Michigan Votes Forum

Senator Whitmer’s statement is as follow:

I will vote in favor of the pay cut resolution. In fact, I think it is something we probably should have done awhile ago. However, let’s be honest. In comparison the entire $42 billion state budget, $3 million from the State Senate is symbolic. There is not doubt that in times of crisis, symbols matter. It’s the right thing to do, but let’s take it a step further and be honest and candid. This doesn’t even apply to at least 30 of the 38 members in this chamber.

The fact of the matter is that the Senate majority leadership runs it both ways. They like to beat up on state employees and ask for another year of concessions and say, “Look, we’ve taken some cuts,” when the truth is these cuts don’t impact any of us. They just impact the next Legislature. So you still haven’t given up a darn thing. No nominations for profiles in courage here today.

For the nine years I have served in the Legislature, we have asked and asked again for concessions for our state employees, yet never making concessions ourselves. We have even asked the business community to pitch in. Whatever happened to leading by example? Now why doesn’t someone around here show some real leadership and pass Senate Resolution No. 15 along with this resolution to assure that everyone in Michigan has equal resources on their behalf at the State Senate? Treat every office equally whether it is a Democrat or a Republican serving.

Now I am not talking about raising Democrats $100,000 to the level that the Republicans have. I am suggesting that you learn to tighten your belts and serve your constituents with $100,000 less like we on the Democratic side do. Senate Resolution No. 15 represents at least $3 million in savings that could be done now and equitably—not to mention that it requires that all expenditures in the Senate be available on the internet. Transparency, equity, and immediate savings—now that is meaningful.

I am going to vote in favor of this because I think it is overdue and the right symbol to send to the people of the state of Michigan. But for the reasons that I suggest, we should be moving Senate Resolution No. 15 as well.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 11 would reduce salaries and expense allowances of members of the Legislature, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and the Secretary of State by 10 percent starting in 2011. It would provide a projected cost savings of $1.2 million beginning in that year.

These are tough economic times for our people. They are times when we have growing unemployment, times of suffering. The chair pointed out to me today that the newspapers are saying we have a 12 percent unemployment rate in Michigan this month, and there is now worry that it will be 13 percent next month. The leadership is about being with the people. Leaders do not eat when those they lead do not eat. We do not sleep when they do not sleep. We do not joke when they cannot joke.

This resolution is about understanding our people—coming together with them in this very difficult time and sharing their miseries. As we move into further legislation in the coming two years and thereafter, it is all of our hope it will lead to a rebirth of Michigan. It is true that the people across Michigan wonder if we are sharing in their burdens, and there may not be thanks for doing this. But part of leadership is also doing things without expecting things. Part of leadership is passing this resolution and letting our people know that elected officials are with them and not apart from them.

Senator Basham’s statement is as follows:

This is like one-upmanship, Mr. President. It is like the House did something, so the Senate has to do something that won’t affect either chamber. This doesn’t affect me; I’m fine. I am a former vet and a former auto worker. If you really want the trains to run on time, Mussolini had the trains running on time, but we have a branch of government that is supposed to be civil discourse—about agreements and disagreements. I personally don’t think, coming out of the auto industry as an auto worker, that this is too much money. We do not make any more money than a school teacher, police officer, on firefighter. As a matter of fact, some $70,000 is what one of my mayors said her dogcatcher makes. So I will look anyone in the eye and say I earn my pay, and I hope that other legislators would do their work and earn their pay too.

One of the things that I would do to earn my pay is to make Michigan smoke-free. If we would move on those kinds of bills, we could save billions of dollars, regardless of partisan politics. We could save billions of dollars in health care costs. So I could go down a list. Of course, no one wants to hear what I have to say, but I could find lots of savings in the state’s budget other than this tokenism of affecting the next group of legislators, while 31 out of 38 of us won’t be returning.

So I am going to vote “no” on this out of pure principle.

Senator Patterson’s first statement is as follows:

Times are tough. I read today in the Detroit Free Press that the Detroit Tigers have to confront the harsh reality of a down economy. Their top nine ballplayers have to face the fact that $99 million is not enough to pay their top nine ballplayers. It is a harsh reality.

But I have a point of parliamentary inquiry with regard to one of the whereas clauses in the Senate concurrent resolution. In pertinent part it reads, “Whereas, The State Officers’ Compensation Commission has concluded its proceedings and on March 9, 2009, made its determination that a 10 percent reduction to current salaries, supplemental salaries, and expense allowances…” But the resolved clause in our resolution speaks about “putting in place a 10 percent reduction in salaries and expense allowances of the members…”

Is there a distinction between the determination of the State Officers Compensation Commission and what the resolution embraces? And should we not also talk in terms of compensation in its totality? That is my point of parliamentary, inquiry and I ask for clarification before being asked to vote.

Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows:

I would like to welcome the opening day season. We all knew opening day was just around the corner, so, media, welcome to the opening day of the election season of 2010. It has just been kicked off, and the first pitch has just been thrown out, oh, by golly.

The world has been turned upon its ear. The right honorable Senator from the 23rd District will be voting together on this issue. I assure you, I will be voting “yes” on this issue. The Senator from the 23rd District and candidate for Attorney General, you are correct, except it doesn’t go far enough. I was outraged when we passed that 38 percent pay raise 12 years ago. This resolution does not go far enough, but I will acknowledge that it is a heck of a good start. I expect all of the other candidates for 2010 to rise up now and speak in support of this

There are other things that we need to be doing. Cutting the pay is not enough. Let’s go to a part-time legislature. Let’s talk about some real serious reforms. Let’s downsize government. Let’s cut down the cost of government, and ask ourselves what do we want our government to really be. What are the essential services that we want to provide and why? By golly, I am just so happy to see the Democrats over in the House taking leadership on ethics reform. I find it a bit ironic that the party that brought you Kwame Kilpatrick and Barnie Frank would be leading on ethics reform. I am from Macomb County and the headline today in Macomb County, “County board” led by Paul Gieleghem, former legislator, “has just voted to raise taxes for the first time in 27 years.” They say we just can’t afford to cut any further.

Governor Granholm promised she wouldn’t raise taxes. What is the first thing she did when she got elected? Join me, she raised taxes and then she promised she wouldn’t raise taxes again. Well, another promise from a politician. Speaker Pelosi is out there with an outlandish budget that is going to force Congress to raise taxes, and Harry Reid is joining in. And Obama, well, there he is, “We’re not raising taxes. This year we are going to take care of my friends because 12 percent of the economic stimulus program is actually going to the economic stimulus. We will raise taxes next year. We are going to take care of these guys this year—the guys who got me elected.”

The public is asking us for a life preserver and our leadership keeps throwing them an anchor at every level of government—the President, Congress, the U.S. Senate, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Gieleghem Macomb County. I speak the truth. I didn’t come here to be a lapdog for tax raisers.

I will speak to the resolution at hand, and I realize that the truth sometimes hurts. With that being said, again the public is asking for a life line; don’t throw them and anchor. Cut our pay today. OK, I am with you. Let’s do it 38 percent. Let’s downsize government. Let’s go to a part-time legislature. Let’s continue the theatrics of the election season. Media and general public, welcome to the opening season of Election Day 2010.

Senator Patterson’s second statement is as follows:

I will try not to bloviate my amendment to succinct. It amounts to two words—”supplemental salaries”. It is my attempt to make sure that we discharge our constitutional responsibility and embrace the SOCC committee’s recommendation in its entirety.

Rep. Cushingberry, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

The issue is as French Philosopher Rene Descartes ‘I think therefore I am.’ The problems of Michigan is not the salary of the elected officials - it’s the constant denigration of the value of the service of labor. The manipulation of symbols to head off the deform proposals of wholesale constitutional change of government is wrong headed. The old adage that you get what you pay for is as true as one of my mentors statement; Chairman George Montgomery said of a similar resolution that those who support such are worth less. The privilege of serving the people of Michigan is hard work when done properly. The sad fact is that term limits has daunted the aspirations of Michigan’s Constitutional parents dream - a truly people’s House wizened through rigor, reform, real references to history, arts, and sciences. No matter the cut in salary it will never be enough to greedy naysayer, anarchists, and mischievous self servers still trying to pull the wool over the publics eyes! We must better educate our legislators, judges, executives, and citizenry on the value of an activist government free of undue pressure- truly public servants.”

 Is this not just typical.  They voted to cut the salaries of "FUTURE" representatives who get elected.  Not the current seated representatives.  How many are term-limited out in the next election and cannot run again for office?  While many in the private sector who have managed to keep their jobs have currently have had their pay and benefits cut -- not so with our current seated representatives.  They never fail to look out for their own personal interests.  Do they?

 Yes, very typical.  I think the real problem is the amount of time they are there writing new laws.  I would rather pay them the same amount they make now and have them in session for only 30 days!  Of course the real solution is to have them in session for 30 days and get paid about $5,000.