In recent interviews, several Assembly members called for the measures to be split into separate bills, one dealing with pensions and the other with health benefits.
"Of course they want to do the pension bill, you know, that's what the unions want," Sweeney said. "They want their pensions fixed, but they don't want to have to deal with the health care component. You know who needs the health care component. The taxpayers."
Assemblyman Jack McKeon (D-Essex) said he supports splitting the bills because lawmakers have traditionally dealt with pension issues in the past, while unions negotiated health benefits.
"The concept of combining these is foreign," said McKeon.
Asked about Sweeney's comments, McKeon responded, "We don't need two bullies."
Ouch. Of course, McKeon is referring to Governor Christie; problem is, Christie, just like Sweeney, refuses to deal with health care and pensions separately.
Why is Sweeney taking the governor's side on this? Why does he insist on dealing with pensions and health insurance at the same time?
Well, back in April, the NY Times gave us a clue:
In the last three years, hundreds of cities, towns and school districts in New Jersey have saved tens of millions of dollars on health insurance by dumping their private carriers and switching to a little-known benefits program run by the state.
But now one of the state's most powerful lawmakers is promoting legislation that could effectively cripple the program. The lawmaker, Stephen M. Sweeney, the State Senate president, has placed a provision in a health care insurance bill that would prohibit the program from accepting new members.
Mr. Sweeney, a Democrat from Gloucester County, is a close ally and a childhood friend of George E. Norcross 3rd, perhaps the most influential Democratic boss in New Jersey. Mr. Norcross, of Camden County, owns one of the largest brokers of health insurance to government entities in the state, and his company has been losing customers to the program Mr. Sweeney wants to rein in, according to an analysis of the program's records.
Mr. Sweeney, who rose to prominence with Mr. Norcross's support, acknowledged in an interview that he had spoken with Mr. Norcross about the provision. But Mr. Sweeney said he had not introduced it at Mr. Norcross's behest.
Mr. Sweeney said the state benefits program was losing hundreds of millions of dollars and required costly state subsidies. A ban on new members would "allow time for stabilization and to judge the plan's sustainability," he said.
But state records and interviews call into question Mr. Sweeney's claim that the state program is foundering.
If Sweeney gets away with this - and it's increasingly looking like he will - his legislation will funnel untold millions into the coffers of companies like Norcorss's Conner Strong. Is anyone going to seriously argue that there will be an incentive to keep costs low when this happens?
Of course, if pensions and health care are dealt with separately, Sweeney runs the risk of exposing the legislation's benefits to companies like Norcross's, and that must never, ever be allowed to happen. It is in the interest of his political patron to make the public see worker benefits as an issue of undo compensation, and not of runaway costs, driven by health insurers profit motives.
It is, in effect a shell game: keep everyone's eyes moving around enough that you can slip the pea out and palm it.
Legislators who truly care about the public trust should demand that pension and health care for public workers be dealt with in separate bills. They should hold extensive hearings on on who, exactly, will benefit from any legislative proposals. And they should demand that cost-containment and a cap on profits at the expense of both taxpayers and public workers be the highlight of any bill.
Further: public worker unions should insist that not one further dime of their members' money should be delivered to Conner Strong or any other private firm without a full exploration of how those firms intend to bring health care costs under control.
Public workers should not subsidize George Norcross's three-martini lunches. And Steve Sweeney should not be allowed to evade hard questions about how his legislation will benefit insurance firms while doing nothing to control costs.
ADDING: Looks like George Norcross is looking at other sources of revenue from the taxpayer - this time through the schools.
Everyone OK with this? |
.gif)
