Donate
 to this campaign

In order to reduce costs and minimize the damage done by the state Legislature, a lot of people would like to make it part time. I think it would be better to eliminate the state Senate.

Eliminating the Senate will save about $50 million a year. Here is the cost breakdown:

• $32 million for salaries and benefits for 38 senators and their staff
• $3 million for the Senate Fiscal Agency
• $2 million for the pension system (this is an estimate; the total for the Senate and the House of Representatives combined is $4.4 million)

Also, less than the current $11.9 million should be required for the Legislative Council, a bipartisan committee of the Legislature providing services such as bill drafting and research, and less than the current $11.2 million should be required to manage, operate, maintain and repair the Capitol and the legislative office buildings. These figures are from the Fiscal Year 2007 Executive Budget, page D51.

Each Michigan citizen is represented by two legislators: a Representative and a Senator. There are 38 senators and 110 representatives. Each represents a district drawn to include a certain number of people: 90,000 for senators and 262,000 for representatives. This makes Michigan's senate very much unlike the U.S. Senate, where there are two senators per state and they serve at large. Since its members represent states rather than same-size groups of people, the U.S. senate is not a democratic institution. In my mind, this makes Michigan's senate superior to the U.S. senate. It also makes it redundant. Why do Michigan citizens need two representatives? One representative is enough for me. Actually, I'd like to eliminate the Legislature entirely and go to direct democracy, but eliminating the Senate is a good start.

Eliminating the Senate means that legislation will only have to pass one house and will thereby make the process more efficient. Currently (September 2007), the Democrats control the House of Representatives and the Republicans control the Senate, and after months of wrangling, they have yet to come up with a balanced budget for the next fiscal year. According to a 9/10/2007 article in the State Journal, the Senate Majority Leader says "The House forced us into a position of not getting anything done and perhaps moving us closer to a government shutdown. . ." while the House Speaker says "[the Senate Majority Leader] walked away from a great opportunity for a bipartisan outcome. So the shutdown will be on [his] hands." We wouldn't be in this embarrassing mess if legislation didn't have to have the approval of two legislative bodies.

An alternative to eliminating the state Senate is eliminating the House of Representatives. Since the House has 110 members and the Senate 38, the savings would be much more. This would, however, require each legislator to carry a larger burden of work.

Nebraska is currently the only state with a unicameral legislature, consisting of 49 senators. Each represents a district containing about 35,000 people. All Canadian provinces are unicameral.

The Michigan constitution (Article XII, Section 3) requires that, every 16 years, voters be asked whether a constitutional convention should be held. The next vote will be in 2010. That will be our opportunity to create a legislature that more effectively represents the people of Michigan.

Other changes to the Legislature:

I would also eliminate term limits. I don't think it is fair to the voters to deny them the opportunity to return to office a Representative they think is doing a good job. And I don't think it is fair to force a Representative to find a new vocation after 6 years when his constituents want him to continue.

For new Representatives, I would eliminate pensions and stop all insurances when they leave office. To treat all Representatives equitably, the salaries of new Representatives would have to be higher than those who took office before retirement benefits were ended. However, this could be achieved by adjusting downward the salaries of current Representatives.