Two Republican State Senators want to cut one of the primary benefits for Wisconsin lawmakers who are State employees:
Sens. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) and Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) unveiled a bill today that would end the ability of elected officials and cabinet secretaries to turn unused sick leave into a retirement benefit.
The problem with this is someone like Alberta Darling doesn’t need the health insurance benefits in question because she’s already wealthy enough to not need it.
Sen. Kanavas even went on to say that benefits should be eliminated all together for legislators. Again, that’s great if you’re a wealthy lawmaker, but what about lawmakers who you know, might need that health insurance down the road?
“No state office holder should be receiving sick time benefits. These people should be elected for public service and not personal gain. I am going to fight hard to eliminate this loophole in the law.”
What about citizens who want to run for public office though but can’t afford it? For those legislators that have a fair amount of pre-existing wealth, fringe benefits like health insurance might seem like a waste of resources.
But if legislation like what Sen. Kanavas and Sen. Darling is passed, it will only raise the bar for those who choose to run for public office in Wisconsin. No longer will it be a simply a matter of personal sacrifice and dedication, but potential candidates would also have to weigh the fiscal sacrifices of running for office.
Imagine how many good potential candidates would be kept out of State politics if they had to not only take a pay cut, but lose benefits like health insurance? Anyone with a family would be automatically precluded from running unless they were wealthy enough to pay for their own health insurance and didn’t need the benefits most of us rely on from our jobs.
And that’s exactly what we need less of in Madison and Washington D.C. – super wealthy politicians who have no idea how important things like insurance are to average people like you and me. That’s why this proposal is a bad idea for Wisconsin. We need more “regular” citizens in office and fewer wealthy politicians.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
I’ve been thinking about this one a lot since you talked about it at lunch last week, and I think that we should get rid of the sick days altogether. Obviously, the voters can hold people accountable if they never show up. However, I may buy the arguement that we should be paying our legislators more. It is a very demanding job, depending on how you do it. Some work very hard, but many are also working another job at the same time. MPS Board Members may work harder than our state legislators, but they get paid way less. It seems to me that the system is a but flawed all around.
Dan!! I thought for sure I would see something on your site about Barack Obama’s performance last night on MNF. Did that seem very presidential?? Or was he just trying to relate to the common man! I thought it was funny!
I could possibly see your point if you could name just a handful of other jobs which let you convert unused sick leave into a retirement. (I don’t even *get* sick leave, myself!) I’m tired of legislators with their huge retirement packages and great health care plans saying there’s no problem with our current health care system.
Personally, I’m all for cutting back on legislator’s perks. If they had to live like the rest of us, maybe they’d be a little more interested in the plight of the common man. I’ve always said the surest way to simplify the tax code is to make it a legal mandate that legislators have to do *all* their own taxes.
Every state job in Wisconsin lets you turn unused sick time into insurance credits after retirement Arlen. Legislators and others earn those credits at a slower rate than, say, a sociology professor at UW La Crosse.
I don’t think cutting back on benefits for legislators is the answer for a lot of the reasons I stated above. We need more people in office who can’t afford to lose their health insurance, not candidates who are so rich they don’t need insurance at all. For the most part, I think Bill hit the nail on the head. Pay legislators more up front money to compare with what they could earn in the private sector and scale back some of the benefits without cutting them wholesale.
Better yet, maybe someone should be asking why health care is so darn expensive in the first place? Imagine how much money the State could save with universal health care.
Dan, Increasing their pay and perks and eliminating the tips will get you to universal health care faster than anything. See:
http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=5998
Jack,
Thanks for the comment and link to your own piece about this topic, I think we’re on the same page regarding equalization of benefits and pay.
I too think that the common man should be running for office. The common man should be a group of my “Peers” on the jury for any trial, the common man should receive the same benefits that any other common man gets.
problem: who is the commom man. According to Milwaukee journal, the common man is the $30k a year man and the Madison common man is making $65k a year.
Sick days in our firm are 3 a year, I have NEVER taken them, hell I do not take vacations either. But some do, if they are offered they should not be carried over, that is a method of telling us i am banking them to get paid, no one should have that. Yet I also want anyone who is sick to stay home, don’t infect me or the staff.
so in short what I am saying is make them a use them or lose them proposition, politicians poor or wealthy do not need to be paid on top of their salary for being sick. I’m a CEO and I dont use them, why should they?
Christopher, the perks represent $3.2 million of taxpayer money. The corporate our politicians dole out represents $4 billion. Let’s worry about the big stuff. Only public funding of campaigns will get politicians working for the “comman man”.
As for a jury of “peers,” OJ Simpson will agree with you.
Sorry, I meant the “corporate welfare” our politicians dole out….