired House and Senate members can draw lifetime health benefits at age 55 if they've served six years in the House or eight years in the Senate.

House and Senate members are paid $79,650 a year. Members in leadership positions make more.

Eighty thousand dollars a year is a lot of money, and more than a lot of Michiganders make. But after working and living in Lansing for the better part of a decade, I'll be the first to admit that a legislator's job isn't a cakewalk.

If I had any delusions of grandeur of running for office one day, they're pretty much gone now. Think about the angry phone call and emails you've bombarded your legislators with after a bad vote, or how much we scrutinize everything they (and sometimes their families) do during campaigns. I've had more than a couple legislators tell me they'll drive 20-30 miles outside of their district after a contentious vote just to be able to grocery shop without worrying about running into an angry constituent in the middle of the frozen foods aisle, proving only further that being an elected public servant is hardly a 9-5 job. Constant scrutiny, where you hear how terrible a job you're doing many times more than getting a simple thanks or two. In essence, most of us would find it a completely thankless and demeaning job, where the pay hardly compensates for the emotional toll alone. 

That being said, our legislators are the second-highest paid in the country, falling only behind California. The figure quoted above is the base pay. If they are in the majority or in leadership, it's more than that. Also not included in that figure is the thousand dollar monthly stipend for expenses, which usually covers milage, particuarly for those members who drive from the nether regions of our state, and no that doesn't include staff, that's a separate item paid for by each body's caucus. 

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Dillon hit it on the head when he reminded his colleagues that they need to lead by example. When each of us knows of more people who are out of work or looking for work than we do those who have jobs, it seems that we should all be trimming the fat where ever we can. 

Even if each legislator took a five thousand dollar cut, that's money that could go back into the budget, and in theory, go back to schools, health care, or infrastructure, all things that could put it to good use.

Of course, life-time benefits are an entirely different discussion. I've spoke with some folks who work outside of the legislature who support it for the very reasons stated above. Personally, I think the minimum requirement (six years in the House or eight years in the Senate) is too low, but I think something similar needs to be tied in with term-limit reform, lengthening the current standards. 

But, as Christoff points out, even if reforms to benefits and pay were to be made today, it wouldn't affect this current batch of legislators. As we saw with John Engler in the 90's, it's much easier to run a muck with reforms when there aren't immediate effects. Many of our current members won't be around when the change goes into effect, so the argument can be made that self-sacrifice really isn't the name of the game. 

So in the end, we've come full circle. Something needs to be done, but the ability to enact something immediate is almost impossible, and would require the proverbial moving of mountains to be successful. 

Dillon put it out there, which sounds good and gives us hope and I applaud him for that, and extend it to House Republican Leader Kevin Elsenheimer for agreeing with him. But with this economy, in this state, at this time, Michigan's citizens are lacking on optimism of actual government reform. So here's hoping a miracle of sorts happens, and we get a side of action with that entree of hope.