Democrat-backed bills in Michigan addressing pensions, health-care costs and public assistance remain stalled before heading to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for signing.
The bills -- House Bills 4665, 4666 and 4667 -- were passed by Democrats in their final days of the Michigan House majority, with bipartisan support. But they're now on hold as Republicans conduct what they call a "legal review" before sending them to the governor's desk. The bills include adding corrections officers to the state police pension system.
Richard Cardenas, director of the Michigan State Employees Association's Public Safety Division, said he sees that as a critical step for public safety.
"Obviously we want to have the best candidates coming into this profession," he said, "because it's no secret, sometimes we might be put into situations that we have to make split-second decisions under very stressful conditions."
Other media sources report Republican House Speaker Matt Hall questioned whether a new Legislature can address the actions of the previous one, so he stressed the need for the legal review before making a decision.
Sending bills from a previous session to the governor is rare. The bills in question passed the Michigan House and Senate, after hundreds of public-safety officers and supporters lobbied state lawmakers. Despite the stall, Cardenas said he's pleased with the bills' progress so far.
"To get it through the House and the Senate is obviously a huge accomplishment," he said. "There's been several attempts to get a better retirement package through the process and unfortunately, it's fallen short several times. And this is the farthest that we've ever seen it get."
In Michigan, after passing both chambers, a bill must be sent to the governor, who then has 14 days to sign or veto it. However, there's no set time for when the bill must be presented to the governor.
Disclosure: National Public Pension Coalition contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Livable Wages/Working Families, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana lawmakers are considering a bill to allow state funds to invest in Bitcoin.
House Bill 1322 moved forward to the full House for debate.
Rep. Jake Teshka, R-South Bend, authored the bill, which would allow public employee and teacher retirement funds to invest in certain Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.
"Really, what we're asking is just for folks to come and tell us how blockchain technology could benefit state government and state government processes," Teshka explained. "At this point, there is no mandate in here for any agency to participate."
The bill also calls for a study on how blockchain technology could improve state operations. Supporters said it could lower costs, improve security and create efficiencies. Lawmakers backing the bill argued Bitcoin offers long-term potential despite market fluctuations. Opponents have raised concerns about financial risks, saying Bitcoin is unpredictable.
Teshka noted Bitcoin has outperformed traditional assets over time. He admitted it is volatile but called it a strong investment option.
Rep. Chris Campbell, D-Lafayette, called it a major risk for retirees. She questioned how lawmakers could ensure it was a safe investment for state funds.
"When I asked online about cryptocurrency investments, it seemed like they were really discouraged," Campbell observed. "Crypto is volatile and carries substantial risk. There's a lot of scamming associated with it."
Teshka said the state would carefully study the risks before making any decisions. He called Bitcoin the future of finance but stressed Indiana would proceed cautiously. The bill awaits debate in the House.
get more stories like this via email
Lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a package of bills designed to lower costs and expand health care access.
Senate Bill 3 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, made up of experts in economics, health care, supply chain management and academia, with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Its aim would be to cut costs and protect people's health and finances, by keeping prescription drug prices fair and transparent.
Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield, cosponsored the legislation.
"When I talk to people across my district -- and I spend a lot of time going door-to-door talking to people, asking them what's important to them, what kind of issues are they facing -- 'being able to afford health care' is the most common question I get," Shink reported.
As far back as 2017, it is estimated about one-third of Michigan residents ages 19-64 stopped taking their medications as prescribed because of cost concerns. The new legislation is in the Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee.
Research shows more than 100 brand-name drugs won't have a money-saving generic available any time soon, and for some, not even for another five years. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has already topped $603 billion, rising 16% between 2016 and 2021.
Shink argued the proposal would help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable.
"Sometimes the drug companies are just charging too much because they can," Shink asserted. "This board is going to take a look at drug prices, find the outliers and then help resolve the situation."
If the legislation is passed, Michigan would become the seventh state to tackle rising prescription drug costs with a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Companion bills would ensure doctors and insurance companies abide by the board's decisions.
get more stories like this via email
A January survey of Montanans showed a large majority support workers' rights, even as several bills that could affect them move through the state Legislature.
The bipartisan firm Red America, Blue America Research asked about 500 Montanans their thoughts on labor and found 72% think unions help, rather than hurt, Montana's economy.
John Davis, founding partner of the polling firm, said support was even stronger across more specific questions.
"When we had asked a question about changing laws that would weaken employment protection -- so examples being safe work environments, wages, benefits -- 80% of respondents said they do not support efforts to reduce those protections," Davis reported.
Among respondents, 91% said Montana's workers should be able to join a union if they choose to and 87% said they would be less likely to support a legislator who voted to weaken workers' rights.
The survey also found most respondents were unaware lawmakers are currently considering legislation around allowing highly automated, driverless vehicles to operate on public roads in Montana.
"Driving is a major function of a significant percent of the American workforce," Davis pointed out. "So if that were to change, this would have a direct impact on people's livelihoods."
Of those who responded to the survey, 76% said they would not be comfortable sharing the road with driverless delivery vans.
Jason Small, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, said the status of union rights is an indicator of all workers' rights in the state.
"When the unions are in there, protecting workers' rights, it's not just the unions themselves they're protecting," Small emphasized. "We are the gold standard and we set the wages and the packages for everybody else. So, if we start to fail, the rest of the workers also begin failing."
get more stories like this via email