Heard on the Hill
As you may know, Rep. Dave Clark, the sponsor of that hated piece of legislation last year that strips state workers of post-retirement health insurance they earned by banking their sick leave, has said he wants to do the same thing for legislators.
After being accused of hypocrisy because state lawmakers who serve at least four years in office get either discounted or free health insurance for themselves and their spouses after they hit age 62, Clark has introduced a bill for the 2006 session that would end that perk.
But not so fast.
Talk floating around legislative circles recently indicates some lawmakers are considering voting for the bill to show how magnanimous they are, but only after it is amended to grandfather into the existing system those legislators - themselves - who have already been in office long enough to qualify for the benefit. In other words, the sacrifice will be made by legislators elected in the future, not the ones who will be voting on the bill this winter.
At this point, the proposed amendment to exempt current lawmakers from making the sacrifice is in the rumor stage, so it still might not happen.
But it wouldn't be the first time legislators pulled a fast one on the public.
Remember in the early 1990s when serial candidate Merrill Cook began circulating a referendum petition that would put term limits on elected office holders, including legislators? Remember how the Legislature passed term limit legislation to squelch the petition drive? And remember how, when those term limits were about to end some legislative careers, they repealed the law?
After being accused of hypocrisy because state lawmakers who serve at least four years in office get either discounted or free health insurance for themselves and their spouses after they hit age 62, Clark has introduced a bill for the 2006 session that would end that perk.
But not so fast.
Talk floating around legislative circles recently indicates some lawmakers are considering voting for the bill to show how magnanimous they are, but only after it is amended to grandfather into the existing system those legislators - themselves - who have already been in office long enough to qualify for the benefit. In other words, the sacrifice will be made by legislators elected in the future, not the ones who will be voting on the bill this winter.
At this point, the proposed amendment to exempt current lawmakers from making the sacrifice is in the rumor stage, so it still might not happen.
But it wouldn't be the first time legislators pulled a fast one on the public.
Remember in the early 1990s when serial candidate Merrill Cook began circulating a referendum petition that would put term limits on elected office holders, including legislators? Remember how the Legislature passed term limit legislation to squelch the petition drive? And remember how, when those term limits were about to end some legislative careers, they repealed the law?
1:35 PM
| 
5 Comments:
Was it Representative Clark that received a reward for introducing the bill that will save the state the most money during the session? No wonder state workers revere him so much!!
Excuse me, not a *reward*, an *award*. I doubt that the one he wants to introduce this year, no matter how it gets shaped, would save nearly as much money!!
But I actually think, Paul, that you need to give some of us (me, raising my hand) a remedial class in Utah politics and name recognition!! Who's who in state and local government, etc., and what it means to me. There are many times :::blush, blush::: when I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about, which makes it difficult to respond. Now, that might be what you are striving for.........I don't know.......
drmom, There's a lot of us who wonder who our reps are. I certainly have rarely, if ever seen mine. I do hear a lot about their politics though:).
drmom, There's a lot of us who wonder who our reps are. I certainly have rarely, if ever seen mine. I do hear a lot about their politics though:).
Post a Comment
<< Home