You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-9   10-34   35-59   60-84   85-106      
 
Author Message
johnnie
And in other political news... Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Dec 7 17:51 UTC 2000

Why not?

mary
response 7 of 106: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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.
ashke
response 9 of 106: Mark Unseen   Dec 7 18:21 UTC 2000

I'm more worried about non-medical personel who have a financial goal making
decisions about what procedures are covered by medical insurance.  Not even
the abortion issue, but approval or pre-approval for operations and hospital
stays.  It's getting rediculous
 0-9   10-34   35-59   60-84   85-106      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss