EDITORIAL: House puts kibosh on lease policy
Dec. 3—A former local state representative once joked that he wisely kept his sparkling new state-leased vehicle out of sight in his home garage when he was in the district, and drove around town in an old beater to remind his constituents that he was a man of the people.
Like everyone else, he recognized the absurdity of a system in which all 253 state representatives and senators could lease a vehicle for up to $650 a month, which usually meant high-end SUVs or luxury sedans.
Not only did lawmakers squire themselves about as if they were CEOs, they enjoyed the political advantages of leasing the vehicles themselves from dealers in their own districts, rather than using a centralized program to save money by volume.
Over time, both houses have amended the rules in response to constituents' criticism. They limited the benefit to members whose districts were more than 100 miles from the Capitol, and many lawmakers chose to take mileage reimbursements rather than a lease.
And now (a drum roll would be appropriate), the House at long last has ended the lease program. As of Thursday, the beginning of the new legislative session, representatives no longer may lease their own luxury vehicles at public expense.
Legislators who live far from the Capitol might benefit from mileage reimbursement, which the state makes at the IRS rate of 62.5 cents per mile. But overall, reimbursements will be less expensive than leases.
According to the Chief Clerk of the House, 26 of 203 representatives leased vehicles prior to Dec. 1. In addition to the lease costs of up to $650 a month, taxpayers also had borne the costs of insurance and related liability. In one case several years ago, taxpayers had to fork over $30,000 in repairs after one lawmaker was involved in several collisions in her state-leased SUV.
The House resolution to end the leases passed, 199-1. It should inspire several other actions, beginning with the Senate passing its own resolution to end its members' luxury car leases. It also should prompt the House to, at long last, ban "gifts" — travel, lodging and material goods — from entities trying to influence legislation and policy.
