Comments on: Two new and important milestones in the public employee benefits debate http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/ Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:31:23 +0000 hourly 1 By: Susan Leithauser-Yee http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4636 Susan Leithauser-Yee Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:03:05 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=2394#comment-4636 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. 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.

]]> By: HarleyRider http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4635 HarleyRider Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:21:55 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=2394#comment-4635 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.. 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..

]]> By: Lance Weyeneth http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4634 Lance Weyeneth Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:22:56 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=2394#comment-4634 A look at the costs Michigan Residents now incurr due to term-limits is also warranted. Congratulations to Representatives' Byrnes and Pavlov! A look at the costs Michigan Residents now incurr due to term-limits is also warranted. Congratulations to Representatives’ Byrnes and Pavlov!

]]> By: Harvey Wallace http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4633 Harvey Wallace Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:41:30 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=2394#comment-4633 The Byrnes-Pavlov Bill contains 2 requirements that amount to additional unfunded mandates directed to local counties, cities and townships. The Byrnes-Pavlov Bill contains 2 requirements that amount to additional unfunded mandates directed to local counties, cities and townships.

]]> By: Conan Smith http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/two-new-and-important-milestones-in-the-public-employee-benefits-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4632 Conan Smith Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:56:11 +0000 http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/blog/?p=2394#comment-4632 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. 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.

]]>