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.

Could we have passed a law banning benes already vested?  Yes - but in politician form, that would have meant the whole law would have been thrown out down the road...and wahlah - all politicians, including us, would have retained their retiree benes.

No.  Wrong.  Pre '07 in Office was the hanging fruit.  As long as Senate Majority Leader Richardville-R, Minority Leader Whitmer-D, along with Pappageorge-R, Green-R, Jansen-R, Robertson-R, and House Rep. Gilbert-R were exempted in talks between the House and Senate; the deal was thus cut.

Why not just be forthright and say that Republican Senate Leaderlessship would've mothballed the vote?  It's not like it's some big secret that Richardville votes like a RINO catering to unions, or has what passes for balls anyway.

C'mon, Rep. McMillin... get with the Twelfth Commandment program already.  It's for the good of the Party.  Party Principles in comparison to their votes today?  Ya really want to go there?  "thrown out down the road"?

In FY 2009-10, the MLRS spent $5.3 million to provide health insurance benefits to 348 retired members and their dependents.  Of that total, members contributed approximately 2.9% and the MLRS paid the remaining costs through current employer contributions and investment income.

The only upside to this if it actually passes the Senate is that it eliminates the straw man term limit debate.  Outside of that, now we all have to watch for what stinky return of favor vote will be coming from the House.  My guess is it will be on the Senates 71.42% increased "tipping fee" tax.

Now, Rep. McMillin, if you are so gung-ho in the quest of "pushing for significant reforms and savings", a suggestion for you is to get your Majority GOP cronies that are in control for the time being to turn this state Blue.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.  (U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9)

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted.  (Michigan Constitution, Article 1, Section 10)