by Gongwer News Service
July 24, 2009

If it took the staunch cold war anti-communist Richard Nixon to open China, if it took white politician F.W. De Klerk to trigger the final end of apartheid in South Africa, will it take Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon to face up to labor?

The Redford Township legislator set off a firestorm when he proposed a week ago that all state and local employees, including public school employees, operate under a single health insurance plan.

The fact that it is a Democrat who has made the proposal, or (depending on one’s viewpoint) renewed a proposal first made some years ago, is at heart what has electrified the debate thus far. Because one of the most powerful leaders in the legislature has proposed it, the idea automatically has a fair chance of winning in the Democratically controlled House. If it wins in the House, it will surely win in the Senate, and then what does Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm do with the proposal?

The Michigan Education Association has gained the most attention for its opposition, for the now famous memo from Executive Director Lu Battaglieri saying the teacher’s union was at war now over the proposal, which the memo said is anti-labor and would deliver the governor’s office as well as the legislature to the Republicans in 2010.

Other Democrats and liberals have sounded a wounded tone in reacting to the proposal, not wanting necessarily to isolate Mr. Dillon but not happy with him either. Progress Michigan, for example, called the idea a needless distraction when Congress is debating a national health care proposal.

That the proposal picked up support from Republicans, especially Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester), doesn’t particularly help the Democratic cause. Mr. Bishop’s offer to start the bills in the Senate actually might hurt their serious chance of passing, giving them a more Republican tint when what gives the proposal greater credence is its Democratic origin.

But Mr. Dillon has also picked up some important center-left support, possibly best summarized by Detroit Free Press columnist Rochelle Riley’s comment that she was “so in love with” with Mr. Dillon after he made the proposal.

And the Center for Michigan, with its core of important centrist Democrats and Republicans, has come out strongly in favor of the proposal, with a letter released Friday praising Mr. Dillon’s “imagination and courage.”

Finally, what to make of Ms. Granholm’s comments on the proposal? She criticized it in a press conference…kinda. She said it wouldn’t generate any immediate savings, and immediate savings are what the state needs now in confronting the 2009-10 budget. Fine, does that mean she is in favor or opposed to it? She said she had lots of questions about the proposal. Okay, again, is she in favor or opposed? She said she had no problem with the notion of pooling, as this proposal would do with the state’s 400,000 public workers. Once more, support or opposition?

Most telling, she was quick to leap to the defense of state workers, saying they had sacrificed in order to help the state budget. They had contributed at the office, she said. What category of public worker was noticeably missing from that defense? Teachers.

Mr. Battaglieri’s memo is certainly not overwrought hyperbole as far as the MEA is concerned. If the proposal were to become law, the insurance end of the MEA, the Michigan Education Special Services Association, could be most affected.

Remember, just two years ago with Democratic backing the legislature passed and Ms. Granholm signed legislation requiring MESSA to begin issuing actual cost data on individual school districts. That marked one of the first times the association lost with its core supporters, and that move was critical in winning support from enough Republicans so that the tax increases of that year passed.

Having lost once already during a budget crisis, Mr. Battaglieri can certainly be excused for worrying about the proposal during this budget crisis.

Not mentioned prominently, however, is the fact that Mr. Dillon’s proposal has tapped into a vein of public sentiment that often gets ignored. Rightly or wrongly, many people in the public feel public servants haven’t yet taken a hit in this economy. They are struggling with layoffs, state workers are dealing with furloughs. Anyone who has talked to rank-and-file union workers will hear them complain about state workers and teachers and ask when will they start to give back, too. Again, the public mood is not necessarily factually correct, but to have influence it doesn’t have to be correct. And if the argument is that this proposal will save money and not affect overall benefits, then the average person will likely say, so what’s the problem?

However, all this argument and worry may be rhetorical at best if the proposal is much delayed. Mr. Dillon has, as one lawmaker said decades ago, “the inertia” with him. The proposal’s best hope of passage is probably part of the budget discussions, when it can be tied to overall budget decisions. That means bills have to be produced and introduced soon, or the proposal may be just one more grand idea that ends as a trivia question.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.