There are several ways to interpret Jack’s bill. The first is that he believes that Section 5 of the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. If that’s not the case, I’m curious to hear how he squares his bill with Section 5.
The second interpretation is that the lack of discussion of whether the “offset” is deferred or forfeited is the result of sloppy draftsmanship, and will be addressed as the bill progresses through the legislative process. I’m sure there are many public employees who want to know the same thing.
The third interpretation is that this bill is just another example of “Jack being Jack”, putting forth a bill of dubious effect with no chance of passage just to get his name in the paper.
The practice of double-dipping has been going on for years, and many will say “better late than never.” However, as we roll into the political silly season, legislators should not use specious legislative proposals to advance their campaigns. There are plenty of serious issues to debate.