|
|
| Author |
Message |
johnnie
|
|
And in other political news...
| 
Dec 3 16:26 UTC 2000 |
While we've all been preoccupied with the events surrounding the ongoing
Presidential election, the Michigan legislature has taken advantage of
the inattention and their lame-duck status to push forth all kinds of
interesting stuff:
--A pay raise for themselves of as much as 30 percent.
--The ol' concealed weapons permit bill. Both House and Senate have
passed it, but it's currently held up because the the two chambers can't
agree on whether to allow those convicted of drunk driving to carry.
"Law-abiding citizens", indeed. I'm certainly in favor of drunks being
allowed to carry around weapons.
--Emboldened by the failure of proposal 2, they've passed a bill to
forbid local governments from passing "living-wage" laws.
Hmm. Funny how I didn't hear about any of these plans during the
election campaign. I wonder what other goodies they have planned for
us.
|
| 106 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 1 of 106:
|
Dec 4 17:33 UTC 2000 |
I voted for proposal 2 because I really haven't got much respect for the state
government. The city, county and nation all seem much more rational (even
the Republican-dominated national house and senate). I don't know if it's
term limits, or if the state government is just important enough to attract
the ambitious without being important enough to filter out the fools.
|
russ
|
|
response 2 of 106:
|
Dec 7 01:31 UTC 2000 |
A ban on "living wage" ordinances is all to the good. It will
prevent idiots in places like Detroit from jacking city expenses
further beyond what their already-overburdened taxpayers can handle,
preventing even more population declines.
What most cities like Detroit need is a full privatization of all
city services other than police (and *maybe* fire). Let them pay
people whatever it takes to get employees. Making municipal jobs
into sinecures is good for nobody but the cronies.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 3 of 106:
|
Dec 7 17:22 UTC 2000 |
Perhaps, but isn't that for the citizens of Detroit to decide? I don't
see that the state has any business deciding how much the citizens of
Detroit want to tax themselves, even if they are "idiots".
|
johnnie
|
|
response 4 of 106:
|
Dec 7 17:44 UTC 2000 |
More activity from Lansing:
Both House and Senate have passed bills (I don't know if the bills are
identical or need "working out") that would effectively end insurance
coverage of abortions. Right now, employers have the right to "opt out"
of providing abortion coverage in their health plans. Under the new
law, employers would have to pay extra (opt in) if they want abortions
to be covered under their health plan, and they could not pass the cost
onto their employees (my guess, and probably that of the bill's
sponsers, is that most employers would not buy the extra coverage).
|
johnnie
|
|
response 5 of 106:
|
Dec 7 17:50 UTC 2000 |
Also, re #0: Apparently the concealed weapons law is also held up by a
dispute about whether or not concealed weapons should be banned from
churches and day care centers. The proponents of not banning seem to
think that banning from such places would make them a magnet for crazies
who want to go on a killing spree but are fearful of law-abiding
citizens with guns in office buildings, factories, restaurants, and post
offices.
|
mary
|
|
response 6 of 106:
|
Dec 7 17:51 UTC 2000 |
Why not?
|
mary
|
|
response 7 of 106:
|
Dec 7 17:52 UTC 2000 |
"Why not" was in response to johnnie's statement that "most
employers would not buy the extra coverage".
|
johnnie
|
|
response 8 of 106:
|
Dec 7 18:10 UTC 2000 |
It's no secret that companies tend to buy the least amount of health
coverage they can get away with, especially when they can't pass the
cost along to their employees. Lack of abortion coverage is not
something that most employees would complain about.
|