House Flips on Retiree Health Subsidy

By: Michael Peltier News Service of Florida | Posted: April 3, 2010 12:15 AM
THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSSEE, April 1, 2010…. Democrats won a temporary battle, but ultimately were unable to prevent Republicans from voting to cut a monthly subsidy for state retirees in on Thursday.

The cut, if included in the final budget when the House appropriations bill passed Thursday is reconciled with one passed earlier this week by the Senate, would mean the loss of up to $150 a month that nearly 250,000 retired teachers, police and other government retirees get to help them pay for insurance. The cut would save the state $224 million.

Voting Thursday on a series of budget-related bills, the House at first stunned the Republican leadership when it voted 59-57 to preserve the subsidy. The vote went beyond the issue itself - it also threw the budget out of balance.

Democrats were aided by 15 Republicans who broke ranks with their leadership to reject the proposal (HB 5701), which would deprive a retiree with 30 years or more of public service of $1,800 a year. The payout, which is based on length of service, is $106 a month on average.

But Republicans, who overwhelmingly control the House, began immediately working to reverse the vote through their control of the chamber's rules. Following a half-hour recess, the House voted on a motion to reconsider the bill and took it back up. This time, four Republicans who voted against the measure, Reps. Ed Homan, R-Temple Terrace, Charles McBurney, R-Jacksonville, Paige Kreegal, R-Punta Gorda, and Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, switched their votes.

That combined with three affirmative votes from Republican Reps .Sandy Adams, R-Oviedo, Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando and Kurt Kelly, R-Belleview – who were not on the floor for the first vote - tipped the balance in favor of the cut, with the bill then passing 63-56. Rep. Baxter Troutman, R-Winter Haven, switched his vote from yes to no.

“Several members I think in the heat of the moment, some said they pressed the wrong button, others said they didn’t mean to vote against it,” said House Majority Leader Adam Hasner, R-Boca Raton.  “We’re going to work this out in conference.”

But Democrats couldn't contain their glee, and planned to try to make a campaign issue of the vote.

Rep. Ron Saunders, D-Key West, said House Republicans who voted for the premium hike shot themselves in both feet. He noted that if the subsidy cut - which isn't in the Senate budget - ends up not in the final bill, the vote against state retirees, who vote in large numbers, was politically unnecessary.

“They want to use that as a bargaining tool with the Senate?” Saunders said. “Good for them. We’ll use it as a campaign tool for us.”

Democrats were already doing that. Not long after the vote, a House Democratic spokesman likened the Republican position to increasing taxes on hard-working retirees, anathema to a GOP that prides itself on being anti-tax.

Two Republicans who held their ground in voting with Democrats against the cut, said retiree benefits are not the place to make political statements. They also questioned the wisdom of bringing the entire issue up for a vote.

“I thought we had enough money in reserves that we didn't have to go back to promises that were made to folks when they were hired,” said Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, whose Panhandle district is heavy with government retirees.

Rep. Kevin Ambler, R-Tampa, said other budget cuts could have absorbed the costs associated with the subsidy. He also said leaders would likely drop the proposed cut in reconciling the two budgets.

“So why are you upsetting these people, balancing the budget on their backs when it's probably going to get fixed in conference anyway?” he said.

Comments (1011)

12:36PM OCT 9TH 2010
Hello! eeaaead interesting eeaaead site!
3:31AM AUG 18TH 2010
Hello! gdadfdd interesting gdadfdd site!
1:55PM APR 17TH 2010
Hello! cbfcckk interesting cbfcckk site!
6:56PM APR 14TH 2010
5:24PM APR 14TH 2010
3:58PM APR 14TH 2010
10:20AM APR 13TH 2010
OK..I laugh when people describe state workers as not living in the "real" world.
If there is such a thing as a"real" world, I gave up "Real" world salaries to work for the state. In return for lower wages, we were promised certain benefits upon retirement. It was a trade off. If I was earning more money during my career, I would have been able to invest more.
7:08AM APR 13TH 2010
l4Jwoz isyhwepztzpg, [url=http://iejjdwaexeds.com/]iejjdwaexeds[/url], [link=http://dqaqsogpwetg.com/]dqaqsogpwetg[/link], http://yfelgpycdjqb.com/
12:15PM APR 6TH 2010
Well, we retirees in the "real" world have had our pension benefits cut over the years so why not in the public sector?? By the way, we couldn't carry over vacation days to get a $200,000 check at the end of 30 years either! You use 'em or lose 'em!!!
8:07AM APR 9TH 2010
Great! Now, the state republicans have divided state retirees and so-called
"real" world retirees. I guess my community college teaching for 37 years of real students was in la-la land.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.