Senate Rejects Killing 3% Pay Hike Again

As Reported by MIRS:

The Senate took a second crack on March 17th, but again rejected a resolution nixing a 3-percent pay increase for unionized state employees as a way to plug a leaking state budget.

SCR 35, sponsored by Appropriations Chair Ron JELINEK (R-Three Oaks), went down 23-15 with only Sen. Mickey SWITALSKI (D-Roseville) crossing party lines. He called the resolution "the lesser of two evils."

The measure needs 26 votes to pass. A rejection requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers by April 10 or else the pay increase goes through.

The only difference from the first vote on March 3 was that Sen. Bruce PATTERSON (R-Canton) voted with his caucus this time instead of abstaining (See "Senate GOP Can't Muster Votes To Nix 3% Pay Hike," 3/3/10).

MIRS asked Senate Majority Leader Mike BISHOP (R-Rochester) why he brought up the resolution when he didn't have the votes. He said he didn't know that for sure, but acknowledged he didn't have a whip count of Dems since it's "hard to get a sincere response."

"The only thing to do was put up a vote," he said.

In the House, minority Republicans attempted to secure a vote to discharge a similar resolution rejecting the pay increase out of committee for a vote, but the motion was gaveled away without discussion or a vote.

"Giving public servants a three percent raise in this economy is Mad Hatter economics," said Rep. Chuck MOSS (R-Birmingham), the resolution's sponsor. "House Democrats need to quit Alice in Wonderland policies and return to the same harsh realities as everyone else. When non-government taxpayers are taking huge cuts, losing homes and jobs, for Michigan to go broke giving out raises is a mad party we can't afford. The Governor and Democrats need to come back out of the rabbit hole and rejoin reality."

Asked if the Democratic-controlled House would take up the 3 percent rate hike issue, House Speaker Andy DILLON (D-Redford Twp.) said he "didn't know."

"We've been meeting with labor and hearing about the different concessions they've made, but if the Senate can't get it done, it makes it easier for us," Dillon said.

On the Senate floor, Bishop said that since SCR 35 went down earlier this month, lawmakers have had a chance to hear from angry constituents who are facing pay cuts in the private sector.

"We have the responsibility pursuant to the constitution and reject this pay increase," he said.

Bishop placed blame for the failure squarely on Senate Democrats.

"I challenge the Senate Dems to show us which priority they want to cut and which tax they want us to raise to cover this pay increase," he said. "While 75 percent of the public wants to see this pay raise rejected, how can this elected body have the audacity to approve a $77.3 million increase while the rest of the state and the private sector continue to make reductions in benefits and salaries for their employees?"

Senate Minority Leader Mike PRUSI (D-Ishpeming) acknowledged that the resolution "plays quite well when you look at the polls that 75 percent of people want this to happen." But he said that the contract with state workers wasn't "negotiated willy-nilly" and state employees already have given up $700 million in concessions.

Jelinek argued that rejecting the raise is a better alternative than laying off workers.

Prusi also remarked that groups like Business Leaders for Michigan were lobbying lawmakers to dump the pay raise.

"It's disingenuous for people making seven-figure salaries to target middle-class workers," he said.

Bishop called that "an outrageous statement," arguing that the private sector has felt far more pain than the public sector.

"We revere our state employees," he added.

Bishop said after session that there could be a vote in the House and he'll still work to secure the three Democratic votes to pass the resolution. When asked who he'll be targeting, he said, "All of them."

But he added, "Probably not Sen. Prusi. He seems pretty entrenched."

The pay hike scheduled to begin at the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 on Oct. 1 comes with a $48 million General Fund price tag and a $77 million overall price tag. Republicans argued that it was an economic imperative to reject the hike in light of a $1.7 billion budget deficit.