I see that revision was made after they first introduced the bill. Again, an earlier cut-off date is an improvement. For that I'll pass along my kudos.
But "the law might be thrown out down the road" argument?
Thrown out by whom?
Given the recent sea change in what those of us in the private sector deal with, in regards to benefits after the collapse of Michigan's economy, I highly doubt that you will see former elected officials going after the state for their benefits being eliminated. The party elites will be fearful of the heat generated by the public backlash against those individuals who do. That white-hot heat will be significantly more then enough of an incentive to get the elites to pull those people aside and do whatever it takes get them to cease and desist.
Don't believe me? Then ask anyone from the auto industry who has seen their benefits reduced or eliminated. I'm not implying that you're potentially looking at a Madison-style situation occurring in Lansing, but if you want to hand the 2012 elections over the democrats on a silver platter (for a start), then by all means, be my guest.
And if fear of lawsuits is really such a concern, then why wasn't that same concern brought up when the unnecessary pension tax hikes were discussed?
According to my back of the pizza box calculations, there are a far greater number of pensioners than politicians. From what I've seen of the vote results from the pension taxes, a lawsuit wasn't even on anyone's mind at that time. So why is it now?
I've said it above, and I'll say it again here, You're moving in the right direction, but you still have a long, long way to go.
Terminating a benefit that has no correlation to what is available in the private sector will yield significantly more savings than $20,000 and can realized and applied to the budget right away, not two years from now. It will also represents a significant reform that is long overdue.
Parent
