BOOM!

The doting followers pass not one, not two, but five bills imposing brand-spankin' new taxes on seniors.

In his Mr. Roger's-esque voice he'll continue to stay on message about "fairness", while at the back of his mind he's thinking,"Letting people keep more of their own earnings? Not on my watch!"

BOOM! BOOM!

Sensing their "leader's" intentions, the House republicans are anxiously eager to please. Language locking the income tax at a higher rate is slipped into a bill to accomplish this very feat (Hint: Look under Sec. 51 (1) (g)(h)).

Wow! Was that fast.

"I believe that we should have government impede a private business, and use taxpayer dollars to build a second bridge to Canada," is the next item the governor will announce from his agenda.

{Insert cricket-like sound here.}

Are the effects of the kool aid are beginning to wear off? Are members of the once loyal guv-lover clique are slowly beginning to recover their senses?

I'll discuss that later.

But what I will get into is something that has been languishing around Lansing for nearly as long as the Canadien/NITC/DRIC/Gordie Howe Bridge, and that eliminating Lansing's golden parachute for former members.

The idea has been floating around for nearly a decade now. Some 26 bills have been introduced, for some mysterious reason; none of them have ever gone anywhere.

Who'd have thought?

Fast-forward to today.

After their fervor to raise taxes, republicans are apparently getting their act in gear, and finally addressing the "fairness" of this very issue: lifetime health care benefits for only working for a very short period of time (good luck finding THAT in the private sector).

Sorry people, but you could've done so much more, much much sooner.

Rep. Dian Slavens introduced HB-4081 back in January to address this matter during this session. It went to committee, where Rep. McMillin promptly sat on it.

"We've had to deal with a budget and other important issues," McMillin said.

Millions of dollars in easy savings are not an important issue?!? C'mon, Rep. McMillin? Do you really feel that we are that stupid?

Rep. Johnson introduced a similar bill the very next day, HB-4087, which pretty much does the same thing, but takes effect for those elected after November 10, 2010 (Rep. Slaven's bill had earlier cut-off: Jan 30, 2009). Sen. Jones introduced SB-26 one day after Rep. Johnson, and has similar language to his.

This week, after a very long and unnecessary delay, the Michigan House passed HB-4087: 107-3. We'll see what happens in the Senate.

As for the more part I spoke about?

Why even impose a cut-off date at all?

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: All lifetime benefits for all elected officials are terminated effective immediately.

Done.

B-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but, "we didn't want to contend with any lawsuits," will be their pat response.

Lawsuits?

Oh, like the ones that the seniors are working on for that unnecessary pension tax hike you just recently passed a few weeks ago?

Where was the concern during that time about lawsuits?

Sorry, but you'll lose even more credibility if you go with responses like that.