« Ind. Econ. Dev. - Proposed Duke/Cinergy merger sees some opposition | Main | Law - U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments tomorrow in Wisconsin Right to Life »

Monday, January 16, 2006

Ind. Law - "Kittle Blasts Legislator Health Care for Life; 'Needs to go back to Zero'"

"Kittle Blasts Legislator Health Care for Life; 'Needs to go back to Zero'" is the headline to a brief report today in Howey Political Report Online:

As out-going Indiana Republican Chairman Jim Kittle Jr., was leaving his Friday press conference, he told HPR how disturbed he was about the health insurance for life deal legislators secretly passed several years ago.

“That needs to go back to zero,” Kittle said, saying he knew nothing of the deal that has led to speculation that it could cost Indiana taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Kittle called it an “inappropriate perk.” * * *

Kittle's comments came after a series of stormy caucus meetings in the Senate late last week where members were told that House Speaker Brian Bosma is about to end the perk for House members.

The lifetime health insurance plan covers everyone in the legislative branch and was passed several years ago without any public hearings. The development has volcanic political implications and may have resulted in one legislator, State Rep. Bob Hoffman, announcing his retirement last week.

Sources tell HPR that Senate members of both parties are livid at both Bosma and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Garton: Bosma for wanting to pull the plug on the program, and Garton for his role in fashioning the luxury perk that even covers ex-spouses.

Garton told the Evansville Courier & Press that he has actuarial data on the potential cost of the program, said to range anywhere from hundreds of millions to $1 billion, but refused to share that information. State Auditor Connie Nass is awaiting contract approval from the State Budget Agency before she can begin an actuarial study, but told HPR that cost for taxpayers will be "hefty."

The Evansville Courier&Press story referenced is available here. It does indeed say that Sen. Garton refused to provide access to "an actuarial study on the potential future costs of the benefit." However, the C&P story also reports:
Nass chose a bidder and drew up a contract, but the Indiana State Budget Agency announced Tuesday [Jan. 10th] that they would not sign off on the study.
Somewhere in the past few days I read (and was reminded of by Howey's quote that the threat of change "may have resulted in one legislator, State Rep. Bob Hoffman, announcing his retirement last week") that some legislators were predicting mass retirement if their health care benefit were to be curbed. Apparently, their thinking is that the health benefits that retiring and retired legislators granted themselves (and their spouses, former spouses, staff, etc.) will never be curtailed, no matter what ...

And indeed, there may be a Catch-22 here. The remedy, if you are unhappy with your legislator, is always said to be: vote him/her out of office.

But that remedy seems ineffective in this case, perhaps by design.

Here, unless changes are made, if you vote your legislator out of office because you are unhappy with the "secret life-time health benefits", or if he/she up and retires, then he/she will retain the benefits.

In addition, as pointed out in this ILB entry from earlier today, voting your legislator out of office may be no easy matter, unless he/she has a viable primary challenger. And the deadline for primary filing is only a month away.

And there is more. There are many parallels between this Indiana story and the "midnight pay raise" that Pennsylvania legislators voted themselves last year that led to a voter revolt. More to follow a later entry ...

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 16, 2006 04:19 PM
Posted to Indiana Law | Legislative Benefits