Eliminating state senate not a joke
I'll bet the news that the Barry County Democratic Party proposed eliminating the Michigan Senate brought smirks and snickers from Republicans and from comrades in their own party.
Indeed, when the local county's resolutions were presented to the state Democratic Party for consideration, this one apparently didn't get very far. Unlike most, though, I'm not laughing. I think this is serious business and I believe the resolution should be given more than a wink and a giggle. I think we need to stop and think about the pros and cons of reducing the number of our legislators in Lansing from 148 to 110. If we think about it long enough, we just might be willing to entertain this possibility as a step in the right direction for better government and fiscal responsibility. Once again, these are critical times and we've got to think outside the box and stop defending an inadequate status quo that in the future could be our undoing.
Right now we have 110 state legislators, and ours is the 87th District. It would seem 110 people and a governor would be good enough to handle the state's business.
The senate has 38 members, and it has proven lately to be a stepping stone for state legislators who are successful enough to get broader support after being term limited with six years as legislators. The only difference between a state legislator and a state senator then is the size of the geographic area that person represents.
Status quo defenders would hold that we need checks and balances with the two different chambers in Lansing. They also would hold that we need to follow the national model established by our Founding Fathers in deliberations of the Constitutional Convention more than 200 years ago. The framers of the U.S. Constitution certainly made compromising famous when they agreed to the Virginia Plan, to have one chamber (Congress) represent a certain population, and to the New Jersey Plan, to allow each state to send two representatives to Washington D.C. But there is a huge difference between this national model and the state's. One chamber has an equal number from each separate state. There is no such need within a state. The national model has enabled the Congress and Senate to grow into two different bodies. I maintain that in Michigan, there aren't huge differences between state legislators and state senators. Furthermore, since voters statewide approved term limits, all we've seen is a game of musical chairs for public officials, like former State Senator William VanRegenmorter, who is now State Representative William
VanRegenmorter. Then there's former State Rep. Patty Birkholz, now State Sen. Patty Birkholz.
The pay for a senator and representative is the same, just shy of $80,000 a year. And the benefits? Some of the best health care you can get. Nebraska more than 70 years ago opted to do this strange thing of moving to a unicameral (one-house) legislature and those Cornhuskers don't seem to be experiencing a lot of troubles in governance, at least no more than any other state.
So why should we seriously consider this? In a word: money. If you haven't been aware of Michigan's financial troubles over the last three years, I'd like to know what planet you've been on. Only this past month we've heard a lot of bickering over where to cut, and too often very important services and programs are being reduced or eliminated.
I suspect an area that could be cut without the people suffering a lot as a result could be the Michigan Senate. Think of the money we'd save. With 38 senators at $80,000 apiece, the state would save $3.04 million a year just in salary. Add to that the health care, retirement and expense packages each of them get. Then add the people who work on their staffs, their salaries and benefits. Then add those posh offices they work in, get rid of the building by selling it and put as much as $50 million (according to estimates) back into the general fund. My goodness, just by eliminating one chamber of state government, we might be able to balance the state budget. And what would we lose? More unecessary or irrelevant legislation?
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Republican-dominated State Legislature have been quarreling for a long time over where budget cuts can be made with the least amount of pain. The answer lies right in their midst. However, don't expect state senators or even legislators (wannabe senators) to do the right thing and eliminate themselves. They've been at the public trough for awhile and they like it there too much to give it up. It just rankles me when I see overpaid politicians fighting over which essential government service to take away from us when they are a big cause of the problem.
Maybe we, the people, should get a petition going to eliminate the senate and put the question on the state ballot for the 2006 election. At the very least, it would get lawmakers' attention and serve them notice that we are not amused by their dawdling and self-serving activities. If the Democrats and Republicans won't do the right thing, let's take our government back.
Once again, yours for better government...
Fred Jacobs, vice president, J-Ad Graphics
Permalink | 5 comments