New Jersey, Christie Cut Public Worker (Union) Benefits (salary, controversial, health care)

[DRob4JC]

N.J. Assembly passes landmark employee benefits overhaul

The bill passed the Assembly 46-32 and will be sent to Christie’s desk for his signature. Fourteen Democrats voted for the bill, while 32 opposed it. After the vote, protesters in the balcony shouted "Shame on you!"

...
In addition, police officers, firefighters, teachers and rank-and-file public workers would all pay more for their pensions and health benefits.

...
Supporters of the bill say the state needs to cut costs because the pension and health systems are underfunded by more than $120 billion total. The Christie administration estimated the bill would save $3 billion in health benefits over the next 10 years and $120 billion in pension costs over 30 years. Much of the pension savings are from the controversial elimination of the cost-of-living adjustments for retirees, which unions have threatened to challenge in court.



We appreciate the work you do, but I believe Obama coined the term shared sacrifice (or at least popularized it)... welcome to the party.

[Secchamps98]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

N.J. Assembly passes landmark employee benefits overhaul

The bill passed the Assembly 46-32 and will be sent to Christie’s desk for his signature. Fourteen Democrats voted for the bill, while 32 opposed it. After the vote, protesters in the balcony shouted "Shame on you!"

...
In addition, police officers, firefighters, teachers and rank-and-file public workers would all pay more for their pensions and health benefits.

...
Supporters of the bill say the state needs to cut costs because the pension and health systems are underfunded by more than $120 billion total. The Christie administration estimated the bill would save $3 billion in health benefits over the next 10 years and $120 billion in pension costs over 30 years. Much of the pension savings are from the controversial elimination of the cost-of-living adjustments for retirees, which unions have threatened to challenge in court.





We appreciate the work you do, but I believe Obama coined the term shared sacrifice (or at least popularized it)... welcome to the party.

Good for them. Damn, pensions are so out of practice...they all should be gotten rid of. tired of calling things benefits..lets be honest, they are handouts.

[Frozenyo]

Yes, yes, lets suck those rich police ,fire and teachers dry while the GOP walks out on raising taxes on the rich back to Clinton era levels. Makes a whole lot of sense.

[Frank DeForrest]

No reason why should public sector employees be immune from the same economic hardships the taxpayers who fund their bennies are facing.

[Frozenyo]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

No reason why should public sector employees be immune from the same economic hardships the taxpayers who fund their bennies are facing.

No reason why millionaires of any sector should be immune from economic "hardships" the taxpayers that teach their children, police their streets and put out their fires are facing.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by Frozenyo

Yes, yes, lets suck those rich police ,fire and teachers dry while the GOP walks out on raising taxes on the rich back to Clinton era levels. Makes a whole lot of sense.

The rich are at fault because they can support themselves and pay for their own health care and retirement???

Taxpayers do not fund the rich. Taxpayers do fund pensions. Why should taxpayers fund benefits - which are what these adults should be doing on their own with their own resources?

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Frozenyo

No reason why millionaires of any sector should be immune from economic "hardships" the taxpayers that teach their children, police their streets and put out their fires are facing.

How much of their money will satisfy you, Mr. Soprano?

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by Frozenyo

No reason why millionaires of any sector should be immune from economic "hardships" the taxpayers that teach their children, police their streets and put out their fires are facing.

If (in most cases) they work hard, and save, and plan how they use their money for the purpose of protecting themselves from hardships - they should not have their resources stolen from them through tax regulation.

[LauraC]

Federal employees under CSRS pay 7 percent of their salary towards their pension. They do not get social security. CSRS is being phased out. Federal employees under FERS pay 6.2 percent of their salary towards their pension.

Federal employees pay one-third of their health benefits premium.

I do believe NJ public employees pay less than federal employees for both health care (don't NJ public workers pay nothing right now?) and pension (isn't it currently 5.5 percent?).

So, where's the beef?

[wxjay]

I love the arguments coming out of the far left about this. I flipped through the TV yesterday and came across The Ed Show. Note - I have recently made it a practice not to watch these shows, on either side of the political spectrum. (I used to tune in to the both sides like Olbermann and Hannity to see how they distort/comment on stories to serve their political agenda, but now I just get a headache from the whole thing).

Anyways, Ed Schultz was ranting about how now this new bill was going to cost a public worker making $65,000 an extra $6,000 per year for their healthcare, retirement, pension, etc. Folks, this breaks down to $500/mth. I think that, in the private sector, it is actually quite low to have people pay for health insurance AND retirement benefits $500/mth. That really is not a lot, but he made it seem like something outrageous. He then went on a tear about how Chris Christie forced Democrats to go along with this, when, if I read correctly, the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats in the legislature? LOL.

But let's not forget the other part of the equation - let's take Ed's assertion that $6,000/yr is a huge amount of money. So he thinks it's unacceptable to make the workers contribute this, but thinks that other hard-hit middle class people should have to suffer increased taxes to cover this? No, he thinks that these public sector workers should just suck off of the taxpayers, especially people who are "rich" (whatever that really means). I am not opposed to increased taxes - on all Americans. We have to pay our share. But this whole public union corruption and benefit mess is such a joke.

But folks, it's happening everywhere - "red" states and "blue" states. I don't know how many RIers are on here, but RI (which is as blue as you can get) is now cracking down on state pensions and teachers unions. And this is being done by Democrats who overwhelming control the state legislature and even local politics.