By Samantha Marcus | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 26, 2015 at 8:00 AM, updated April 26, 2015 at 11:26 AM
TRENTON — State Senate President Stephen Sweeney does not leave room for doubt when he says the Democratic-led state Legislature will fully fund New Jersey's public worker pension system next year.
"We're going to fund it," he said.
Democratic leaders say they're forging ahead with plans to make a $3.1 billion contribution into a pension system bedeviled by nearly two decades of underfunding.
Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said lawmakers are devising strategies to boost the funding level in Gov. Chris Christie's proposed budget for the 2016 fiscal year beginning in July by about $1.8 billion.
Christie's budget includes a $1.3 billion payment he hailed as the largest in state history but is less than half of what is required by law and even less still than the amount recommended by actuaries to keep the fund from going broke.
Actuary reports released earlier this year show the state's unfunded liability grew by about $4.5 billion to $40 billion in 2014, blaming some of the new debt on the failure to live up to a 2011 law committing the state to increasing funding levels.
While Christie met the ramp-up schedule for two years, he cut payments in 2014 and 2015 and proposes to do so a third time in 2016 to balance the budget.
Labor leaders have said they won't settle for less than what's owed under that embattled law, and in February won a trial court fight to force Christie to satisfy the 2011 agreement. Christie has appealed to the state Supreme Court, which will hear arguments next month.
Unions have also sued the governor over his plans to short next year's payment, though attorneys for Christie have argued the courts have no say in what he recommends.
Rhetoric heated up this week after Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson) joined labor unions in asking the Supreme Court to force Christie to make a larger payment.
5 EditorialBoard Sciarrino
Senate President Steve Sweeney is shown in this January 2014 file photo.
Christie accused Democratic leaders of "suing themselves," while Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick (R-Union) challenged Democrats to come up with the money and Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth) tagged calls to fund the pension "pandering," warning that coming up with $1.57 billion with just two months left in the fiscal year would force mass layoffs of teachers.
"That's hysteria," Sweeney responded. "That's someone that doesn't have an answer for anything."
No matter the outcome of the pitched legal battle, Sweeney, who with Christie spearheaded the 2011 pension reform legislation, said he intends to make good in 2016.
"We can fund it, and we can fund it by doing some smart things in government," he said, describing a cryptic blend of new revenue and cuts.
"Some of it's savings through modernization and efficiencies. And they're real. They're real savings," he said. "We've identified several areas where we're not going to hurt anything but where we're able to save."
In an effort to restore the nearly $1.57 billion cut from pensions last spring, the Legislature passed a budget that raised income taxes on millionaires and corporation business taxes. It was met with an executive veto.
"If it's anything like last year, I'm sure it'll be relying on massive tax increases and accounting gimmicks," Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said Friday.
Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) said it's too soon to know what the funding mix will look like, noting that the Legislature is still waiting on final revenue figures that could make their job easier or much harder.
Greenwald told a conference of labor leaders last week that the Legislature is working to meet its obligation, but he acknowledged the difficulties.
"I would by lying to you if I did not tell you as I stood here I do not hold out hope that we can be successful," he said.
The Legislature was able to cobble together funding for 2015, and it will try to do that again in 2016, but Greenwald said funding pensions can't continue to as a year-to-year proposition.
"I'm thinking about it far more than what is our plan for 2016," he told NJ Advance Media. "This is what has gotten us into trouble, looking at it from this year-to-year methodology.
Any plan that hikes income taxes on millionaires, though, could be expected to draw strong objection from Christie, who has warned the added burden will run them out of New Jersey.
"Be careful," he told a town hall crowd in Cedar Grove on Thursday. "You know what happened last year? 10,000 millionaires left New Jersey. People of wealth can move, and they can move easily."
Christie pension fix not a new idea, but ups ante
TRENTON — When Gov. Chris Christie's pension commission issued a highly anticipated report last month, it made one thing clear: No simple tweaking or flitting around the edges will do to fix New Jersey's vastly underfunded public employee retirement system.
To get the kind of payoff New Jersey needs, the panel proposed to reinvent pension and health benefits for hundreds of thousands of active and retired state and local workers.
The plan — which Christie has pitched in his town hall tour and some unions immediately dismissed — would move workers onto less costly health care plans, freeze the current public worker pension system and create a new hybrid of a traditional pension plan and one that resembles a 401(k).
Such big changes have already been enacted in other states with huge pension woes — such as Kentucky, which two years ago created a less generous "cash balance" plan like what's proposed in New Jersey.
But leaders in Kentucky say it wasn't easy — and that Christie is in for an even tougher fight if he wants to enact every big element of his pension commission's plan.
"It was a battle," said state Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer, a Kentucky Republican.
Kentucky moved to a cash balance pension plan for some public workers in its own quest to rein in rising retirement costs.
The cash balance plan works like this: Like a defined-contribution, or 401(k), plan, an employee's benefits show up as a lump sum in a "hypothetical" personal account, which is funded by employer and employee contributions and investment returns. But unlike a 401(k), employees can receive their benefits in lifetime payments determined by their balance and other actuarial measurements.
RELATED: Christie pension commission recommends plan for huge savings, fewer benefits
Christie's pension panel recommended this sweeping change as a possible answer to a $37 billion unfunded pension liability — which balloons to $83 billion under new accounting rules.
Since releasing the plan in late February to coincide with his proposed state budget, the Republican governor has taken the proposal on the road, saying pension and health benefits are on the verge of "making it impossible for the state to do much else to invest in a better New Jersey."
Republicans in Kentucky made a similar case.
Without reform, the pension payment would consume payroll costs, Thayer said. In addition, the state and local pension contributions were set to more than double by 2020, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts report.
Kentucky's retirement system, like New Jersey's, consistently ranks among the most underfunded in the country. Past governors of both states made a habit of not making full pension payments.
To hear Thayer tell it, passing those reforms required considerable negotiations and cajoling among the Democratic governor, GOP-led Senate and Democratic-controlled House.
"The cash balance plan was a compromise here in Kentucky," Thayer said. "Republicans did not want to stay with the full defined-benefit system, and we knew the Democrats would never agree to going to a full defined-contribution system."
So in late March 2013, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a pension reform package that formed a cash balance pension plan, committed the state to fully funding its annual required contribution and came up with more than $100 million to pay for it.
But there was a big difference between what Kentucky did and what Christie's panel wants New Jersey to do.
Kentucky's new pension plan covers only employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Everyone else stays under the old plan. In New Jersey, Christie wants to also apply it to current workers and freeze their benefits under the current pension plan.
Building the plan around new workers alone "saves virtually nothing," said Tom Healey, a former Goldman Sachs executive who chairs Christie' pension commission.
"If you're a politician you can say 'we did something, we improved the pension plan going forward,' but you haven't saved any dollars," he said.
Attempts to do that in Kentucky would almost certainly have wound up in court, Thayer said.
"Yes we would like to move everybody into a new plan, but there just isn't the political will to litigate that right now," he said. "At some point the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, somebody may choose to do that."
State Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic) said Christie's "extremely aggressive, if not radical" proposal is destined to fail.
"I think what the governor is doing is saying 'I put out an idea. I've done my job, now (the legislature) should do theirs','" he said. "It's great politics."
Christie's spokesman Kevin Roberts said the governor has "put forward a comprehensive plan and, in that regard, now need the Legislature to step up and be a part of the conversation and take action on solutions too."
As of 2005, nearly a quarter of private sector workers with defined-benefit pension plans were enrolled in cash balance plans, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
California, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas also operate cash balance plans for at least some state or local employees, according to a 2014 Pew report.
Models vary, but in Kentucky's scheme, workers contribute 5 percent or 8 percent of their pay, depending on their job classification, and the state or municipality kicks in another 4 percent or 7.5 percent.
While 401(k) plans are vulnerable to markets, Kentucky guarantees at least a 4 percent investment return. If returns beat that, workers keep most of the excess and the state puts its share away for a rainy day.
Employees are vested after five years, and can leave with their entire balance.
But an Urban Institute study of Kentucky's plan found that employees with fewer years of service would receive higher benefits, and more tenured employees would receive less.
For example, a worker earning the average salary and retiring after 35 years would get a $47,900 pension under the traditional plan, according to the Urban Institute. If that worker was in the cash balance plan, the pension would be no more than $33,200 a year.
However, that same worker would get a traditional pension of $3,200 if he or she retired after 15 years, as opposed to anywhere from $7,400 to $15,300 under the new plan.
Healey agreed that younger employees may be better off than mid-career employees under the new plan. Plans for the lowest tier of workers, hired after the 2011 reforms, receive little state money.
"This is equal and fair across both older and new workers," Healey said. "If we were starting from scratch in New Jersey, this is the plan we would offer everybody. So let's offer it."
The combination of the frozen pension plans, new pension plan and Social Security will still provide "a solid basis for retirement" for the older workers, he said.
Schaer stressed there's still the issue of fairness.
"It is a significant change from what we promised to employees when they joined government service," he said. "We're not just talking about someone who's been in government service for 10, 15, or 20 years, but someone who's on the verge of retirement."
According to the governor's pension commission, freezing the existing system would save the state and local governments more than $2 billion in a single year. The cash balance plan would cost the state and local governments $1.23 billion a year.
Jason Bailey, director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, said the less generous pension benefits for longtime workers will spur faster turnover. And while Pew touts cash balance costs as more predictable than those of traditional pension plans, Bailey said that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be less expensive.
"The only thing that we did get out of it was they did make this commitment to pay the full (annual required contribution) going forward and created this little bit of revenue," he said.
Kentucky's 2013 reforms came just a few years after another retooling of the system in which the state agreed to gradually increase payments until reaching the annual required contribution in 2024.
New Jersey made a similar promise in a 2011 pension law that brought national attention to Christie, who is considering a run for president.
But the governor last year didn't keep to the state's promised contribution, slicing more than $2.5 billion in payments. He now says his initial reforms didn't go far enough.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Christie's presidential hopes are blocking a pension deal | Moran
By Tom Moran | Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 26, 2015 at 8:00 AM, updated April 26, 2015 at 10:05 AM
If Gov. Chris Christie didn't lie so much, I might be tempted to feel sorry for him these days.
But he tells such whoppers.
In his latest swing through New Hampshire, he repeated his claim that New Jersey has the highest taxes in the country. We rank No. 7 in combined state and local taxes per person, and No. 10 as a share of income.
And he was only clearing his throat with that one. On Thursday, he told voters at a town hall meeting in Cedar Grove that Democrats are the ones who shorted the pension fund.
"The Legislature passed it, and I signed it, with that number in it," he said.
Scary. Because this is not a small point; it is at the core of the pension case now before the state Supreme Court.
The truth is that Democrats passed a budget with the full pension payment, to prove it could be done. Christie removed that money with his line-item veto. Did he really forget that?
Here's why we should all care: New Jersey's budget crisis is the second worst in the nation, behind Illinois'. But instead of looking for common ground with Democrats, the governor is taking reckless pot shots and refusing to budge.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, the governor's lead Democratic partner in his first term, says the bromance that made the 2011 reform possible is now dead.
"It's night and day," says Sweeney (D-Gloucester). "In 2011 we did things face to face, a lot of discussion. Now he attacks me on Twitter."
If you want to dig for the roots of this standoff, start with Christie's presidential campaign.
That ties his hands. He can't do anything to offend Republican base voters, like sign a small tax hike on incomes over $1 million.
Democratic leaders vow they will not cut a deal that puts the entire burden on public workers, as Christie has proposed.
A bump in the "millionaires tax" would not come close to solving the fiscal problem, but it would soften the need for cuts a bit, and help party leaders sell the deal to fellow Democrats.
"At the end of the day everyone has to be realistic," says Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson).
This is where the poison left by Christie's broken promise does such damage. The 2011 reform was a bargain: Public workers had to pay more into the system and take less out. They did their part.
The governor agreed to ramp up pension payments in return. But his "Jersey Comeback" never materialized, so he broke that promise and shorted the funds.
This time around, Democrats and their union allies are in a sour mood. They feel burned.
Sweeney and Prieto both joined the union lawsuit that seeks to force full pension payments on the 2011 schedule. But they both know that would be almost impossible. It would require $3.1 billion next year, and as much as $5 billion two years later.
In interviews, both Sweeney and Prieto say they will present a budget this year that includes full payments, but would settle for less if a fair political deal could be reached.
"We may need to spread the payments out over a longer period of time," Prieto says. "But we should be making a good-faith effort to honor what we are supposed to be doing."
The wild card is the Supreme Court, which hears the case in two weeks. The key question is whether the 2011 law amounts to a contract that must be honored, and the smart money says the unions are likely to win again, as they did in lower courts.
But what then? The court has no means to enforce its ruling. And Christie will be sorely tempted to go rogue and defy the ruling if he loses. Attacking a liberal court and public worker unions could work magic among the GOP base.
"It's conceivable they would hold the governor in contempt," says professor Robert Williams, an expert on the state constitution at the Rutgers-Camden School of Law. "We could face a constitutional crisis."
Courts try to avoid that by giving the players political wiggle room, as the lower court did. If that happens, the search for political compromise will resume.
And that's where Christie's political campaign is such a curse to this state.
Democrats seem ready to cut that deal if it includes a millionaires tax. And two-thirds of New Jersey voters think it should be included.
But Christie doesn't need our votes anymore. He's competing for the crazy GOP base vote now. And that could be toxic for New Jersey's future.
Tom Moran may be reached at tmoran@starledger.com o
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 26, 2015 at 8:00 AM, updated April 26, 2015 at 10:05 AM
If Gov. Chris Christie didn't lie so much, I might be tempted to feel sorry for him these days.
But he tells such whoppers.
In his latest swing through New Hampshire, he repeated his claim that New Jersey has the highest taxes in the country. We rank No. 7 in combined state and local taxes per person, and No. 10 as a share of income.
And he was only clearing his throat with that one. On Thursday, he told voters at a town hall meeting in Cedar Grove that Democrats are the ones who shorted the pension fund.
"The Legislature passed it, and I signed it, with that number in it," he said.
Scary. Because this is not a small point; it is at the core of the pension case now before the state Supreme Court.
The truth is that Democrats passed a budget with the full pension payment, to prove it could be done. Christie removed that money with his line-item veto. Did he really forget that?
Here's why we should all care: New Jersey's budget crisis is the second worst in the nation, behind Illinois'. But instead of looking for common ground with Democrats, the governor is taking reckless pot shots and refusing to budge.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, the governor's lead Democratic partner in his first term, says the bromance that made the 2011 reform possible is now dead.
"It's night and day," says Sweeney (D-Gloucester). "In 2011 we did things face to face, a lot of discussion. Now he attacks me on Twitter."
If you want to dig for the roots of this standoff, start with Christie's presidential campaign.
That ties his hands. He can't do anything to offend Republican base voters, like sign a small tax hike on incomes over $1 million.
Democratic leaders vow they will not cut a deal that puts the entire burden on public workers, as Christie has proposed.
A bump in the "millionaires tax" would not come close to solving the fiscal problem, but it would soften the need for cuts a bit, and help party leaders sell the deal to fellow Democrats.
"At the end of the day everyone has to be realistic," says Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson).
This is where the poison left by Christie's broken promise does such damage. The 2011 reform was a bargain: Public workers had to pay more into the system and take less out. They did their part.
The governor agreed to ramp up pension payments in return. But his "Jersey Comeback" never materialized, so he broke that promise and shorted the funds.
This time around, Democrats and their union allies are in a sour mood. They feel burned.
Sweeney and Prieto both joined the union lawsuit that seeks to force full pension payments on the 2011 schedule. But they both know that would be almost impossible. It would require $3.1 billion next year, and as much as $5 billion two years later.
In interviews, both Sweeney and Prieto say they will present a budget this year that includes full payments, but would settle for less if a fair political deal could be reached.
"We may need to spread the payments out over a longer period of time," Prieto says. "But we should be making a good-faith effort to honor what we are supposed to be doing."
The wild card is the Supreme Court, which hears the case in two weeks. The key question is whether the 2011 law amounts to a contract that must be honored, and the smart money says the unions are likely to win again, as they did in lower courts.
But what then? The court has no means to enforce its ruling. And Christie will be sorely tempted to go rogue and defy the ruling if he loses. Attacking a liberal court and public worker unions could work magic among the GOP base.
"It's conceivable they would hold the governor in contempt," says professor Robert Williams, an expert on the state constitution at the Rutgers-Camden School of Law. "We could face a constitutional crisis."
Courts try to avoid that by giving the players political wiggle room, as the lower court did. If that happens, the search for political compromise will resume.
And that's where Christie's political campaign is such a curse to this state.
Democrats seem ready to cut that deal if it includes a millionaires tax. And two-thirds of New Jersey voters think it should be included.
But Christie doesn't need our votes anymore. He's competing for the crazy GOP base vote now. And that could be toxic for New Jersey's future.
Tom Moran may be reached at tmoran@starledger.com o
Friday, April 24, 2015
N.J. public worker pension fund gap widens to $40B
N.J. public worker pension fund gap widens to $40B
By Samantha Marcus | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 23, 2015 at 5:40 PM, updated April 24, 2015 at 1:04 AM
TRENTON — New Jersey's funding gap for public worker pensions continued to widen last year to $40 billion, adding $4.5 billion in pension debt from 2013.
The unfunded liability, or the difference between the money the state has on hand versus what it would cost to fully fund benefits for future and current retirees, surged as the state slashed planned payments into the system, which ranks among the largest and least healthy in the country.
The pension system was worth about $42.5 billion at the end of the 2014 fiscal year last June, while the price tag to meet those retirement promises was $82.6 billion, according to actuary reports for the state's seven pension funds released this week.
As a result, the ratio of assets to liabilities slid from 55.6 percent to 51.5 percent. Experts generally say a pension fund with an 80 percent funding ratio is considered healthy.
"We were expecting it because the governor has failed to put in for two and now coming up on three payments," said Tom Bruno, chairman of the Public Employees' Retirement System Board of Trustees. "It didn't surprise us."
The pension system has three funding streams, including worker contributions, public employer contributions and investment returns.
Gov. Chris Christie scrubbed $2.4 billion from payments into the fund in 2014 and 2015. And the $1.3 billion proposed payment for the upcoming 2016 fiscal year that Christie hailed as the largest in state history is $1.8 billion less than he was scheduled to pay in and less still than what actuaries recommend.
After Christie slashed the state's payment in 2014, labor unions fought him in court and lost. They won a trial court battle in February to force Christie to restore this year's payment, and the state Supreme Court will hear that case next month.
The unfunded liability has been climbing since the turn of the 21st century largely because of investment losses, increased benefits and chronic underfunding. In a National Association of State Retirement Administrators's study of states' contribution from 2001 to 2013, New Jersey had the worst record.
Within the pension system there are seven individual pension funds for police and firefighters, teachers, judges and other public employees. Two of the largest funds — the Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund and the Public Employees' Retirement System — are on pace to run out of money within 12 years.
Scott Porter, a Milliman actuary, told the trustees of the teachers' fund on Wednesday that he's concerned about "the ongoing solvency of the fund," which could be depleted by 2027.
In the world of pension funding, he said, "that is very, very close. It's tomorrow."
The state portion of the Public Employees' Retirement System, which trails the teachers as the second largest pension fund, is just 43.8 percent funded, down from 48.1 percent in 2013. Meanwhile, the portion of those liabilities covered by municipalities, is 73.5 percent funded.
The Police and Firemen's Retirement System is also largely funded by local governments, and that chunk is 76.3 percent funded, while the state's smaller end is 47.2 percent funded.
The fund is stable "in spite of" the state underfunding the system, said Patrick Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association.
"Our members are out there everyday working for our communities and continuing to make the payments required to make sure members and their families have a stable pension fund for their retirement, he said. "Today's actuarial report shows quite clearly that it is well past time for Gov. Christie to begin meeting his responsibilities."
A spokesman for the Department of Treasury declined to comment Thursday.
MORE POLITICS
Samantha Marcus may be reached at smarcus@njadvancemedia.com . Follow her on Twitter @samanthamarcus. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.
Christie accuses Dems of 'suing themselves' over pension shortfall they created, approved
By Claude Brodesser-Akner | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author
on April 23, 2015 at 12:35 PM, updated April 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM
CEDAR GROVE — Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday accused the Democratic leaders of the state Legislature of "suing themselves" after they joined in court papers of public employee unions suing the state to make a full pension payment.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cedar Grove, Christie went on the offensive against the NJEA and state Democrats, placing the blame squarely on a Legislature that had accepted and approved a budget with a lower pension payment in the first place.
Christie acknowledged "the payment we made this year was supposed to be $1.6 billion more than it was" but noted that, facing a revenue shortfall, the Democratically-controlled Legislature had approved a final budget that called for a pension payment of a slightly more than $650 million dollars.
MORE: Christie warns parents opting out of PARCC could trigger reduced services, higher local taxes
"They (the NJEA and its supporters in the Legislature) are now suing to force the court to force them to do what they didn't do," Christie said, "They are essentially suing themselves. It's extraordinary."
The reality is a bit more complicated: The New Jersey Legislature earmarked $2.25 billion into the Appropriations Act. However, the governor then used a line item veto to cut a little over $1.5 billion, leaving a pension payment of $677 million in fiscal year 2015.
Instead, Christie argued, the state should institute a three-step reform package that will reduce health benefits from platinum plus to "gold" and reinvest the savings to help shore up the pension system, which would result in $3 billion in savings.
He also argued the creaking pension system's benefits should be frozen and the administration of the payments be removed from the hands of politicians and turned over to the unions.
"We do those steps, we fix this problem," Christie said.
However, the NJ Education Association doesn't see it that way. On Tuesday, it announced it was cutting off talks with the Christie administration over pension reform, and focusing its efforts on getting a payment via the courts.
Christie insisted he would love to make the payment, but warned the assembled crowd of 200 in the gym of Essex County College's Public Safety Academy that there was no "money tree" that would magically make up the short fall.
"Here's the problem," said Christie, "You're the money tree. They're Robin Hood, alright: They're gonna take it from you, and give it to them."
Christie added the alternatives were too harsh to bear: Revenue increases in either the sales or income tax would need to occur, stifling growth and jobs. To make up the shortfall, the sales tax would need to be hiked to 10 percent, or the income tax would need to be raised by 29 percent.
Raising the millionaire's tax further would only provide $500 million of the missing $3.3 billion, Christie said, but he also warned it would come with a side-effect.
"Be careful," he warned, "You know what happened last year? 10,000 millionaires left New Jersey. People of wealth can move, and they can move easily."
Christie noted that many of the well-heeled had decamped to Florida, perhaps permanently.
"Why? Not just the wonderful climate. Zero income tax," he said, "Don't fall for it."
By Samantha Marcus | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 23, 2015 at 5:40 PM, updated April 24, 2015 at 1:04 AM
TRENTON — New Jersey's funding gap for public worker pensions continued to widen last year to $40 billion, adding $4.5 billion in pension debt from 2013.
The unfunded liability, or the difference between the money the state has on hand versus what it would cost to fully fund benefits for future and current retirees, surged as the state slashed planned payments into the system, which ranks among the largest and least healthy in the country.
The pension system was worth about $42.5 billion at the end of the 2014 fiscal year last June, while the price tag to meet those retirement promises was $82.6 billion, according to actuary reports for the state's seven pension funds released this week.
As a result, the ratio of assets to liabilities slid from 55.6 percent to 51.5 percent. Experts generally say a pension fund with an 80 percent funding ratio is considered healthy.
"We were expecting it because the governor has failed to put in for two and now coming up on three payments," said Tom Bruno, chairman of the Public Employees' Retirement System Board of Trustees. "It didn't surprise us."
The pension system has three funding streams, including worker contributions, public employer contributions and investment returns.
Gov. Chris Christie scrubbed $2.4 billion from payments into the fund in 2014 and 2015. And the $1.3 billion proposed payment for the upcoming 2016 fiscal year that Christie hailed as the largest in state history is $1.8 billion less than he was scheduled to pay in and less still than what actuaries recommend.
After Christie slashed the state's payment in 2014, labor unions fought him in court and lost. They won a trial court battle in February to force Christie to restore this year's payment, and the state Supreme Court will hear that case next month.
The unfunded liability has been climbing since the turn of the 21st century largely because of investment losses, increased benefits and chronic underfunding. In a National Association of State Retirement Administrators's study of states' contribution from 2001 to 2013, New Jersey had the worst record.
Within the pension system there are seven individual pension funds for police and firefighters, teachers, judges and other public employees. Two of the largest funds — the Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund and the Public Employees' Retirement System — are on pace to run out of money within 12 years.
Scott Porter, a Milliman actuary, told the trustees of the teachers' fund on Wednesday that he's concerned about "the ongoing solvency of the fund," which could be depleted by 2027.
In the world of pension funding, he said, "that is very, very close. It's tomorrow."
The state portion of the Public Employees' Retirement System, which trails the teachers as the second largest pension fund, is just 43.8 percent funded, down from 48.1 percent in 2013. Meanwhile, the portion of those liabilities covered by municipalities, is 73.5 percent funded.
The Police and Firemen's Retirement System is also largely funded by local governments, and that chunk is 76.3 percent funded, while the state's smaller end is 47.2 percent funded.
The fund is stable "in spite of" the state underfunding the system, said Patrick Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association.
"Our members are out there everyday working for our communities and continuing to make the payments required to make sure members and their families have a stable pension fund for their retirement, he said. "Today's actuarial report shows quite clearly that it is well past time for Gov. Christie to begin meeting his responsibilities."
A spokesman for the Department of Treasury declined to comment Thursday.
MORE POLITICS
Samantha Marcus may be reached at smarcus@njadvancemedia.com . Follow her on Twitter @samanthamarcus. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.
Christie accuses Dems of 'suing themselves' over pension shortfall they created, approved
By Claude Brodesser-Akner | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author
on April 23, 2015 at 12:35 PM, updated April 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM
CEDAR GROVE — Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday accused the Democratic leaders of the state Legislature of "suing themselves" after they joined in court papers of public employee unions suing the state to make a full pension payment.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cedar Grove, Christie went on the offensive against the NJEA and state Democrats, placing the blame squarely on a Legislature that had accepted and approved a budget with a lower pension payment in the first place.
Christie acknowledged "the payment we made this year was supposed to be $1.6 billion more than it was" but noted that, facing a revenue shortfall, the Democratically-controlled Legislature had approved a final budget that called for a pension payment of a slightly more than $650 million dollars.
MORE: Christie warns parents opting out of PARCC could trigger reduced services, higher local taxes
"They (the NJEA and its supporters in the Legislature) are now suing to force the court to force them to do what they didn't do," Christie said, "They are essentially suing themselves. It's extraordinary."
The reality is a bit more complicated: The New Jersey Legislature earmarked $2.25 billion into the Appropriations Act. However, the governor then used a line item veto to cut a little over $1.5 billion, leaving a pension payment of $677 million in fiscal year 2015.
Instead, Christie argued, the state should institute a three-step reform package that will reduce health benefits from platinum plus to "gold" and reinvest the savings to help shore up the pension system, which would result in $3 billion in savings.
He also argued the creaking pension system's benefits should be frozen and the administration of the payments be removed from the hands of politicians and turned over to the unions.
"We do those steps, we fix this problem," Christie said.
However, the NJ Education Association doesn't see it that way. On Tuesday, it announced it was cutting off talks with the Christie administration over pension reform, and focusing its efforts on getting a payment via the courts.
Christie insisted he would love to make the payment, but warned the assembled crowd of 200 in the gym of Essex County College's Public Safety Academy that there was no "money tree" that would magically make up the short fall.
"Here's the problem," said Christie, "You're the money tree. They're Robin Hood, alright: They're gonna take it from you, and give it to them."
Christie added the alternatives were too harsh to bear: Revenue increases in either the sales or income tax would need to occur, stifling growth and jobs. To make up the shortfall, the sales tax would need to be hiked to 10 percent, or the income tax would need to be raised by 29 percent.
Raising the millionaire's tax further would only provide $500 million of the missing $3.3 billion, Christie said, but he also warned it would come with a side-effect.
"Be careful," he warned, "You know what happened last year? 10,000 millionaires left New Jersey. People of wealth can move, and they can move easily."
Christie noted that many of the well-heeled had decamped to Florida, perhaps permanently.
"Why? Not just the wonderful climate. Zero income tax," he said, "Don't fall for it."
Thursday, April 23, 2015
NJ Releases PFRS Actuarial Report; Pension Fund Remains Stable in Spite of State’s Refusal to Meet Obligations
NJ Releases PFRS Actuarial Report; Pension Fund Remains Stable in Spite of State’s Refusal to Meet Obligations
Posted: Wednesday / 4.22.2015 / 1:45 PM
Tags: PFRS
WOODBRIDGE- New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Colligan today released the following statement on the actuarial report released by the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits detailing the fact that the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) continues to be stable with a funding level of 76.9%. This stable funding percentage comes in spite of the fact that the additional 1.5% contribution members are being forced to pay every year is not being used to fund their pensions as mandated in the Chapter 78 legislation of 2011 and is instead being funneled to towns and counties across New Jersey to decrease their required contributions. Chapter 78 increased PFRS members’ pension contribution numbers from 8.5% to 10%, representing the highest contribution of any employee in New Jersey.
The stable funding level is also in spite of the state refusing to meet their mandated funding obligations and flies in the face of Governor Christie’s ongoing efforts to paint the PFRS fund as in crisis. A review by NJSPBA Trustees shows that if the state met their funding obligations and the 1.5% additional contribution were being used to fund the PFRS as the law states rather than being funneled off to towns and counties to fulfill their own pension obligations, the fund would be operating at an even more robust 88% funding level.
“Our members are out there every day working for our communities and continuing to make the payments required to make sure members and their families have a stable pension fund for their retirement. Simply put, they are meeting their responsibilities and abiding by the agreed upon terms from when they first agreed to serve the public. Today’s actuarial report shows quite clearly that it is well past time for Governor Christie to begin meeting his responsibilities.
The PFRS system is stable at almost 77% and the only thing holding it back from operating at an almost 90% funding level is the fact that the governor not only refuses to meet the state’s obligations, but he is also taking the additional 1.5% our members are paying for their pensions and sending it back to towns and counties across New Jersey instead. This funding level would also put us much closer to restoring COLA for our thousands of retired members who have not seen a cost of living adjustment since 2011.
Today’s actuarial report proves what we have long known, Governor Christie and the state’s actions as they relate to the PFRS funding are nothing short of outrageous. Our members are literally having an additional 1.5% syphoned directly from their paychecks as a result of Chapter 78 that is supposed to go towards funding our pension and, instead, the governor is continuing to give it back to the towns and counties. Is it really asking too much to ask for our own money back? Instead of attempting to deceive the public that the PFRS fund is in crisis to try and score public relations points, Governor Christie should acknowledge the fact that our system is stable and would be in even better shape if he stopped shirking his responsibilities. Like the governor, our members don’t consider themselves to be wealthy. The difference is our members actually aren’t.”
Posted: Wednesday / 4.22.2015 / 1:45 PM
Tags: PFRS
WOODBRIDGE- New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Colligan today released the following statement on the actuarial report released by the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits detailing the fact that the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) continues to be stable with a funding level of 76.9%. This stable funding percentage comes in spite of the fact that the additional 1.5% contribution members are being forced to pay every year is not being used to fund their pensions as mandated in the Chapter 78 legislation of 2011 and is instead being funneled to towns and counties across New Jersey to decrease their required contributions. Chapter 78 increased PFRS members’ pension contribution numbers from 8.5% to 10%, representing the highest contribution of any employee in New Jersey.
The stable funding level is also in spite of the state refusing to meet their mandated funding obligations and flies in the face of Governor Christie’s ongoing efforts to paint the PFRS fund as in crisis. A review by NJSPBA Trustees shows that if the state met their funding obligations and the 1.5% additional contribution were being used to fund the PFRS as the law states rather than being funneled off to towns and counties to fulfill their own pension obligations, the fund would be operating at an even more robust 88% funding level.
“Our members are out there every day working for our communities and continuing to make the payments required to make sure members and their families have a stable pension fund for their retirement. Simply put, they are meeting their responsibilities and abiding by the agreed upon terms from when they first agreed to serve the public. Today’s actuarial report shows quite clearly that it is well past time for Governor Christie to begin meeting his responsibilities.
The PFRS system is stable at almost 77% and the only thing holding it back from operating at an almost 90% funding level is the fact that the governor not only refuses to meet the state’s obligations, but he is also taking the additional 1.5% our members are paying for their pensions and sending it back to towns and counties across New Jersey instead. This funding level would also put us much closer to restoring COLA for our thousands of retired members who have not seen a cost of living adjustment since 2011.
Today’s actuarial report proves what we have long known, Governor Christie and the state’s actions as they relate to the PFRS funding are nothing short of outrageous. Our members are literally having an additional 1.5% syphoned directly from their paychecks as a result of Chapter 78 that is supposed to go towards funding our pension and, instead, the governor is continuing to give it back to the towns and counties. Is it really asking too much to ask for our own money back? Instead of attempting to deceive the public that the PFRS fund is in crisis to try and score public relations points, Governor Christie should acknowledge the fact that our system is stable and would be in even better shape if he stopped shirking his responsibilities. Like the governor, our members don’t consider themselves to be wealthy. The difference is our members actually aren’t.”
Sweeney and Prieto to file amicus brief in support of unions in pen/ben battle
Sweeney and Prieto to file amicus brief in support of unions in pen/ben battle
By Chase Brush | 04/20/15 3:58pm
With a second court battle over the state’s failure to put up a full payment into its public pension and benefits system pending, Democratic leaders of the legislature are looking to send the judge presiding over the case a statement that they’re on the side of the plantiffs.
In a amicus brief made public today, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3) and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-32) announced that they plan to officially inform Superior Court Mary Jacobson of their disapproval of the state’s failure to make the payments, a move that has had Gov. Chris Christie’s administration and public labor unions at loggerheads in recent months. The two first went to court over the issue last year, when Christie decided against making a scheduled payment into the fund for fiscal year 2015.
Christie’s proposed budget for the coming year included another partial payment into the fund, driving public labor organizations — such as the Communication workers of American, the AFL-CIO, and the New Jersey Education Assocation — to file second joint suit against the state for FY2016.
“We want to make it clear to the Court that the administration’s refusal to make the legally required pension payments violates the law and disregards legislative intent,” Sweeney and Prieto said in a joint statement today. “The pension reform bill approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor is a law he can’t choose to ignore. He has a legal, constitutional and contractual obligation to make the required payments.”
Last time around, Jacobson sided with unions in ruling that the state has a constitutional obligation to its public employees under the 2011 pen/ben reform law signed by Christie and the Democratic legislature. Christie has since argued that the state’s shaky fiscal footing requires further reforms to the system, and has proposed a pension overhaul plan that would freeze the state’s current system and create a new one to be possibly managed by unions like the NJEA.
That plan too has been met with criticism, particularly from police and fire unions, who’s funds their representatives argue are largely solvent and in no need of reform.
Supporters of upholding the 2011 law and making the scheduled payments, including Sweeney and Prieto, contend that if the governor had followed the funding timetable as required by the statute, the state be “well on the way to restoring the financial strength of the pension system.”
“The law explicitly creates a contractual obligation to make the contributions,” Sweeney and Prieto said today. “The Legislature met the requirements of the law by appropriating $2.25 billion to make the payment for Fiscal Year 2015. The governor chose to veto the funding and to slash the contribution by $1.57 billion with a line-item veto.
“By appropriating the full payment, the Legislature met the requirements of the State Constitution. The governor can’t veto the constitution,” they added.
The court date over the FY2016 payment is scheduled for May 12, and Sweeney and Prieto said they plan to submit their amicus brief by that time. A Supreme Court hearing on Jacobson’s ruling on the FY2015 payment, which the Christie administration appealed earlier this year, will be held on May 6.
“We support the unions in their lawsuit to force the administration to obey the law. The workers are keeping their part of the agreement with increased contributions, the governor should do the same,” they said. “The continuing refusal by the administration to make the required payments is making the situation worse. The state’s credit rating has been downgraded a record nine times, the state’s fiscal stability has been undermined and members of the pension system are forced to live with the instability of an underfunded plan.”
Unions behind the lawsuit sounded off as well.
“The fact that legislative leaders Sweeney and Prieto are joining the unions’ lawsuit as a friend of the court strengthens our already strong case,” said Charles Wowkanech, president of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO, which represents one million union members and their families. “By committing to the lawsuit, the legislative leaders are demonstrating their belief that the governor must adequately fund the pension system to ensure its long-term viability. A superior court judge and three Wall Street ratings agencies agree.”
By Chase Brush | 04/20/15 3:58pm
With a second court battle over the state’s failure to put up a full payment into its public pension and benefits system pending, Democratic leaders of the legislature are looking to send the judge presiding over the case a statement that they’re on the side of the plantiffs.
In a amicus brief made public today, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3) and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-32) announced that they plan to officially inform Superior Court Mary Jacobson of their disapproval of the state’s failure to make the payments, a move that has had Gov. Chris Christie’s administration and public labor unions at loggerheads in recent months. The two first went to court over the issue last year, when Christie decided against making a scheduled payment into the fund for fiscal year 2015.
Christie’s proposed budget for the coming year included another partial payment into the fund, driving public labor organizations — such as the Communication workers of American, the AFL-CIO, and the New Jersey Education Assocation — to file second joint suit against the state for FY2016.
“We want to make it clear to the Court that the administration’s refusal to make the legally required pension payments violates the law and disregards legislative intent,” Sweeney and Prieto said in a joint statement today. “The pension reform bill approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor is a law he can’t choose to ignore. He has a legal, constitutional and contractual obligation to make the required payments.”
Last time around, Jacobson sided with unions in ruling that the state has a constitutional obligation to its public employees under the 2011 pen/ben reform law signed by Christie and the Democratic legislature. Christie has since argued that the state’s shaky fiscal footing requires further reforms to the system, and has proposed a pension overhaul plan that would freeze the state’s current system and create a new one to be possibly managed by unions like the NJEA.
That plan too has been met with criticism, particularly from police and fire unions, who’s funds their representatives argue are largely solvent and in no need of reform.
Supporters of upholding the 2011 law and making the scheduled payments, including Sweeney and Prieto, contend that if the governor had followed the funding timetable as required by the statute, the state be “well on the way to restoring the financial strength of the pension system.”
“The law explicitly creates a contractual obligation to make the contributions,” Sweeney and Prieto said today. “The Legislature met the requirements of the law by appropriating $2.25 billion to make the payment for Fiscal Year 2015. The governor chose to veto the funding and to slash the contribution by $1.57 billion with a line-item veto.
“By appropriating the full payment, the Legislature met the requirements of the State Constitution. The governor can’t veto the constitution,” they added.
The court date over the FY2016 payment is scheduled for May 12, and Sweeney and Prieto said they plan to submit their amicus brief by that time. A Supreme Court hearing on Jacobson’s ruling on the FY2015 payment, which the Christie administration appealed earlier this year, will be held on May 6.
“We support the unions in their lawsuit to force the administration to obey the law. The workers are keeping their part of the agreement with increased contributions, the governor should do the same,” they said. “The continuing refusal by the administration to make the required payments is making the situation worse. The state’s credit rating has been downgraded a record nine times, the state’s fiscal stability has been undermined and members of the pension system are forced to live with the instability of an underfunded plan.”
Unions behind the lawsuit sounded off as well.
“The fact that legislative leaders Sweeney and Prieto are joining the unions’ lawsuit as a friend of the court strengthens our already strong case,” said Charles Wowkanech, president of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO, which represents one million union members and their families. “By committing to the lawsuit, the legislative leaders are demonstrating their belief that the governor must adequately fund the pension system to ensure its long-term viability. A superior court judge and three Wall Street ratings agencies agree.”
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Christie ships pension funds to Wall Street pals, and therein lies a story
Chris Christie's stump speech always includes a passage about how the tough choices had made with regard to pensions, but those choices deserve some healthy scrutiny (Andre Malok/Star-Ledger)
Star-Ledger
on August 27, 2014
There is a curiously overlooked story from David Sirota that examines the mutually profitable kinship between Gov. Chris Christie and Wall Street hedge funds, and the most curious part is that some of them receive an extraordinary amount of New Jersey business – specifically, the stewardship of state pension funds -- after being identified as the guys who bankrolled the political career of Christie himself.
Among the findings that might make your head explode:
1. There has been a 300-percent spike in management fees over the last three years. Somehow, that seems a bit high, but then, he’s a man who likes to pay for premium services.
2. We spent $400 million last year alone to manage these funds – and the funds' 15.9-percent returns are well below the 17.4 national average, according to an analysis firm.
3. Some funds are managed by Elliott Associates, which is run by uber-vulture Paul Singer -- a Christie sugar daddy that you should know, because he’s the kind of guy who can bring entire governments to their knees. Yes, that includes our own.
One paragraph for your perusal:
The state has sent more pension money to big-name Wall Street firms like Blackstone, Third Point, Omega Advisors, Elliott Associates and Grady's old firm, The Carlyle Group. Additionally, the amount of fees the state pays financial managers has more than tripled since Christie assumed office. New Jersey is now one of America's largest investors in hedge funds. The "maximized returns" have yet to materialize. Between fiscal year 2011 and 2014, the state's pension trailed the median returns for similarly sized public pension systems throughout the country, according to data from the financial analysis firm, Wilshire Associates. That below-median performance has cost New Jersey taxpayers billions in unrealized gains and has left the pension system on shaky ground. Meanwhile, New Jersey is now paying a quarter-billion dollars in additional annual fees to Wall Street firms -- many of whose employees have financially supported Republican groups backing Christie's reelection campaign.
There are a few questions that need to be answered here, starting with this one:
Does this story deserve more traction, or have we grown so anesthetized by our leaders taking gargantuan risks with our money to benefit his political cronies?
That's not a rhetorical question.
Star-Ledger
on August 27, 2014
There is a curiously overlooked story from David Sirota that examines the mutually profitable kinship between Gov. Chris Christie and Wall Street hedge funds, and the most curious part is that some of them receive an extraordinary amount of New Jersey business – specifically, the stewardship of state pension funds -- after being identified as the guys who bankrolled the political career of Christie himself.
Among the findings that might make your head explode:
1. There has been a 300-percent spike in management fees over the last three years. Somehow, that seems a bit high, but then, he’s a man who likes to pay for premium services.
2. We spent $400 million last year alone to manage these funds – and the funds' 15.9-percent returns are well below the 17.4 national average, according to an analysis firm.
3. Some funds are managed by Elliott Associates, which is run by uber-vulture Paul Singer -- a Christie sugar daddy that you should know, because he’s the kind of guy who can bring entire governments to their knees. Yes, that includes our own.
One paragraph for your perusal:
The state has sent more pension money to big-name Wall Street firms like Blackstone, Third Point, Omega Advisors, Elliott Associates and Grady's old firm, The Carlyle Group. Additionally, the amount of fees the state pays financial managers has more than tripled since Christie assumed office. New Jersey is now one of America's largest investors in hedge funds. The "maximized returns" have yet to materialize. Between fiscal year 2011 and 2014, the state's pension trailed the median returns for similarly sized public pension systems throughout the country, according to data from the financial analysis firm, Wilshire Associates. That below-median performance has cost New Jersey taxpayers billions in unrealized gains and has left the pension system on shaky ground. Meanwhile, New Jersey is now paying a quarter-billion dollars in additional annual fees to Wall Street firms -- many of whose employees have financially supported Republican groups backing Christie's reelection campaign.
There are a few questions that need to be answered here, starting with this one:
Does this story deserve more traction, or have we grown so anesthetized by our leaders taking gargantuan risks with our money to benefit his political cronies?
That's not a rhetorical question.
Chris Christie's hypocrisy on full display in Illinois
Chris Christie is the man who wasted $12 million on a special election presumes to instruct Illinois on proper poll etiquette.
Star-Ledger
on August 27, 2014
Time once again to hop aboard the traveling hypocrisy circus, governed by the man who never misses an opportunity to employ the same tactics he pretends to deride.
Gov. Christie was in Illinois Tuesday, stumping for some private equity guy running for governor who won’t release his tax returns, and he gave his usual breathtaking show of chutzpah by accusing the sitting governor, Pat Quinn, of manipulating the turnout in November.
“He will try every trick in the book. I see the stuff that’s going on,” said the omnipotent Oz. “Same-day registration all of a sudden this year comes to Illinois. Shocking. I’m sure it was all based upon public policy, good public policy to get same-day registration here in Illinois just this year, when the governor is in the toilet and needs as much help as he can get.”
Just two problems with that. First, it wasn’t the Democrats who got same-day registration passed, it was the Illinois Board of Elections, which consists of four Republicans and four Democrats. And Christie’s candidate, Bruce Rauner, supported it.
Second: Every study shows that same-day registration works superbly in the other 11 states it is used, increasing turnout by 10 percent, eliminating arbitrary deadlines, and facilitating poll access for mobile voters such as college students – while safeguarding against fraud.
"Debilitating stupidity" -- Dick Armey on Chris Christie's 2013 election chicanery
But Christie, now a leader of the party that champions voter suppression, calls same-day registration a maneuver that “would make New Jersey blush.”
Really, that’s precious.
Remember this comes from a governor who knows something about manipulating votes. He spent $12 million in taxpayer funds to hold a special election in October last year and called for a special election so that he wouldn't have to appear on the ballot with Cory Booker in November. He knew that Booker's candidacy would draw out the Democratic base, and he was determined to avoid it, so that he could run up his own margin of victory.
Now, that should make the man blush.
There were a lot of predictable reactions to this shameless hypocrisy, but the most memorable came from the unlikeliest of sources: “Debilitating stupidity," former Republican leader Dick Armey called it on CNN. "Dimwitted."
But that’s voter suppression, and Chris Christie has fully embraced the method. And on Tuesday, he whined about his inability to exercise it.
Star-Ledger
on August 27, 2014
Time once again to hop aboard the traveling hypocrisy circus, governed by the man who never misses an opportunity to employ the same tactics he pretends to deride.
Gov. Christie was in Illinois Tuesday, stumping for some private equity guy running for governor who won’t release his tax returns, and he gave his usual breathtaking show of chutzpah by accusing the sitting governor, Pat Quinn, of manipulating the turnout in November.
“He will try every trick in the book. I see the stuff that’s going on,” said the omnipotent Oz. “Same-day registration all of a sudden this year comes to Illinois. Shocking. I’m sure it was all based upon public policy, good public policy to get same-day registration here in Illinois just this year, when the governor is in the toilet and needs as much help as he can get.”
Just two problems with that. First, it wasn’t the Democrats who got same-day registration passed, it was the Illinois Board of Elections, which consists of four Republicans and four Democrats. And Christie’s candidate, Bruce Rauner, supported it.
Second: Every study shows that same-day registration works superbly in the other 11 states it is used, increasing turnout by 10 percent, eliminating arbitrary deadlines, and facilitating poll access for mobile voters such as college students – while safeguarding against fraud.
"Debilitating stupidity" -- Dick Armey on Chris Christie's 2013 election chicanery
But Christie, now a leader of the party that champions voter suppression, calls same-day registration a maneuver that “would make New Jersey blush.”
Really, that’s precious.
Remember this comes from a governor who knows something about manipulating votes. He spent $12 million in taxpayer funds to hold a special election in October last year and called for a special election so that he wouldn't have to appear on the ballot with Cory Booker in November. He knew that Booker's candidacy would draw out the Democratic base, and he was determined to avoid it, so that he could run up his own margin of victory.
Now, that should make the man blush.
There were a lot of predictable reactions to this shameless hypocrisy, but the most memorable came from the unlikeliest of sources: “Debilitating stupidity," former Republican leader Dick Armey called it on CNN. "Dimwitted."
But that’s voter suppression, and Chris Christie has fully embraced the method. And on Tuesday, he whined about his inability to exercise it.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Gov. Chris Christie's costly legal bills are mounting burden for N.J. taxpayers
By Times of Trenton
on August 22, 2014
The good people of New Jersey, already shelling out top dollar to keep their cash-strapped state running, have a new burden to carry: their governor’s legal bills.
The law firm representing Chris Christie and his administration in connection with the George Washington Bridge scandal has submitted its latest invoice — for a cool $6.5 million. Added to related government legal costs that We the People will be shouldering, the total comes to $8.5 million. And the meter is still running.
See anyone out there eager to dig into his pocket to dig Christie out of a hole many believe he dug for himself? Neither do we.
The recent bills came from the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher for an internal investigation which (surprise!) absolved the governor of wrongdoing in last fall’s incident, in which multiple lanes on the heavily trafficked bridge were inexplicably closed, causing massive gridlock.
This is hardly the first time the governor has shown a cavalier attitude toward taxpayers’ wallets. Remember that last year, he ordered a special election to replace the late U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, just three weeks before a regularly scheduled November election.
His official reason? Christie didn’t want to cause “voter confusion.” The unofficial version? He didn’t care to share the ballot with the highly charismatic Cory Booker.
That thinking ran up an estimated tab of $12 million above and beyond the cost of a general election.
And then there are those town hall meetings — more than 120 so far — where the governor famously gets to insult teachers and call ex-Navy SEALS idiots. Billed as opportunities to interact with constituents, these gathering, often limited to a select audience, smell more to us like taxpayer-funded campaign rallies.
Meanwhile, costs for the legislative investigation into the bridge closings — closings many believe were meant as retaliation after Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, declined to endorse Christie — also continue to mount, even as federal authorities conduct their own probe.
By as early as April, the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation, which Democratic lawmakers have used to get a handle on the bridge events, had spent at close to half a million in state funds for a legal team led by Reid Schar, a former federal prosecutor.
File under: Department of Redundancy Department.
The real tragedy is that all this money could have been so much more wisely spent — say, to restore the $7.5 million that under the Christie administration is no longer underwriting women’s health initiatives such as mammograms and cancer screenings.
on August 22, 2014
The good people of New Jersey, already shelling out top dollar to keep their cash-strapped state running, have a new burden to carry: their governor’s legal bills.
The law firm representing Chris Christie and his administration in connection with the George Washington Bridge scandal has submitted its latest invoice — for a cool $6.5 million. Added to related government legal costs that We the People will be shouldering, the total comes to $8.5 million. And the meter is still running.
See anyone out there eager to dig into his pocket to dig Christie out of a hole many believe he dug for himself? Neither do we.
The recent bills came from the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher for an internal investigation which (surprise!) absolved the governor of wrongdoing in last fall’s incident, in which multiple lanes on the heavily trafficked bridge were inexplicably closed, causing massive gridlock.
This is hardly the first time the governor has shown a cavalier attitude toward taxpayers’ wallets. Remember that last year, he ordered a special election to replace the late U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, just three weeks before a regularly scheduled November election.
His official reason? Christie didn’t want to cause “voter confusion.” The unofficial version? He didn’t care to share the ballot with the highly charismatic Cory Booker.
That thinking ran up an estimated tab of $12 million above and beyond the cost of a general election.
And then there are those town hall meetings — more than 120 so far — where the governor famously gets to insult teachers and call ex-Navy SEALS idiots. Billed as opportunities to interact with constituents, these gathering, often limited to a select audience, smell more to us like taxpayer-funded campaign rallies.
Meanwhile, costs for the legislative investigation into the bridge closings — closings many believe were meant as retaliation after Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, declined to endorse Christie — also continue to mount, even as federal authorities conduct their own probe.
By as early as April, the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation, which Democratic lawmakers have used to get a handle on the bridge events, had spent at close to half a million in state funds for a legal team led by Reid Schar, a former federal prosecutor.
File under: Department of Redundancy Department.
The real tragedy is that all this money could have been so much more wisely spent — say, to restore the $7.5 million that under the Christie administration is no longer underwriting women’s health initiatives such as mammograms and cancer screenings.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Sweeney says Christie's pension plan is a presidential audition, 'zero' chance of N.J. Legislature passing it
By Matt Friedman | The Star-Ledger
on July 28, 2014
NEWARK — State Senate President Stephen Sweeney said Gov. Chris Christie's push for new pension cutbacks is part of his strategy to run for president in 2016.
“The end game is to make himself the darling of the national political scene again,” Sweeney said at a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting today.
Sweeney (D-Gloucester) also said there is “zero” chance that legislative Democrats will make a deal with Christie to further cut back pensions for public workers, which they did three years ago.
“He broke his word. He didn’t make the payment,” Sweeney said. “So why would I do anything if he’s not keeping his word?”
Sweeney worked with Christie in 2011 to make cuts to public workers’ pension and health benefits. As part of the deal, the state was required to gradually increase its payments into the system after years of shorting it.
But faced with huge budget shortfalls after years of over-estimating state revenue, Christie filled the holes by skipping more than $2 billion in payments through June of 2015.
Christie has begun touring the state to gin up support for his plan, even though he has not announced exactly what he wants to do . Christie has said he hopes to have the plan in place by the end of the summer , and has has suggested it would involve moving new public workers into a 401k-type system instead of pensions.
Sweeney’s sponsorship of the 2011 cutbacks to public pensions and benefits strained his already-tense relationship with public workers’ unions. But Sweeney said he could at least tell them at the time that the government was kicking up its contributions.
“The labor people were not on my side when I did the previous reforms, but my comments were ‘I have the payment guaranteed.’ Now you know what I have? I have nothing,” Sweeney said. “So how do I go back to people in good faith and say ‘trust me this time… I’m going to double-pinky swear it will work this time?’”
But just as Christie is considered a likely candidate for president in 2016, Sweeney is expected to run for governor in 2017 – or earlier, if Christie leaves office before his term is up to pursue the presidency.
Sweeney denied that his resistance to pension changes has anything to do with his own ambitions.
“This has nothing to do with running for any other office,” Sweeney said. “This has to do with keeping the commitment.”
Sweeney said he has “no idea” whether Christie will leave office early, but that he personally thinks Christie will leave before the next budget has to be passed in June 2015. Sweeney said he can’t imagine Christie would want to deal with the un-funded Transportation Trust Fund.
“That’s my guestimate. Everyone has a guess,” Sweeney said. “For me, I don’t know how he does another budget because he has to deal with the Transportaiton Trust Fund, and has to provide a solution to it. And the pensions. So you have a big number of major issues coming at you. And they’re not going away.”
on July 28, 2014
NEWARK — State Senate President Stephen Sweeney said Gov. Chris Christie's push for new pension cutbacks is part of his strategy to run for president in 2016.
“The end game is to make himself the darling of the national political scene again,” Sweeney said at a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting today.
Sweeney (D-Gloucester) also said there is “zero” chance that legislative Democrats will make a deal with Christie to further cut back pensions for public workers, which they did three years ago.
“He broke his word. He didn’t make the payment,” Sweeney said. “So why would I do anything if he’s not keeping his word?”
Sweeney worked with Christie in 2011 to make cuts to public workers’ pension and health benefits. As part of the deal, the state was required to gradually increase its payments into the system after years of shorting it.
But faced with huge budget shortfalls after years of over-estimating state revenue, Christie filled the holes by skipping more than $2 billion in payments through June of 2015.
Christie has begun touring the state to gin up support for his plan, even though he has not announced exactly what he wants to do . Christie has said he hopes to have the plan in place by the end of the summer , and has has suggested it would involve moving new public workers into a 401k-type system instead of pensions.
Sweeney’s sponsorship of the 2011 cutbacks to public pensions and benefits strained his already-tense relationship with public workers’ unions. But Sweeney said he could at least tell them at the time that the government was kicking up its contributions.
“The labor people were not on my side when I did the previous reforms, but my comments were ‘I have the payment guaranteed.’ Now you know what I have? I have nothing,” Sweeney said. “So how do I go back to people in good faith and say ‘trust me this time… I’m going to double-pinky swear it will work this time?’”
But just as Christie is considered a likely candidate for president in 2016, Sweeney is expected to run for governor in 2017 – or earlier, if Christie leaves office before his term is up to pursue the presidency.
Sweeney denied that his resistance to pension changes has anything to do with his own ambitions.
“This has nothing to do with running for any other office,” Sweeney said. “This has to do with keeping the commitment.”
Sweeney said he has “no idea” whether Christie will leave office early, but that he personally thinks Christie will leave before the next budget has to be passed in June 2015. Sweeney said he can’t imagine Christie would want to deal with the un-funded Transportation Trust Fund.
“That’s my guestimate. Everyone has a guess,” Sweeney said. “For me, I don’t know how he does another budget because he has to deal with the Transportaiton Trust Fund, and has to provide a solution to it. And the pensions. So you have a big number of major issues coming at you. And they’re not going away.”
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
“Remembering Lauren Rousseau” Posted: Wednesday / 7.23.2014 / 11:20 AM
“Remembering Lauren Rousseau”
Posted: Wednesday / 7.23.2014 / 11:20 AM
NJ State PBA President's message:
I wanted to thank all the members who turned out yesterday in Long Beach Island. While some in the media categorized our gathering as a protest, those who were there know that is far from the truth. We stood in solidarity with firefighters, teachers and other concerned public employees and residents in remembrance of Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher Lauren Rousseau who the park was built for. It seems callous that the Governor would kick off his campaign to call for public workers to make more sacrifice at a park dedicated to a teacher who made the ultimate sacrifice.
The Governor and his staff may have been looking to create a YouTube moment, hoping cops would be yelling and shouting him down as he spoke, but they did not get it. The officers who were present at the park exemplified the best of who we are with their conduct and presence. The silence of the more than 200 members present was louder than anything the Governor said.
There will be a time and place to protest the Governor and what he is doing. Yesterday was a day to make sure the memory of Lauren Rousseau was not forgotten. I thank all the officers who made sure the media and public remembered this location not for a town hall meeting, but for an outstanding teacher who lost her life doing what she loved.
Christie vs. Astorino: New York hopeful slams governor for lack of support
Christie vs. Astorino: New York hopeful slams governor for lack of support
By Brent Johnson | The Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
TRENTON — On Monday, Gov. Chris Christie gave a simple reason for why he isn’t planning to make New York a campaign stop on his national tour as head of the Republican Governors Association: The GOP’s attempt to defeat Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo was a "lost cause."
On Tuesday, the party’s candidate in that race — Rob Astorino — shot back at Jersey’s outspoken governor.
Astorino said Christie should resign as the RGA chair for not supporting a fellow Republican. And he suggested the governor could be shying away from this race because of "a connection" with Cuomo over the George Washington Bridge scandal.
"If he’s unable to do his job as RGA chair to help Republican candidates, including the one in New York, if there’s a side deal or a quid pro quo or a handshake between the two of them, then obviously he can’t do his job," Astorino, the Westchester County executive, said during a radio interview on WGDJ 1300 AM.
The dustup came in the middle of Christie’s ever-busy schedule as chairman of the RGA, a group that raises money for Republican hopefuls throughout the county. Christie has traveled to nearly two dozen states to campaign for candidates, raising a record $60 million in the process — and helping boost his own profile as he considers a run for president in 2016.
During a campaign visit to Connecticut on Monday, Christie said even though New Jersey is right next to New York, it’s unlikely he’ll campaign for Astorino in his attempt to oust Cuomo.
"I will spend time in places where we have a chance to win — I said that right from the beginning,” Christie told reporters.
"We don’t pay for landslides and we don’t invest in lost causes," he added. "If the New York race becomes competitive, I’ll consider campaigning in the New York race. But right now, by the public polls, there’s a lot more competitive races like this one in Connecticut."
A Sienna College poll released Monday shows Cuomo holds a 37 percentage-point lead over Astorino.
But during a news conference in Manhattan Tuesday, Astorino suggested Christie isn’t doing his job as RGA chair by declining to back him.
"My take is maybe it’s inconvenient to come over the bridge to New York to help a Republican candidate for governor here," Astorino said. "That’s his call, whether he wants to or not. But as RGA chair, he has governors and candidates who have a chance to win, and it’s incumbent upon him to help all of us."
Astorino then suggested the bridge scandal may be playing a role, though he didn’t make specific allegations.
"I don’t know if there’s a connection between him and Andrew Cuomo on Bridgegate, or if Cuomo has something that he’s holding back — information that could be damaging to the governor," Astorino said. "Whatever Gov. Christie knew or didn’t know is probably the same for Gov. Cuomo. And if there’s anything being held back that Gov. Cuomo knows and if he’s holding that over Gov. Christie’s head, I don’t know."
Christie’s office and Cuomo’s office declined comment. But David Paterson, the former New York governor who heads the state Democratic Party, shot down the claims related to the bridge controversy.
"That is a reckless, irresponsible accusation to make with no basis whatsoever, and not fitting for a qualified gubernatorial candidate," Paterson said in a statement. "Maybe that’s why his candidacy is not being taken seriously."
Christie and Cuomo both appoint officials to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bistate agency that oversees tunnels and bridges between the states.
Federal prosecutors and members of a New Jersey state legislative committee are investigating whether members of Christie’s office conspired with his allies at the Port Authority to close lanes at the George Washington Bridge last September, causing days of heavy traffic in Fort Lee. Democrats allege the scheme was hatched because Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor refused to endorse Christie for re-election. Christie has denied personal involvement, and he and Cuomo have announced a joint initiative to reform the Port Authority.
Despite his comments Monday, Christie has campaigned for underdog Republicans.
In New Hampshire, where the GOP has yet to nominate a candidate, Christie appeared on the campaign trail last month with gubernatorial hopeful Walt Havenstein — who was trailing Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan by more than 31 percentage points, according to a June poll. Christie is scheduled to take another trip to New Hampshire, which holds the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, next week.
He also campaigned in Iowa for the state’s five-term governor, Terry Branstad, who shows little signs he needs a boost to win re-election. Branstad has far more cash on hand than his Democratic challenger, and a recent Marist poll showed him with a double-digit lead and a 58 percent approval rating.
NJ Advance Media reporter Matt Arco contributed to this report.
By Brent Johnson | The Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
TRENTON — On Monday, Gov. Chris Christie gave a simple reason for why he isn’t planning to make New York a campaign stop on his national tour as head of the Republican Governors Association: The GOP’s attempt to defeat Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo was a "lost cause."
On Tuesday, the party’s candidate in that race — Rob Astorino — shot back at Jersey’s outspoken governor.
Astorino said Christie should resign as the RGA chair for not supporting a fellow Republican. And he suggested the governor could be shying away from this race because of "a connection" with Cuomo over the George Washington Bridge scandal.
"If he’s unable to do his job as RGA chair to help Republican candidates, including the one in New York, if there’s a side deal or a quid pro quo or a handshake between the two of them, then obviously he can’t do his job," Astorino, the Westchester County executive, said during a radio interview on WGDJ 1300 AM.
The dustup came in the middle of Christie’s ever-busy schedule as chairman of the RGA, a group that raises money for Republican hopefuls throughout the county. Christie has traveled to nearly two dozen states to campaign for candidates, raising a record $60 million in the process — and helping boost his own profile as he considers a run for president in 2016.
During a campaign visit to Connecticut on Monday, Christie said even though New Jersey is right next to New York, it’s unlikely he’ll campaign for Astorino in his attempt to oust Cuomo.
"I will spend time in places where we have a chance to win — I said that right from the beginning,” Christie told reporters.
"We don’t pay for landslides and we don’t invest in lost causes," he added. "If the New York race becomes competitive, I’ll consider campaigning in the New York race. But right now, by the public polls, there’s a lot more competitive races like this one in Connecticut."
A Sienna College poll released Monday shows Cuomo holds a 37 percentage-point lead over Astorino.
But during a news conference in Manhattan Tuesday, Astorino suggested Christie isn’t doing his job as RGA chair by declining to back him.
"My take is maybe it’s inconvenient to come over the bridge to New York to help a Republican candidate for governor here," Astorino said. "That’s his call, whether he wants to or not. But as RGA chair, he has governors and candidates who have a chance to win, and it’s incumbent upon him to help all of us."
Astorino then suggested the bridge scandal may be playing a role, though he didn’t make specific allegations.
"I don’t know if there’s a connection between him and Andrew Cuomo on Bridgegate, or if Cuomo has something that he’s holding back — information that could be damaging to the governor," Astorino said. "Whatever Gov. Christie knew or didn’t know is probably the same for Gov. Cuomo. And if there’s anything being held back that Gov. Cuomo knows and if he’s holding that over Gov. Christie’s head, I don’t know."
Christie’s office and Cuomo’s office declined comment. But David Paterson, the former New York governor who heads the state Democratic Party, shot down the claims related to the bridge controversy.
"That is a reckless, irresponsible accusation to make with no basis whatsoever, and not fitting for a qualified gubernatorial candidate," Paterson said in a statement. "Maybe that’s why his candidacy is not being taken seriously."
Christie and Cuomo both appoint officials to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bistate agency that oversees tunnels and bridges between the states.
Federal prosecutors and members of a New Jersey state legislative committee are investigating whether members of Christie’s office conspired with his allies at the Port Authority to close lanes at the George Washington Bridge last September, causing days of heavy traffic in Fort Lee. Democrats allege the scheme was hatched because Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor refused to endorse Christie for re-election. Christie has denied personal involvement, and he and Cuomo have announced a joint initiative to reform the Port Authority.
Despite his comments Monday, Christie has campaigned for underdog Republicans.
In New Hampshire, where the GOP has yet to nominate a candidate, Christie appeared on the campaign trail last month with gubernatorial hopeful Walt Havenstein — who was trailing Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan by more than 31 percentage points, according to a June poll. Christie is scheduled to take another trip to New Hampshire, which holds the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, next week.
He also campaigned in Iowa for the state’s five-term governor, Terry Branstad, who shows little signs he needs a boost to win re-election. Branstad has far more cash on hand than his Democratic challenger, and a recent Marist poll showed him with a double-digit lead and a 58 percent approval rating.
NJ Advance Media reporter Matt Arco contributed to this report.
Christie, Malloy renew attacks on each other after Connecticut trip
Christie, Malloy renew attacks on each other after Connecticut trip
By Brent Johnson | The Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
TRENTON — The rivalry between Gov. Chris Christie and Connecticut Gov. Dannell Malloy has apparently been renewed, according to published reports.
Christie, a Republican, and Malloy, a Democrat, butted heads a few years ago over their stance on tax hikes and public worker pensions. Malloy even dubbed himself "the anti-Christie."
On Monday, Christie — who has been traveling the country as chairman of the Republican Governors Association — visited Connecticut to campaign for Tom Foley, one of the GOP hopefuls challenging Malloy's re-election bid this year.
There, he blasted Malloy's economic record and vowed to return to the state "again and again and again" to help elect a governor that could do better.
"I know, as a guy who has won twice in a blue state, these are winnable races," Christie told reporters during an appearance at a diner in Greenwich, according to a report by the Hartford Courant. "We'll be here a lot between now and Nov. 4."
On Tuesday, Malloy responded by slamming Christie for his position on gun control and his own economic record in New Jersey during an interview with the Associated Press. He also chastised Connecticut Republicans for aligning with Christie.
"I want everyone to look at New Jersey and assume that Tom Foley would do the same thing, or (John) McKinney would to the same thing to Connecticut that he's done to New Jersey, which is basically drive it closer and closer to bankruptcy," Malloy told the news agency. "That's what they're embracing when they embrace Governor Christie."
Foley, the state GOP's endorsed candidate, and state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney will battle in August's primary for the Republican nomination to face Malloy in November's general election.
Christie and Malloy's rivalry stretches back to 2011, when Malloy proposed raising taxes in his state by $1.5 billion. Christie responded by saying he would "be at the border to take Connecticut's jobs when he does it."
"I suppose I'm the anti-Christie," Malloy later told reporters.
This is the second time Christie has endorsed Foley, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. He backed Foley over Malloy when the two previously battled for the governor's office in 2010 — a race that ended with Malloy being elected to his first term.
"Gov. Malloy's thrilled I'm here today," Christie said during his appearance in Connecticut on Monday. "And I know that he'll be thrilled when I come here again and again and again to do the best I can to make sure that Connecticut has a governor that will bring growth to the state and jobs and its economy.
"Dan Malloy's had four years to do that," he added. "He hasn't done it. And so he can say whatever he wants about me. I happen to like Dan personally. I think he's a decent guy. I just don't think he's a good governor. He tends to say a lot of inflammatory things about me, and I'm just not going to return fire on a personal level."
Malloy criticized Christie, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, during a few public appearances Tuesday.
"I don't mind comparing Connecticut on a whole bunch of fronts to New Jersey. I don't at all," he said, according to the Courant report. "You look at what his leadership has done to the state of New Jersey, increasing debt substantially, un-funding the pension plan .. it is a disaster waiting to happen."
Newtown gun control advocates protest Chris Christie’s Connecticut trip
About 150 protesters - including several dozen from Newtown, Conn. site of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School - gathered on a quiet street in Greenwich where New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was attending a fund raiser for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Foley. The protesters were there to speak out against Christie’s veto of a bill that would have limited gun magazines to ten rounds. (video by Brian Donohue / The Star-Ledger)
Christie was recently faced with a sudden $1.7 billion gap in the state budget. He chose to fill it in part by reducing planned payments to the state's public-worker pension system — rejecting a plan by Democrats to hike taxes on millionaires and businesses instead.
Unions filed a lawsuit to stop him and critics said the move will saddle New Jersey with more long-term debt, but Christie said the state's pension system is too costly to sustain and promised to unveil new reforms later this summer.
Malloy also criticized Christie for declining to meet with parents of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting earlier this month when they visited New Jersey to urge him to sign a gun control bill introduced in the wake of the massacre to reduce the size of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds in New Jersey. The 2012 shooting killed 26 students and teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Christie vetoed the bill, calling it "trivial" and saying he didn't believe it would prevent such shootings. He added that he did not meet with the parents because he had already decided to sign the veto and did not want to be hypocritical.
"Here's a governor that refused to meet with the survivors of Newtown and called their concerns trivial," Malloy told the AP on Tuesday. "If that's what Republicans want to tie themselves to in our state, god bless them. I hope he comes a lot."
Jerry Labriola Jr., chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party, called it "unfortunate that Dan Malloy must resort to inflammatory language concerning a neighboring governor."
Labriola praised Christie as a leader with the ability to bring people together.
"However, what our governor fails to mention is that, like in Hartford, the purse strings of New Jersey are controlled by a Democrat legislature," he said. "So, I'm sure that much of Gov. Christie's free-market agenda is being stymied by the Democrats' blue-state brand of big government and overreach."
By Brent Johnson | The Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
TRENTON — The rivalry between Gov. Chris Christie and Connecticut Gov. Dannell Malloy has apparently been renewed, according to published reports.
Christie, a Republican, and Malloy, a Democrat, butted heads a few years ago over their stance on tax hikes and public worker pensions. Malloy even dubbed himself "the anti-Christie."
On Monday, Christie — who has been traveling the country as chairman of the Republican Governors Association — visited Connecticut to campaign for Tom Foley, one of the GOP hopefuls challenging Malloy's re-election bid this year.
There, he blasted Malloy's economic record and vowed to return to the state "again and again and again" to help elect a governor that could do better.
"I know, as a guy who has won twice in a blue state, these are winnable races," Christie told reporters during an appearance at a diner in Greenwich, according to a report by the Hartford Courant. "We'll be here a lot between now and Nov. 4."
On Tuesday, Malloy responded by slamming Christie for his position on gun control and his own economic record in New Jersey during an interview with the Associated Press. He also chastised Connecticut Republicans for aligning with Christie.
"I want everyone to look at New Jersey and assume that Tom Foley would do the same thing, or (John) McKinney would to the same thing to Connecticut that he's done to New Jersey, which is basically drive it closer and closer to bankruptcy," Malloy told the news agency. "That's what they're embracing when they embrace Governor Christie."
Foley, the state GOP's endorsed candidate, and state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney will battle in August's primary for the Republican nomination to face Malloy in November's general election.
Christie and Malloy's rivalry stretches back to 2011, when Malloy proposed raising taxes in his state by $1.5 billion. Christie responded by saying he would "be at the border to take Connecticut's jobs when he does it."
"I suppose I'm the anti-Christie," Malloy later told reporters.
This is the second time Christie has endorsed Foley, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. He backed Foley over Malloy when the two previously battled for the governor's office in 2010 — a race that ended with Malloy being elected to his first term.
"Gov. Malloy's thrilled I'm here today," Christie said during his appearance in Connecticut on Monday. "And I know that he'll be thrilled when I come here again and again and again to do the best I can to make sure that Connecticut has a governor that will bring growth to the state and jobs and its economy.
"Dan Malloy's had four years to do that," he added. "He hasn't done it. And so he can say whatever he wants about me. I happen to like Dan personally. I think he's a decent guy. I just don't think he's a good governor. He tends to say a lot of inflammatory things about me, and I'm just not going to return fire on a personal level."
Malloy criticized Christie, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, during a few public appearances Tuesday.
"I don't mind comparing Connecticut on a whole bunch of fronts to New Jersey. I don't at all," he said, according to the Courant report. "You look at what his leadership has done to the state of New Jersey, increasing debt substantially, un-funding the pension plan .. it is a disaster waiting to happen."
Newtown gun control advocates protest Chris Christie’s Connecticut trip
About 150 protesters - including several dozen from Newtown, Conn. site of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School - gathered on a quiet street in Greenwich where New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was attending a fund raiser for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Foley. The protesters were there to speak out against Christie’s veto of a bill that would have limited gun magazines to ten rounds. (video by Brian Donohue / The Star-Ledger)
Christie was recently faced with a sudden $1.7 billion gap in the state budget. He chose to fill it in part by reducing planned payments to the state's public-worker pension system — rejecting a plan by Democrats to hike taxes on millionaires and businesses instead.
Unions filed a lawsuit to stop him and critics said the move will saddle New Jersey with more long-term debt, but Christie said the state's pension system is too costly to sustain and promised to unveil new reforms later this summer.
Malloy also criticized Christie for declining to meet with parents of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting earlier this month when they visited New Jersey to urge him to sign a gun control bill introduced in the wake of the massacre to reduce the size of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds in New Jersey. The 2012 shooting killed 26 students and teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Christie vetoed the bill, calling it "trivial" and saying he didn't believe it would prevent such shootings. He added that he did not meet with the parents because he had already decided to sign the veto and did not want to be hypocritical.
"Here's a governor that refused to meet with the survivors of Newtown and called their concerns trivial," Malloy told the AP on Tuesday. "If that's what Republicans want to tie themselves to in our state, god bless them. I hope he comes a lot."
Jerry Labriola Jr., chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party, called it "unfortunate that Dan Malloy must resort to inflammatory language concerning a neighboring governor."
Labriola praised Christie as a leader with the ability to bring people together.
"However, what our governor fails to mention is that, like in Hartford, the purse strings of New Jersey are controlled by a Democrat legislature," he said. "So, I'm sure that much of Gov. Christie's free-market agenda is being stymied by the Democrats' blue-state brand of big government and overreach."
Chris Christie's puffery on tough choices
Main points: :...He’s right when he says the ship of state is heading straight into the rocks. Our fiscal crisis is now the nation’s second-worst, behind only Illinois. But he’s been steering all the while. He has won every budget fight since swearing his oath..."
"...The chutzpah is remarkable. Christie just exploded his own pension reform by failing to make $2.4 billion in promised payments. Public workers did their part by paying more into the fund, and taking out less. It was the governor who reneged...."
"...Christie knows that Democrats won’t support the lopsided deal he has in mind, especially after he broke his word the first time around. So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters. Screaming at Democrats and the unions could be his political plan."
Chris Christie's puffery on tough choices
By Tom Moran/ Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
Gov. Chris Christie says he won’t campaign for the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York because the cause is hopeless: Gov. Andrew Cuomo is ahead by more than 30 points.
But he will campaign in New Hampshire, over and over, where the Republican is also trailing by more than 30 points.
What’s the reason? It may be that New Hampshire holds the nation’s first presidential primary. It may be that he doesn’t want to mess with Cuomo, who knows where the skeletons are buried at the Port Authority.
But one thing is certain: Gov. Straight Talk is spinning again. And it seems to be habit-forming.
So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters.
Now he is touring the state talking about the need to man up and face the tough choices on the budget. No pain, he says, no gain.
He’s right when he says the ship of state is heading straight into the rocks. Our fiscal crisis is now the nation’s second-worst, behind only Illinois.
But he’s been steering all the while. He has won every budget fight since swearing his oath.
The chutzpah is remarkable. Christie just exploded his own pension reform by failing to make $2.4 billion in promised payments. Public workers did their part by paying more into the fund, and taking out less. It was the governor who reneged.
He’s trying to hide that fact with Hollywood-style puffery. He’s even released a video full of tough-guy rhetoric.
“There is no way to fix a severe problem like this...but with pain,” he says.
The only thing missing is an actual plan to match the rhetoric. All he’s saying is that he won’t increases taxes on millionaires to help cover the cost. It will all come out of worker benefits, again.
Which means this is all politics, and no substance. Christie knows that Democrats won’t support the lopsided deal he has in mind, especially after he broke his word the first time around.
So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters. Screaming at Democrats and the unions could be his political plan.
Let’s hope not. The state really is in trouble. The credit rating has been downgraded six times on Christie’s watch, and his stunt on the pensions is sure to drive it down again.
In 2011, Christie made a deal with Democrats that made sense to both sides, and that steered the state to safer ground.
In 2014, his priorities have changed. Now it’s about snappy videos, snappy slogans, and a path to the White House.
So watch out, Illinois. We are coming after you.
"...The chutzpah is remarkable. Christie just exploded his own pension reform by failing to make $2.4 billion in promised payments. Public workers did their part by paying more into the fund, and taking out less. It was the governor who reneged...."
"...Christie knows that Democrats won’t support the lopsided deal he has in mind, especially after he broke his word the first time around. So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters. Screaming at Democrats and the unions could be his political plan."
Chris Christie's puffery on tough choices
By Tom Moran/ Star-Ledger
on July 23, 2014
Gov. Chris Christie says he won’t campaign for the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York because the cause is hopeless: Gov. Andrew Cuomo is ahead by more than 30 points.
But he will campaign in New Hampshire, over and over, where the Republican is also trailing by more than 30 points.
What’s the reason? It may be that New Hampshire holds the nation’s first presidential primary. It may be that he doesn’t want to mess with Cuomo, who knows where the skeletons are buried at the Port Authority.
But one thing is certain: Gov. Straight Talk is spinning again. And it seems to be habit-forming.
So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters.
Now he is touring the state talking about the need to man up and face the tough choices on the budget. No pain, he says, no gain.
He’s right when he says the ship of state is heading straight into the rocks. Our fiscal crisis is now the nation’s second-worst, behind only Illinois.
But he’s been steering all the while. He has won every budget fight since swearing his oath.
The chutzpah is remarkable. Christie just exploded his own pension reform by failing to make $2.4 billion in promised payments. Public workers did their part by paying more into the fund, and taking out less. It was the governor who reneged.
He’s trying to hide that fact with Hollywood-style puffery. He’s even released a video full of tough-guy rhetoric.
“There is no way to fix a severe problem like this...but with pain,” he says.
The only thing missing is an actual plan to match the rhetoric. All he’s saying is that he won’t increases taxes on millionaires to help cover the cost. It will all come out of worker benefits, again.
Which means this is all politics, and no substance. Christie knows that Democrats won’t support the lopsided deal he has in mind, especially after he broke his word the first time around.
So what is his plan? The scary answer is that he wants to pick a fight that will impress Republican primary voters. Screaming at Democrats and the unions could be his political plan.
Let’s hope not. The state really is in trouble. The credit rating has been downgraded six times on Christie’s watch, and his stunt on the pensions is sure to drive it down again.
In 2011, Christie made a deal with Democrats that made sense to both sides, and that steered the state to safer ground.
In 2014, his priorities have changed. Now it’s about snappy videos, snappy slogans, and a path to the White House.
So watch out, Illinois. We are coming after you.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Eddie Donnell discussing Fat Scum-bag Chris Christie's anti-working class video
"I was quickly sickened after watching Governor Christie’s latest Hollywood video," said Eddie Donnelly, president of the New Jersey Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association.
Donnelly said that pension contributions for firefighters rose from 8.5 percent to 10 percent under Christie’s first-term overhaul, and unlike the governor, firefighters can’t skip their payments.
"Our pension system does work," he said. "It is sustainable, and public safety personnel are not the cause of the current pension situation."
Donnelly said that pension contributions for firefighters rose from 8.5 percent to 10 percent under Christie’s first-term overhaul, and unlike the governor, firefighters can’t skip their payments.
"Our pension system does work," he said. "It is sustainable, and public safety personnel are not the cause of the current pension situation."
"The state’s economy is in ruins, and yet the governor is mocking the pain and suffering he’s causing middle-class families."
Christie posts then removes YouTube video mixing Hollywood with pension reform
By Salvador Rizzo | The Star-Ledger
on July 15, 2014
"The state’s economy is in ruins, and yet the governor is mocking the pain and suffering he’s causing middle-class families."
Trenton- Gov. Chris Christie’s staff, usually known for its social-media savvy, posted a YouTube video today that featured the unlikely combination of Hollywood-movie explosions and a governor talking pension reform.
And a few hours later, they pulled it down.
With the feel and dramatic score of an action-film trailer, the video clip by Christie’s press shop was meant to tease the governor’s plan to reform New Jersey’s troubled pension system, facing $40 billion in unfunded liabilities and growing, which Christie says he will unveil by summer’s end.
There were no details in the video, but there were plenty of gags, things blowing up and tag lines like "no pain, no gain." Also, the Rock made an appearance.
Christie’s staff even spliced some shots of one of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson’s movies. But Matt Katz, a reporter for WNYC, tweeted tonight that Johnson asked not to be included in the video, leading to its removal.
The clip’s light-hearted approach struck some New Jersey Democrats and the leaders of public employee unions as tone deaf. After all, they said, Christie had cut $2.4 billion from the legally required pension contributions he had vowed to make in 2010, saddling the ailing pension system with more long-term debt.
John Currie, chairman of the state Democratic Party, issued a statement saying, "The state’s economy is in ruins, and yet the governor is mocking the pain and suffering he’s causing middle-class families."
"Sadly, the governor’s bizarre Hollywood fantasy is not the action drama his team imagines, it’s a horror film that never seems to end," Currie said.
Christie’s most popular YouTube videos attract hundreds of thousands of viewers, and have helped build his brand as a potential presidential candidate. This one was posted around lunchtime and removed by about 7:30 p.m.
Christie’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, who emailed the link to reporters earlier in the day, did not respond to messages asking why it was removed.
Christie has long touted a couple of laws he signed overhauling the pension system — getting public workers and taxpayers to chip more into the pension system every year until it regained its footing over 30 years — as his biggest achievement during his first term in Trenton.
But that was before Christie had to backtrack this year after his administration was far off the mark in forecasting state revenue for April. The Republican governor cut two legally required pension payments in the state budget from a combined $3.8 billion to $1.38 billion, spurring lawsuits from public-worker unions.
The cuts allowed Christie to balance his budgets, but they are projected to make life harder for the next governor, increasing the unfunded liabilities in the pension system by $4.2 billion over five years.
Christie says the current defined-benefit plans for New Jersey public workers who retire are too costly to sustain. But Democrats say the plans would be fine if Christie had kept his promise to make the bigger payments.
Instead, they proposed raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest earners and businesses to generate enough money to sustain the pension payments this year, but Christie vetoed their proposals.
"I was quickly sickened after watching Governor Christie’s latest Hollywood video," said Eddie Donnelly, president of the New Jersey Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association.
Donnelly said that pension contributions for firefighters rose from 8.5 percent to 10 percent under Christie’s first-term overhaul, and unlike the governor, firefighters can’t skip their payments.
"Our pension system does work," he said. "It is sustainable, and public safety personnel are not the cause of the current pension situation."
By Salvador Rizzo | The Star-Ledger
on July 15, 2014
"The state’s economy is in ruins, and yet the governor is mocking the pain and suffering he’s causing middle-class families."
Trenton- Gov. Chris Christie’s staff, usually known for its social-media savvy, posted a YouTube video today that featured the unlikely combination of Hollywood-movie explosions and a governor talking pension reform.
And a few hours later, they pulled it down.
With the feel and dramatic score of an action-film trailer, the video clip by Christie’s press shop was meant to tease the governor’s plan to reform New Jersey’s troubled pension system, facing $40 billion in unfunded liabilities and growing, which Christie says he will unveil by summer’s end.
There were no details in the video, but there were plenty of gags, things blowing up and tag lines like "no pain, no gain." Also, the Rock made an appearance.
Christie’s staff even spliced some shots of one of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson’s movies. But Matt Katz, a reporter for WNYC, tweeted tonight that Johnson asked not to be included in the video, leading to its removal.
The clip’s light-hearted approach struck some New Jersey Democrats and the leaders of public employee unions as tone deaf. After all, they said, Christie had cut $2.4 billion from the legally required pension contributions he had vowed to make in 2010, saddling the ailing pension system with more long-term debt.
John Currie, chairman of the state Democratic Party, issued a statement saying, "The state’s economy is in ruins, and yet the governor is mocking the pain and suffering he’s causing middle-class families."
"Sadly, the governor’s bizarre Hollywood fantasy is not the action drama his team imagines, it’s a horror film that never seems to end," Currie said.
Christie’s most popular YouTube videos attract hundreds of thousands of viewers, and have helped build his brand as a potential presidential candidate. This one was posted around lunchtime and removed by about 7:30 p.m.
Christie’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, who emailed the link to reporters earlier in the day, did not respond to messages asking why it was removed.
Christie has long touted a couple of laws he signed overhauling the pension system — getting public workers and taxpayers to chip more into the pension system every year until it regained its footing over 30 years — as his biggest achievement during his first term in Trenton.
But that was before Christie had to backtrack this year after his administration was far off the mark in forecasting state revenue for April. The Republican governor cut two legally required pension payments in the state budget from a combined $3.8 billion to $1.38 billion, spurring lawsuits from public-worker unions.
The cuts allowed Christie to balance his budgets, but they are projected to make life harder for the next governor, increasing the unfunded liabilities in the pension system by $4.2 billion over five years.
Christie says the current defined-benefit plans for New Jersey public workers who retire are too costly to sustain. But Democrats say the plans would be fine if Christie had kept his promise to make the bigger payments.
Instead, they proposed raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest earners and businesses to generate enough money to sustain the pension payments this year, but Christie vetoed their proposals.
"I was quickly sickened after watching Governor Christie’s latest Hollywood video," said Eddie Donnelly, president of the New Jersey Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association.
Donnelly said that pension contributions for firefighters rose from 8.5 percent to 10 percent under Christie’s first-term overhaul, and unlike the governor, firefighters can’t skip their payments.
"Our pension system does work," he said. "It is sustainable, and public safety personnel are not the cause of the current pension situation."
Monday, July 14, 2014
Amick: Christie wins first battle over pension fund contributions, but war undecided
quote from article: "...“If anyone deserves to be reprimanded for simply wishing funds into existence, it’s Chris Christie. Thats exactly how he fudges the books annually in his economic and budget projections..."”)
By George Amick/For The Times
on July 14, 2014
On June 30, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the Democratic Legislature’s plans to amend his fiscal 2015 budget by including the statutorily required full $2.25 billion state contribution to the public employee pension funds and imposing temporary tax hikes on millionaires and corporations to pay for it.
Christie’s firm control of the Legislature’s Republican minority put the two-thirds vote in each house necessary to override a veto out of reach. But the Democrats, and their public-employee union allies in the battle against the Christie budget, hope their defeat at the Statehouse will be trumped by a victory in the courts.
The governor’s vetoes were an exclamation point on his earlier decision to walk away from a commitment he made as part of the great bipartisan pension overhaul of 2010 — an overhaul he previously had praised to national Republican audiences as evidence that, under his leadership, New Jersey was a place where elected officials put aside partisanship to achieve worthwhile results.
It provided a way to reduce the huge unfunded pension liability that was created during years in which the state of New Jersey shorted the pension funds or made no payments at all. The state would resume its annual contributions and increase them by one-seventh each year until fiscal 2018, after which it would pay the full annual amounts necessary to eliminate the deficit in the funds and meet its future obligations.
In return, public employees were required to increase their own contributions to the pension funds and their health-care costs. They’ve been doing that since 2011.
Then, last April 28, the plan collapsed. Christie again had overestimated state revenues, as the investment rating agencies had criticized him for doing in previous budgets, and the state treasury was collecting far less in taxes than he had forecast. His response was to cancel the $887 million pension contribution remaining to be made in the fiscal year that was drawing to a close and slash the payment in his fiscal 2015 budget by $1.57 billion.
A group of unions sought an injunction against Christie’s plan, contending that it would violate the 2010 pension reform law and the contract rights of New Jersey’s public workers.
Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson heard the case on June 25, only five days before the end of fiscal 2014, and ruled that despite the language of the law, Christie had appropriately exercised his emergency powers to reduce that year’s pension-fund payment and meet the constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced.
The governor was “between a rock and a hard place,” Judge Jacobson said, and his lawyers had proved that key programs would be cut, with “severe and immediate impacts on vulnerable populations,” if the state was forced to come up with the full amount at that late date.
But Christie’s plan to whack the state’s contribution to the funds by an even bigger sum in the new fiscal year was another matter. The judge found that the 2010 law gave public employees a constitutionally protected contractual right to full pension payments, and promised to hear arguments on the fiscal 2015 budget later on. Democratic lawmakers believe they’ve built a good case for their side by sending Christie a budget that would have fully funded the pensions.
They had expected his vetoes, Senate President Steve Sweeney told The Times’ editorial board last week. But, he explained, “We wanted to prove to the court that we could pass a balanced budget that would meet all the state’s obligations.” The Democrats’ budget demonstrated that “it’s not that we can’t pay; it’s that we” – meaning the governor – “choose not to pay,” he added.
Meanwhile, the Legislature also approved another bill, S2265, requiring the state to make its contributions to the pension funds on a quarterly basis, in July, October, January and April, rather than in a lump sum at the end. The purpose, its Assembly sponsors said, was to “prevent the state from raiding the pension fund to balance the state budget at the very end of a fiscal year in the event of a revenue shortfall.” But Christie vetoed this measure, as well, throwing in a scornful message for good measure.
“This bill represents an improper and unwarranted intrusion upon the long-standing executive prerogative to … properly match the timing of large annual expenditures with the timing of the actual receipt of state revenues,” he wrote. “Simply wishing in a law that sufficient funds will be available on specific future dates does not change the fiscal realities of revenue collection during the course of a 12-month year.”
(The last sentence prompted one Democrat to comment: “If anyone deserves to be reprimanded for simply wishing funds into existence, it’s him.”)
A spokesman for Sweeney said the Senate president plans to try to override the veto of S2265. However, although the bill passed the Senate by far more than a two-thirds margin in both Houses — 36-3 in the Senate and 62-13 in the Assembly — the chances that Christie will be overridden for the first time since he took office are slim. Republican legislators have shown a willingness in the past to change their votes en masse rather than risk offending the governor.
If the effort fails, however, Sweeney will at least have the satisfaction of pointing out that his Republican counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., not only voted for S2265, but spoke approvingly of the idea of quarterly pension payments when the two men were interviewed recently by Statehouse newsman Michael Aron. “I’ve got him on the record,” Sweeney said.
By George Amick/For The Times
on July 14, 2014
On June 30, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the Democratic Legislature’s plans to amend his fiscal 2015 budget by including the statutorily required full $2.25 billion state contribution to the public employee pension funds and imposing temporary tax hikes on millionaires and corporations to pay for it.
Christie’s firm control of the Legislature’s Republican minority put the two-thirds vote in each house necessary to override a veto out of reach. But the Democrats, and their public-employee union allies in the battle against the Christie budget, hope their defeat at the Statehouse will be trumped by a victory in the courts.
The governor’s vetoes were an exclamation point on his earlier decision to walk away from a commitment he made as part of the great bipartisan pension overhaul of 2010 — an overhaul he previously had praised to national Republican audiences as evidence that, under his leadership, New Jersey was a place where elected officials put aside partisanship to achieve worthwhile results.
It provided a way to reduce the huge unfunded pension liability that was created during years in which the state of New Jersey shorted the pension funds or made no payments at all. The state would resume its annual contributions and increase them by one-seventh each year until fiscal 2018, after which it would pay the full annual amounts necessary to eliminate the deficit in the funds and meet its future obligations.
In return, public employees were required to increase their own contributions to the pension funds and their health-care costs. They’ve been doing that since 2011.
Then, last April 28, the plan collapsed. Christie again had overestimated state revenues, as the investment rating agencies had criticized him for doing in previous budgets, and the state treasury was collecting far less in taxes than he had forecast. His response was to cancel the $887 million pension contribution remaining to be made in the fiscal year that was drawing to a close and slash the payment in his fiscal 2015 budget by $1.57 billion.
A group of unions sought an injunction against Christie’s plan, contending that it would violate the 2010 pension reform law and the contract rights of New Jersey’s public workers.
Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson heard the case on June 25, only five days before the end of fiscal 2014, and ruled that despite the language of the law, Christie had appropriately exercised his emergency powers to reduce that year’s pension-fund payment and meet the constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced.
The governor was “between a rock and a hard place,” Judge Jacobson said, and his lawyers had proved that key programs would be cut, with “severe and immediate impacts on vulnerable populations,” if the state was forced to come up with the full amount at that late date.
But Christie’s plan to whack the state’s contribution to the funds by an even bigger sum in the new fiscal year was another matter. The judge found that the 2010 law gave public employees a constitutionally protected contractual right to full pension payments, and promised to hear arguments on the fiscal 2015 budget later on. Democratic lawmakers believe they’ve built a good case for their side by sending Christie a budget that would have fully funded the pensions.
They had expected his vetoes, Senate President Steve Sweeney told The Times’ editorial board last week. But, he explained, “We wanted to prove to the court that we could pass a balanced budget that would meet all the state’s obligations.” The Democrats’ budget demonstrated that “it’s not that we can’t pay; it’s that we” – meaning the governor – “choose not to pay,” he added.
Meanwhile, the Legislature also approved another bill, S2265, requiring the state to make its contributions to the pension funds on a quarterly basis, in July, October, January and April, rather than in a lump sum at the end. The purpose, its Assembly sponsors said, was to “prevent the state from raiding the pension fund to balance the state budget at the very end of a fiscal year in the event of a revenue shortfall.” But Christie vetoed this measure, as well, throwing in a scornful message for good measure.
“This bill represents an improper and unwarranted intrusion upon the long-standing executive prerogative to … properly match the timing of large annual expenditures with the timing of the actual receipt of state revenues,” he wrote. “Simply wishing in a law that sufficient funds will be available on specific future dates does not change the fiscal realities of revenue collection during the course of a 12-month year.”
(The last sentence prompted one Democrat to comment: “If anyone deserves to be reprimanded for simply wishing funds into existence, it’s him.”)
A spokesman for Sweeney said the Senate president plans to try to override the veto of S2265. However, although the bill passed the Senate by far more than a two-thirds margin in both Houses — 36-3 in the Senate and 62-13 in the Assembly — the chances that Christie will be overridden for the first time since he took office are slim. Republican legislators have shown a willingness in the past to change their votes en masse rather than risk offending the governor.
If the effort fails, however, Sweeney will at least have the satisfaction of pointing out that his Republican counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., not only voted for S2265, but spoke approvingly of the idea of quarterly pension payments when the two men were interviewed recently by Statehouse newsman Michael Aron. “I’ve got him on the record,” Sweeney said.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Chris Christie in crosshairs of national governors' group
Chris Christie in crosshairs of national governors' group
"...Fat-boy Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t even in the state yet, but he cast the largest, fattest shadow in the room ..."
By Matt Arco/NJ Advance Media, for NJ.com
on July 12, 2014
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t even in the state yet, but he cast the largest shadow in the room where Democratic governors gathered Friday afternoon to rail against their Republican counterparts.
The Democratic governors who had arrived in town for a conference of the National National Governors Association all but targeted Christie as the poster child for what they described as the Republicans’ failed policies in statehouses across the country.
"We affirmed our AAA bond rating," Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland said about the successes of his state’s economy before taking aim at New Jersey’s governor.
O’Malley shrugged off Christie’s use of the term the "New Jersey miracle," a line he has used to paint his economic stewardship as a model for other Republican governors during speeches as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
"It’s no miracle," O’Malley said sharply, "If you ignore the math you’ll have your bond rating downgraded again and again."
His comments were echoed by the two other Democratic governors who took part in the event, including Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association who was quick to note that New Jersey’s bond rating has dropped six times since Christie took office in 2010.
DGA presser
From left: Democratic Govs. Dan Malloy of Connecticut, Peter Shumlin of Vermont, and Martin O’Malley of Maryland criticize Republican governors in Nashville, Tenn., including Republican Gov. Chris Christie.
They also criticized his decision to cut the pension payments to public employees despite working with the Democrat-controlled state Legislature to pass a law requiring that full payments be made.
The governor recently signed a budget that all but abandoned a first-term plan to repair New Jersey’s derelict pension system by slicing $1.57 billion from a payment required by law for public workers’ retirement funds.
"He then presented a proposal that wouldn’t pay for it even though he promised to pay for it," Gov. Dan Malloy of Connecticut.
"They are not lowering their overall debt," Malloy charged. "You can look no further than New Jersey, which has refused to properly fund their pensions every year that that governor has served as governor of the state of New Jersey. The obligation today is larger than it was the day that he was sworn in."
But Jon Thompson, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association, shrugged off the criticism.
Republican governors across the country are leading on jobs, education reform, cutting taxes, and making their states engines of economic growth, and their strong records are why nearly every Republican governor up for re-election in 2014 is leading in the polls.
He said that added "Martin O’Malley, meanwhile, is leaving Maryland in worse shape with a failed ObamaCare state exchange, reckless spending and 40 straight tax hikes. Peter Shumlin is even being told by his own Democrat candidates for governor that he is an out-of-touch ‘Washington D.C. Desk Jockey.’"
The comments from tghe Democratic governors were unprompted by questions from reporters, and came as the three also made sporadic mention of other Republican governors.
It seemed as if the Democrats had set their sights on Christie, who has been eying a run for president for several years now, even before Christie landed in Nashville for the conference.
For a governor who once led the pack of potential Republican presidential hopefuls — but who has since been dogged by investigations into his administration prompted by lane closings at the George Washington Bridge — the attention from Democrats seemed to indicate that Christie had turned some invisible corner.
"I think time has passed, information has come out and he’s move on past that and he’s focusing on his job as RGA chairman and governor of New Jersey," Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, a Republican who is currently serving as chairwoman of the National Governors Association.
"Gov. Christie has been very active with the RGA and has traveled across the nation to help fellow Republican candidates in various races for governor. He’s worked very hard and helped raise a substantial amount of money," she said. "This is a very big election year."
The RGA recently boasted of record fundraising since Christie took over as chairman last November, with $70.3 million cash on hand.
"He’s done a great job," said Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who name has also been mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate, though he, too, is entangled in scandal.
"...Fat-boy Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t even in the state yet, but he cast the largest, fattest shadow in the room ..."
By Matt Arco/NJ Advance Media, for NJ.com
on July 12, 2014
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t even in the state yet, but he cast the largest shadow in the room where Democratic governors gathered Friday afternoon to rail against their Republican counterparts.
The Democratic governors who had arrived in town for a conference of the National National Governors Association all but targeted Christie as the poster child for what they described as the Republicans’ failed policies in statehouses across the country.
"We affirmed our AAA bond rating," Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland said about the successes of his state’s economy before taking aim at New Jersey’s governor.
O’Malley shrugged off Christie’s use of the term the "New Jersey miracle," a line he has used to paint his economic stewardship as a model for other Republican governors during speeches as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
"It’s no miracle," O’Malley said sharply, "If you ignore the math you’ll have your bond rating downgraded again and again."
His comments were echoed by the two other Democratic governors who took part in the event, including Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association who was quick to note that New Jersey’s bond rating has dropped six times since Christie took office in 2010.
DGA presser
From left: Democratic Govs. Dan Malloy of Connecticut, Peter Shumlin of Vermont, and Martin O’Malley of Maryland criticize Republican governors in Nashville, Tenn., including Republican Gov. Chris Christie.
They also criticized his decision to cut the pension payments to public employees despite working with the Democrat-controlled state Legislature to pass a law requiring that full payments be made.
The governor recently signed a budget that all but abandoned a first-term plan to repair New Jersey’s derelict pension system by slicing $1.57 billion from a payment required by law for public workers’ retirement funds.
"He then presented a proposal that wouldn’t pay for it even though he promised to pay for it," Gov. Dan Malloy of Connecticut.
"They are not lowering their overall debt," Malloy charged. "You can look no further than New Jersey, which has refused to properly fund their pensions every year that that governor has served as governor of the state of New Jersey. The obligation today is larger than it was the day that he was sworn in."
But Jon Thompson, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association, shrugged off the criticism.
Republican governors across the country are leading on jobs, education reform, cutting taxes, and making their states engines of economic growth, and their strong records are why nearly every Republican governor up for re-election in 2014 is leading in the polls.
He said that added "Martin O’Malley, meanwhile, is leaving Maryland in worse shape with a failed ObamaCare state exchange, reckless spending and 40 straight tax hikes. Peter Shumlin is even being told by his own Democrat candidates for governor that he is an out-of-touch ‘Washington D.C. Desk Jockey.’"
The comments from tghe Democratic governors were unprompted by questions from reporters, and came as the three also made sporadic mention of other Republican governors.
It seemed as if the Democrats had set their sights on Christie, who has been eying a run for president for several years now, even before Christie landed in Nashville for the conference.
For a governor who once led the pack of potential Republican presidential hopefuls — but who has since been dogged by investigations into his administration prompted by lane closings at the George Washington Bridge — the attention from Democrats seemed to indicate that Christie had turned some invisible corner.
"I think time has passed, information has come out and he’s move on past that and he’s focusing on his job as RGA chairman and governor of New Jersey," Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, a Republican who is currently serving as chairwoman of the National Governors Association.
"Gov. Christie has been very active with the RGA and has traveled across the nation to help fellow Republican candidates in various races for governor. He’s worked very hard and helped raise a substantial amount of money," she said. "This is a very big election year."
The RGA recently boasted of record fundraising since Christie took over as chairman last November, with $70.3 million cash on hand.
"He’s done a great job," said Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who name has also been mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate, though he, too, is entangled in scandal.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Gov. Christie's budget 'double-crossed' public workers on pension promise
Gov. Christie's budget 'double-crossed' public workers on pension promise
Times of Trenton
on July 10, 2014
By Linda R. Greenstein
It wasn’t all that long ago that we could find Gov. Christie on one of his many political trips around the country boasting of the bipartisan plan he forged with the Legislature to save the state’s pension system from ruin.
That plan included ramping up not only the state’s contributions, which have lagged badly over the past couple of decades, but also significantly increased the paycheck deductions taken from the workers who contribute to it. There was also the elimination of the annual cost-of-living increase for retirees as well as steep increases in the contributions paid by workers for their health plans.
Now, less than three years after signing that landmark legislation into law, the governor refuses to uphold his end of the bargain and instead has turned his back on working and retired teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who have upheld their end of a far heavier burden placed on them and their families.
The governor has gone from touting the pension changes made three years ago as “a model for the nation” to refusing to share in the burden by withholding $900 million in payments appropriated by the Legislature and due in the fiscal year that just ended June 30.
His budget is doing worse still in the new fiscal year that began July 1.
With his line item veto, the governor eliminated $1.6 billion in pension contributions offered by the Democratic majority that gave him a chance to stand by his promise. Instead, the governor will pay only $681 million toward the $2.25 billion pension contribution that is required under the 2011 law.
It seems when the going gets tough, the governor gets going -- the other way.
In contrast, before the governor’s line item vetoes, the Democratic proposal kept our promise to stand with the men and women who teach our children, protect our homes and families and provide the many public services that daily uphold our quality of life.
Led by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Budget and Appropriations Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo, we crafted an alternative to Gov. Christie’s proposed $34.4 billion FY2015 budget.
Instead of foisting the burden on the public workers who have already sacrificed, only to be double-crossed by the governor’s budgeting, we instead asked that the wealthiest among us – those with earnings of more than $1 million annually – pay a little more for three years to help right the ship of state.
We also proposed a one-year surcharge on the corporate business tax that amounts to about 1.5 percent in real dollars and the temporary suspension of another business grant program.
The Christie administration has given away more than $4 billion in corporate tax breaks over the last five years, with the promise of new jobs that have not materialized. Instead, we remain at the back of the pack nationally and regionally when it comes to job creation and lowering unemployment.
There were arguments from the other side of the aisle during the recent budget debate that many millionaires in New Jersey have already left our state for tax havens elsewhere, claiming that if we increased taxes on the remaining millionaires, they’d head for the exits, too.
But the nonpartisan research arm for the Legislature, the Office of Legislative Services, has found just the opposite is true.
OLS reports that between 2003 and 2011 — a period of time during which the tax rate on millionaires was increased not once but twice — the number of millionaire tax filers in New Jersey increased a whopping 67 percent, from approximately 8,800 to 14,700.
None of us wants to see tax increases, but to bury our heads in the sand and try to wish away our obligations results not only in broken promises, but also in undue hardship for our public workers and pensioners. Ignoring our obligations has also resulted in a steady stream of credit downgrades, a total of six times under Gov. Christie’s watch so far.
As I stated on the floor of the Senate during the recent budget debate, an alternative is necessary to undo a morally bankrupt approach by this administration, as it turns its back on promises made.
The pensions have been earned and paid for by every police officer, firefighter, teacher and countless other civil servants who steadfastly, and in many cases selflessly, deliver for the taxpayer day after day, year after year, decade after decade.
The Democratic alternative to the governor’s budget was a responsible and morally sound budget and one where we kept our word to the workers we depend on to protect us from harm, educate our children, improve our roads and bridges and maintain our parks.
They’ve kept up their end by never once missing a payment. It’s a shame the governor struck down with his veto pen a responsible alternative that repays what we owe and what we agreed to in good faith.
Sen. Linda R. Greenstein represents the 14th Legislative District and serves on the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.
Times of Trenton
on July 10, 2014
By Linda R. Greenstein
It wasn’t all that long ago that we could find Gov. Christie on one of his many political trips around the country boasting of the bipartisan plan he forged with the Legislature to save the state’s pension system from ruin.
That plan included ramping up not only the state’s contributions, which have lagged badly over the past couple of decades, but also significantly increased the paycheck deductions taken from the workers who contribute to it. There was also the elimination of the annual cost-of-living increase for retirees as well as steep increases in the contributions paid by workers for their health plans.
Now, less than three years after signing that landmark legislation into law, the governor refuses to uphold his end of the bargain and instead has turned his back on working and retired teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who have upheld their end of a far heavier burden placed on them and their families.
The governor has gone from touting the pension changes made three years ago as “a model for the nation” to refusing to share in the burden by withholding $900 million in payments appropriated by the Legislature and due in the fiscal year that just ended June 30.
His budget is doing worse still in the new fiscal year that began July 1.
With his line item veto, the governor eliminated $1.6 billion in pension contributions offered by the Democratic majority that gave him a chance to stand by his promise. Instead, the governor will pay only $681 million toward the $2.25 billion pension contribution that is required under the 2011 law.
It seems when the going gets tough, the governor gets going -- the other way.
In contrast, before the governor’s line item vetoes, the Democratic proposal kept our promise to stand with the men and women who teach our children, protect our homes and families and provide the many public services that daily uphold our quality of life.
Led by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Budget and Appropriations Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo, we crafted an alternative to Gov. Christie’s proposed $34.4 billion FY2015 budget.
Instead of foisting the burden on the public workers who have already sacrificed, only to be double-crossed by the governor’s budgeting, we instead asked that the wealthiest among us – those with earnings of more than $1 million annually – pay a little more for three years to help right the ship of state.
We also proposed a one-year surcharge on the corporate business tax that amounts to about 1.5 percent in real dollars and the temporary suspension of another business grant program.
The Christie administration has given away more than $4 billion in corporate tax breaks over the last five years, with the promise of new jobs that have not materialized. Instead, we remain at the back of the pack nationally and regionally when it comes to job creation and lowering unemployment.
There were arguments from the other side of the aisle during the recent budget debate that many millionaires in New Jersey have already left our state for tax havens elsewhere, claiming that if we increased taxes on the remaining millionaires, they’d head for the exits, too.
But the nonpartisan research arm for the Legislature, the Office of Legislative Services, has found just the opposite is true.
OLS reports that between 2003 and 2011 — a period of time during which the tax rate on millionaires was increased not once but twice — the number of millionaire tax filers in New Jersey increased a whopping 67 percent, from approximately 8,800 to 14,700.
None of us wants to see tax increases, but to bury our heads in the sand and try to wish away our obligations results not only in broken promises, but also in undue hardship for our public workers and pensioners. Ignoring our obligations has also resulted in a steady stream of credit downgrades, a total of six times under Gov. Christie’s watch so far.
As I stated on the floor of the Senate during the recent budget debate, an alternative is necessary to undo a morally bankrupt approach by this administration, as it turns its back on promises made.
The pensions have been earned and paid for by every police officer, firefighter, teacher and countless other civil servants who steadfastly, and in many cases selflessly, deliver for the taxpayer day after day, year after year, decade after decade.
The Democratic alternative to the governor’s budget was a responsible and morally sound budget and one where we kept our word to the workers we depend on to protect us from harm, educate our children, improve our roads and bridges and maintain our parks.
They’ve kept up their end by never once missing a payment. It’s a shame the governor struck down with his veto pen a responsible alternative that repays what we owe and what we agreed to in good faith.
Sen. Linda R. Greenstein represents the 14th Legislative District and serves on the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.
Christie holds back on tax relief for seniors and disabled so he can give tax relief to meg-rich and huge corporations!
Christie of "balancing the budget on the backs of the people struggling to stay and live in New Jersey."
Christie's NJ budget delays property tax rebate again, angering seniors
By Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger
on July 10, 2014
TRENTON — Amid the debate over taxes and pensions cuts, at least one aspect of the $32.5 billion budget that Gov. Chris Christie signed less than two weeks ago was virtually overlooked in the shuffle. And it's one that will affect hundreds of thousands of residents right away.
They’ll have to wait another nine months to receive their homestead property tax rebates.
The elderly, the disabled, and low-income homeowners enrolled in the state’s Homestead program were supposed to receive an annual credit on their property tax bill in August. But faced with a $1.7 billion budget shortfall, Christie moved the credit until May of next year — 21 months after the last rebate.
That means the state won’t have to come up with $395 million in rebates until next spring.
"It’s important to be paid, but I think it’s also important to us how we manage our cash," Christie said at a news conference back in May. "When you’re running out of money, you’ve got to manage your cash carefully, You’ve got to prioritize your bills and decide which ones you absolutely must pay."
As he put it: "If I wanted to eliminate it, I would have just eliminated it. I did that before, in 2010."
Still, this is the third time in Christie’s five years as governor that he has delayed the rebate. Democratic lawmakers and elderly residents said this would make it even more difficult for those living on a fixed income in a state already one of the most expensive in which to reside.
State Assemblyman Jon Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) called the rebates the "best tool the state has for property tax relief."
"To the taxpayer, a couple hundred dollars here and there makes a difference," Burzichelli said. "This means they have to reach into their pockets and pay more for their taxes."
More than 1.8 million New Jersey residents are eligible for the program. The average rebate is $516 for elderly and disabled homeowners earning less than $150,000 a year. Homeowners with incomes under $75,000 will get back an average of $402.
Robert Bernesser, an 81-year-old disabled veteran who fought in the Korean War, said he counts on the rebate to help offset $10,000 in property taxes on his Mahwah home. But the delay will cause him and others like him to cut back — possibly cutting back on the expensive prescription drugs they must to take.
"If they are supposed to take two pills a day, they take one," Bernesser said. "If they want to visit their kids, they might not go every couple of weeks but once a month. It’s a quality of life issue."
The homestead rebate — instituted by Gov. Brendan Byrne in 1977 after the state passed an income tax — has been a source of debate for years.
Initially, the rebate was sent in October, just before Election Day. After he took office in 2010, Christie said the checks had often been used "to make sure people in Trenton get re-elected."
Instead, the Republican governor promised to reform the entire property tax system so that residents wouldn’t have to rely on programs that work as "Band-Aids" and "temporary fixes." He also stopped sending out the rebate in check form — saving on printing and mailing costs — and instead included the credits on tax bills.
Christie and lawmakers have since ushered in a 2 percent cap on property tax increases and the amounts police and fire unions can win in arbitration. That has helped property taxes rise only 9.7 percent during Christie’s first four years, compared with 14.1 percent under his predecessor.
The average New Jersey resident paid nearly $8,000 in property taxes last year.
Christie eliminated the homestead rebate in 2010 when he was faced with a budget crisis but restored it the following year. Last year, he delayed the rebate by several months when he was faced with another gap.
This year, Christie’s administration was looking at a $1.7 billion shortfall heading into the start of the fiscal year July 1. Democratic lawmakers argued that the state should make up the difference by instituting more than $1 billion in tax increases on wealthy residents and businesses.
Instead, Christie vetoed the tax increases and signed a spending plan that closed the gap by reducing the New Jersey’s contribution to the public-worker pension system.
Delaying the rebate was designed to give the state more flexibility with cash flow. "It’s appropriate from a cash-management standpoint," state Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff told the Assembly budget committee in May.
In all, homeowners have received only $1,188 under the three credits given out during Christie’s term — compared with an average of $4,247 under his Democratic predecessors, according to the nonpartisan group NJ Spotlight.
Doug Johnston, a spokesman for AARP, accused Christie of "balancing the budget on the backs of the people struggling to stay and live in New Jersey."
"The delay is probably just seen as an accounting maneuver in state offices," he said, "but it’s an accounting maneuver that increases pain and delays relief for seniors struggling to maintain independence."
Christie's NJ budget delays property tax rebate again, angering seniors
By Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger
on July 10, 2014
TRENTON — Amid the debate over taxes and pensions cuts, at least one aspect of the $32.5 billion budget that Gov. Chris Christie signed less than two weeks ago was virtually overlooked in the shuffle. And it's one that will affect hundreds of thousands of residents right away.
They’ll have to wait another nine months to receive their homestead property tax rebates.
The elderly, the disabled, and low-income homeowners enrolled in the state’s Homestead program were supposed to receive an annual credit on their property tax bill in August. But faced with a $1.7 billion budget shortfall, Christie moved the credit until May of next year — 21 months after the last rebate.
That means the state won’t have to come up with $395 million in rebates until next spring.
"It’s important to be paid, but I think it’s also important to us how we manage our cash," Christie said at a news conference back in May. "When you’re running out of money, you’ve got to manage your cash carefully, You’ve got to prioritize your bills and decide which ones you absolutely must pay."
As he put it: "If I wanted to eliminate it, I would have just eliminated it. I did that before, in 2010."
Still, this is the third time in Christie’s five years as governor that he has delayed the rebate. Democratic lawmakers and elderly residents said this would make it even more difficult for those living on a fixed income in a state already one of the most expensive in which to reside.
State Assemblyman Jon Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) called the rebates the "best tool the state has for property tax relief."
"To the taxpayer, a couple hundred dollars here and there makes a difference," Burzichelli said. "This means they have to reach into their pockets and pay more for their taxes."
More than 1.8 million New Jersey residents are eligible for the program. The average rebate is $516 for elderly and disabled homeowners earning less than $150,000 a year. Homeowners with incomes under $75,000 will get back an average of $402.
Robert Bernesser, an 81-year-old disabled veteran who fought in the Korean War, said he counts on the rebate to help offset $10,000 in property taxes on his Mahwah home. But the delay will cause him and others like him to cut back — possibly cutting back on the expensive prescription drugs they must to take.
"If they are supposed to take two pills a day, they take one," Bernesser said. "If they want to visit their kids, they might not go every couple of weeks but once a month. It’s a quality of life issue."
The homestead rebate — instituted by Gov. Brendan Byrne in 1977 after the state passed an income tax — has been a source of debate for years.
Initially, the rebate was sent in October, just before Election Day. After he took office in 2010, Christie said the checks had often been used "to make sure people in Trenton get re-elected."
Instead, the Republican governor promised to reform the entire property tax system so that residents wouldn’t have to rely on programs that work as "Band-Aids" and "temporary fixes." He also stopped sending out the rebate in check form — saving on printing and mailing costs — and instead included the credits on tax bills.
Christie and lawmakers have since ushered in a 2 percent cap on property tax increases and the amounts police and fire unions can win in arbitration. That has helped property taxes rise only 9.7 percent during Christie’s first four years, compared with 14.1 percent under his predecessor.
The average New Jersey resident paid nearly $8,000 in property taxes last year.
Christie eliminated the homestead rebate in 2010 when he was faced with a budget crisis but restored it the following year. Last year, he delayed the rebate by several months when he was faced with another gap.
This year, Christie’s administration was looking at a $1.7 billion shortfall heading into the start of the fiscal year July 1. Democratic lawmakers argued that the state should make up the difference by instituting more than $1 billion in tax increases on wealthy residents and businesses.
Instead, Christie vetoed the tax increases and signed a spending plan that closed the gap by reducing the New Jersey’s contribution to the public-worker pension system.
Delaying the rebate was designed to give the state more flexibility with cash flow. "It’s appropriate from a cash-management standpoint," state Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff told the Assembly budget committee in May.
In all, homeowners have received only $1,188 under the three credits given out during Christie’s term — compared with an average of $4,247 under his Democratic predecessors, according to the nonpartisan group NJ Spotlight.
Doug Johnston, a spokesman for AARP, accused Christie of "balancing the budget on the backs of the people struggling to stay and live in New Jersey."
"The delay is probably just seen as an accounting maneuver in state offices," he said, "but it’s an accounting maneuver that increases pain and delays relief for seniors struggling to maintain independence."
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Governor Christie is anti-law enforcement and pro-mega wealthy and pro-high priced lawyers.
The New Jersey State PBA is pleased to announce that the court decisions in two cases which we brought have significantly advanced our interests in a well-funded pension system. Both decisions, one from respected Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson, and the other from the Appellate Division, have now confirmed what we have been saying all along – Chapter 78 created a contractual right to our pensions; that the contractual right includes annual COLA increases; and that we have a right to compel funding of the pension systems. While we have not reached our ultimate goal, which is forcing full pension funding immediately, these court decisions are a significant victory.
THE FUNDING DECISION (State PBA et als v. Christie)
While yesterday’s newspaper articles highlighted that Judge Jacobson denied the application for an injunction requiring Governor Christie to pay over $800 million dollars into the pension system in the next five days, her 100 page opinion makes clear that the State’s dire economic circumstances make this a unique situation in which the court would not intervene at the last minute. The decision, however, is replete with statements confirming that there is a “contractual” right to a pension; that pensions are not a gift the State voluntarily bestowed; and that Chapter 78 requires State funding on an annual basis as required by the statute. In addition, the court held it was not ruling on whether the Governor’s intended refusal to fully fund the FY 2015 pension payment is permissible. All of those issues remain very much alive in the lawsuit as it continues before Judge Jacobson. That is a significant victory, and the language contained in her opinion, reaffirming these principles, is very encouraging.
COLA DECISION (Berg v. Christie)
In addition, the Appellate Division yesterday issued its decision in our case contesting the Chapter 78 “freeze” of COLA payments. Last year a trial court dismissed our suit, contending that COLA payments were not protected by Chapter 78, or apparently even part of a guaranteed pension system.
A unanimous Appellate Division has reversed those determinations. The court concluded that COLA payments are indeed as much a part of the pension “system” as the vested entitlement. And both are “contractual” guarantees protected by Chapter 78. However, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether there is a sufficient financial emergency to breach the contractual right that all retirees have.
As noted, these cases have not completely resolved all issues in our favor. Moreover, there is still a likelihood they will ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, these cases are major victories in elevating both COLAs, and pension funding, to the status of enforceable “contractual rights”. We will obviously continue to vigorously pursue them, to keep the pressure on.
THE FUNDING DECISION (State PBA et als v. Christie)
While yesterday’s newspaper articles highlighted that Judge Jacobson denied the application for an injunction requiring Governor Christie to pay over $800 million dollars into the pension system in the next five days, her 100 page opinion makes clear that the State’s dire economic circumstances make this a unique situation in which the court would not intervene at the last minute. The decision, however, is replete with statements confirming that there is a “contractual” right to a pension; that pensions are not a gift the State voluntarily bestowed; and that Chapter 78 requires State funding on an annual basis as required by the statute. In addition, the court held it was not ruling on whether the Governor’s intended refusal to fully fund the FY 2015 pension payment is permissible. All of those issues remain very much alive in the lawsuit as it continues before Judge Jacobson. That is a significant victory, and the language contained in her opinion, reaffirming these principles, is very encouraging.
COLA DECISION (Berg v. Christie)
In addition, the Appellate Division yesterday issued its decision in our case contesting the Chapter 78 “freeze” of COLA payments. Last year a trial court dismissed our suit, contending that COLA payments were not protected by Chapter 78, or apparently even part of a guaranteed pension system.
A unanimous Appellate Division has reversed those determinations. The court concluded that COLA payments are indeed as much a part of the pension “system” as the vested entitlement. And both are “contractual” guarantees protected by Chapter 78. However, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether there is a sufficient financial emergency to breach the contractual right that all retirees have.
As noted, these cases have not completely resolved all issues in our favor. Moreover, there is still a likelihood they will ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, these cases are major victories in elevating both COLAs, and pension funding, to the status of enforceable “contractual rights”. We will obviously continue to vigorously pursue them, to keep the pressure on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)