Does the House majority owe its loyalty to citizens or to government employees? With this vote they have chosen the latter.
Let's get one thing straight: The post-retirement health benefits governments have told public employees they will get aren't going to happen, because there's not enough real money in the world to pay the amounts involved. That's just plain reality.
Don't worry - we won't have dying government retirees expiring on the streets because they have no health care. Starting at age 65 they get Medicare like everyone else. If they want to retire at 52 with their full pension and live off the taxpayers for another 35 years we can't do anything about that, but we don't have to pay for their health insurance for the first 13 years of that.
The CRC did a report in the Spring of 2008 describing the enormous amounts involved, http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2008/rpt349.pdf. Check out this fascinating little tidbit - a little known fact that this bill would reverse:
Constitutional Provisions Regarding Retiree Health Care Benefits
Article IX, Section 24 of the Michigan Constitution establishes the “accrued financial benefits” of each public pension and retirement system in the State as a contractual obligation thereof and prohibits state and local governments from diminishing or impairing these benefits. Further, Section 24 requires public pension andretiremen t systems to fund the financial benefits earned on account of services rendered in the fiscal year in which they were earned. Section 24 has been interpreted by the Michigan Court to apply only to pension benefits, and not to other retirement benefits, such as health care, that might be earned by employees during their time working for the State or local governments.
In Musselman v. Governor, 448 Mich 503; NW2d 237 (1995), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits do not constitute “accrued financial benefits” as the term is used in Section 24. The issue in Musselman was whether the Governor (Engler) had the budget-cutting authority to reduce state contributions intended to prefund retiree health care benefits. The Court affirmed the executive power to effect cuts related to funding health care benefits. In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits are not protected by the Constitution from diminishment or impairment in the way that pension benefits are protected. Section 24 does not prevent the State or local governments from modifying or diminishing pension benefits prospectively. It applies only to “accrued financial benefits,” or, in other words, benefits earned for services already rendered. Therefore, governments in Michigan are able to change pension plans and retirement systems to affect benefits earned in the future or by future employees; however, the State and local governments are unable to diminish or impair those benefits already earned.