With state session over, lawmakers speak out

Lawmakers from the Hannibal region agree there was good and bad from the just-completed legislative session. (See related article about the legislature’s final-day activity.)
Here is a sampling of what some of them had to say:
Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-6, of Palmyra, said “some good things happened,” but there were too many “missed opportunities,” especially in healthcare and school funding.
Rep. Tom Shively, D-8, of Shelbyville, agreed that changes were needed in healthcare and that education wasn’t given enough funding.
“When you’re in the minority and you don’t have some of the same budgetary priorities, you feel lucky to get away with what you can,” Shively said.
State Sen. Wes Shoemyer, D-18, of Clarence, called it a very productive session and said he was proud to be a part of it.
Shoemyer said the Senate, “didn’t restore cuts to Medicaid but did get a transportation bill passed for the first time in four years. We didn’t need to be driving vehicles that get six or seven miles to the gallon, when there are vehicles that get 40.”
He emphasized that “in the Senate the one thing we wanted to make very clear early on was that between the Republican majority and the Democratic minority, it was going to be a civil Senate, and we accomplished that.
“Both sides felt this was the most productive thing we could do,” Shoemyer said. “Of course both sides were still passionate about the issues and offered a healthy debate, but it also meant we were willing to compromise.”
Rep. Paul Quinn, D-9, of Monroe City, was pleased the state was able to offer some property tax relief, but was saddened that healthcare wasn’t addressed. He said an immigration bill contained “some things in it that were good,” but didn’t go far enough.
Rep. Terry Witte, D-10, of Vandalia, echoed Quinn’s comments, saying the immigration measure “doesn’t go to the heart of the problem” because punishment for employers who hire illegals is “a slap on the wrist.”
Rep. Ed Schieffer, D-11, of Troy, was upset with the lack of restrictions it placed on politicians taking campaign funds. He feels that it allows big companies to fund a politician’s campaigns which can influence a politician’s decisions once they are elected into office.