THREE CHEERS this week for Democratic State Representative Pam Byrnes and Republican State Representative Phil Pavlov for finally doing what some of Michigan’s wisest budget experts have urged for years.
Byrnes chairs, and Pavlov serves on, the House committee looking into Speaker Andy Dillon’s public benefits pooling proposal.
Byrnes, Pavlov and colleagues reported a bill out of committee that has the potential to greatly advance the passionate and murky debate over the cost and levels of health care coverage for public employees in Michigan.
As the Center for Michigan has outlined numerous times, evidence clearly suggests that Michigan taxpayers are footing a higher proportion of higher health care bills for state workers than what state workers receive in other states. This kind of benchmarking is especially important as state officials continue long-term pay and benefits negotiations with workers during a multi-year struggle to resolve a long-term chronic gap between the cost of state government and the total value of tax revenues. (Hint: the costs are higher than the revenues — a trend expected to grow by billions of dollars over the next decade.)
Now comes Byrnes and Pavlov with similar questions about the cost and level of benefits provided to local government workers throughout Michigan. Currently, no single repository of data exists for the benefits costs of local government workers throughout the state. House Bill 5671 would change that. The bill would require:
The bill’s intent is not to slam or pick on public employees or the valuable local government services they provide.
The bill asks for simple transparency and benchmarking in coverage amounts.
Those are pretty important policy questions because pay and benefits are a major portion of local government expenditures and local budgets are facing huge revenue shortfalls due to the economy and rapidly deteriorated property values caused in large part by the national housing bubble and mortgage crisis.
Clear-eyed benchmarking of public sector benefits costs is exactly what the governor’s bipartisan commission of veteran state budget experts strongly requested from Governor Jennifer Granholm three long years ago. Pavlov’s bill coming out of Byrnes’ committee is the clearest tangible sign in Lansing that legislators heard the call — even if the governor didn’t (or chose to ignore it).
And, as Dillon’s ambitious plan continues to get hammered for its complexity, fellow State Rep. Dave Hildenbrand has quietly offered an elegantly simple solution. Hildenbrand’s HB 5638 is less than two full pages in length. It simply requires that all public employers — the state, local school districts, colleges and universities, local governments, etc. — pay no more than 85 percent of the premium costs for employee health care. Employees would presumably be on the hook for the rest.
Is 85 percent the right number? The benchmarking bill discussed above can help get at that question.
5 Comments
There’s nothing complex about the Dillon plan that Byrnes is shilling for really. They simply think that public employees in Michigan are over-compensated, and since they can’t get their hands on the wages, they’ll do an end-run and attack the benefits structure. And rather than negotiating directly with the state employee unions, they’d like to avoid the conflict (which they would probably lose) by masking it in this “statewide reform”.
The Center seems to be one of the rare honest voices here: you’ve been clear that the cost of the policy is more important to you that what it provides. Fair enough. And from a statewide perspective, that debate should be had at the Legislative and Executive levels.
However, local governments should be left out of it. The myriad different plans offered by the more than 2,000 government entities across Michigan reflect the widely varying values that communities choose to prioritize. It’s the locals’ money that foots those bills, shouldn’t they be the ones deciding whether a plan is too expensive?
In Washtenaw County and at the University of Michigan, for example, we provide domestic partner benefits to unmarried couples. That’s a values decision that costs us more cash. The same decision might not be made in mid-Michigan. So what? The duly elected custodians of the taxpayers funds have chosen to spend them in accordance with the values of their constituents. Why should Lansing preempt that just to cover their own budget shortfall?
Byrnes and Dillon are *right* in line with Hildenbrand. Their message: just give the people less. If that’s the strategy that is going to restore prosperity to Michigan, I’d rather go with what Ann Arbor, Washtenaw and U-M are doing. Given the economy here (lowest unemployment, steadiest wages, least foreclosures), it seems to be working. My response to Byrnes and Dillon? Leave us the hell alone and let us get on with leading the state’s economic revival.
The Byrnes-Pavlov Bill contains 2 requirements that amount to additional unfunded mandates directed to local counties, cities and townships.
A look at the costs Michigan Residents now incurr due to term-limits is also warranted. Congratulations to Representatives’ Byrnes and Pavlov!
Once again it seems there is a feeling by State of Mi. public insured empoyees that they are and should be entitled to more or better insurance than the private sector and people who purchase the insurance for themselves ( self-employed ) of course at the taxpayer expense. And the only ” Statewide Reform ” they are interested in is a raise to state tax structure to pay for their unsustainable benefit packages. Until true REFORM is accomplished on both the expense and revenue side of this issue MI. will continue to spiral into the present system of school closures, teacher, firefighters, police layoffs and a reduction in city and county services. Something has to change and I applaud Byrnes,Pavlov and Dillion for their leadership on these proposals..
I support Dave Hildenbrand’s concept that individuals should share in the cost of benefits. This concept applies to many facets of life outside of healtchare. When someone else, particularly a large, impersonal entity, is willing to pay for something we want, we tend to be price insensitive.