Explanation of my Longevity Vote

I’m sad to report we did not have the support required within the house to call a joint session to override the governor’s veto of the longevity bonus. I made a campaign promise to support the bonus, and I kept my promise. Keeping promises has a price, and I paid that price. Promises don’t mean much unless they’re hard to keep.

Keeping my promise required voting in opposition to my majority caucus’ position, in what the caucus defined as a “procedural vote.” The caucus believed the vote was “procedural” because ostensibly it was only to call for a joint session of the legislature – but I maintained it was a “substantive” vote (in which I was free to vote any way I wanted) because the only purpose for calling the joint session was to override the longevity bonus veto. I gave the example: If a = b, and b = c, then a = c. The caucus disagreed, and I voted consistent to my campaign promise. As a result I suffered sanctions from majority caucus, which I accepted.

One can argue the merits of the longevity bonus, or whether the bonus was “fair” or not, but loss of the bonus has caused unanticipated hardships to many older people and their families. The your support, or at least your understanding, of my vote is requested.

I have supported the governor in all but 2 votes: 1) The longevity bonus 2) doubling the campaign contribution limit to candidates from $500 to $1000. I think that speaks for itself.