Gov. Dannel P. Malloy recommended Friday that lawmakers significantly reduce the surplus already built into the next two fiscal years rather than impose deeper cuts in the $40.11 billion biennial budget adopted earlier this month.
To close a $300 million in gap in next year's budget left by the tentative union concession package, Malloy proposed cutting just $40.6 million--and more than half of that comes from controversial, newfound savings in retiree health care benefits.
In a two-page summary of the budget reconciliation proposal he will deliver to the General Assembly on Tuesday, the governor recommended using $259.4 million of the projected surplus for 2011-12 fiscal year to fill the rest of next year's gap.
Similarly, the governor would use another $59.7 million in surplus to close a $100 million gap in 2012-13, also tied to the concession deal.
The biennial budget, which would spend $19.83 billion next fiscal year and $20.29 billion in 2012-13, featured unprecedented built-in surpluses of $371 million and $638 million, respectively.
But that also hinged on an assumption that the governor would strike a wage- and benefit-giveback deal with unionized state employees worth $1 billion each year. The deal Malloy and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition subsequently announced, though also unprecedented in size, is reportedly worth $700 million next year and $900 million in 2012-13.
The adjustments Malloy proposed, if adopted by the legislature, still would leave the state budget projected to run iin the black for the next two fiscal years by $111.8 million and by $578.1 million, respectively for a two-year total of just under $690 million.
Republican lawmakers, who already have blasted the governor and his fellow Democrats in the legislative majority for adopting $1.5 billion in new state taxes next fiscal year, charged Friday that Malloy should have trimmed spending more in his adjustment plan.
"Classic Malloy. He says one thing and does the other." said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, who charged Malloy initially pledged to use spending cuts to fill any gap if labor savings fell short of the projected concession target. The built-in surpluses, which surpass $1 billion in total over two years, were created largely by one of the largest tax hikes in state history, Republicans said.
"This is obviously, unfortunately, what we have predicted all along," Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said. "The governor has not been interested in spending cuts."
But Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes said the governor never promised to rely exclusively on spending cuts to fill any gaps in the labor savings target. "The governor committed not to raise taxes any more than he originally proposed in his budget," he said, "which I believe is a promise he maintained."
Barnes added that this budget adjustment plan allows the administration to avoid further cuts to social services and to municipal grants. "This is the most responsible way for us to bring the budget into balance," he said.
Sen. Toni R. Harp, D-New Haven, co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, also gave a preliminary endorsement to the budget adjustment outline released Friday.
"This budget adjustment does little to hurt anyone," she said. "I think we can work with this."
More than half of the spending reductions Malloy offered, $25 million out of $40.6 million in the first year and $27 million out of $38.1 million in 2012-13, are tied to the account that funds health care for retired state workers.
Comptroller Kevin P. Lembo reported earlier this month to Malloy's budget agency that this year's $595 million account for retiree health care benefits was expected to come in $117.4 million under budget. In April, the comptroller's office had projected a savings of just $16.9 million. Lembo said this week that at least a portion of that savings likely was to be available again in the next budget.
Deputy House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, questioned whether trends that could produce a $117.4 million savings could develop in just one month, or whether the comptroller and administration failed to report a huge savings until after the next budget had been adopted.
"This kind of lapse does shock me," he said Thursday. "We are squirreling away a lot of money."
Other cuts proposed by Malloy include:
All of this is just a big joke. To balance the budget next year Malloy meeded $1.0 billion from the state workers. He now claims that the plan he made up will obtain savings of only $600 million so,he is short $400 million already. The facts are that the plan he drew up only saves $150 million next year instead of $1.0 billion or even $600 million. The only savings he has,and this is really not a cost savings but cost avoidence is the wage freeze which saves $150 million.All the rest of the savings are pie in the sky.
Read MoreAll very interesting and it will be even more-so after the unions vote NO! won't it?
To all union members: we are being sold a bill of goods by our union representatives who stand to profit by the proposed changes to our health care plan. To vote for this deal is to vote for the loss of personal autonomy in favor of government supervised mandate. A NO vote is a vote to preserve personal choice. The proposed deal is about implementing Sustinet - socialized medicine - in Connecticut. Vote NO.
There were cuts????
Where?????
There will be cuts in my household, I've got retroactive incomes taxes to pay come July 1st.
Will it be the oboe lessons? Or the new ballet shoes? Or maybe Hartford Courant subscription.
There is only so much money in this state and when the state government takes more, it means less for the businesses in the state and then less for their employees.
SEBAC website is censoring messages, deleting messages and quashing all debate. Votenotoconcessions.com - state employees against SusiNet and the Malloy Agenda.
Why don't reporters for this web site and broader media in general stop using words that might be politically savvy and might support certain politician's position and standing but, in reality, are wrong and misleading.
SURPLUS?? What SURPLUS?
If there is a surplus why are taxpayers in this state being taken behind the woodshed?
Spendaholics - make no mistake about it - Malloy and his Democratic partners in crime LOVE to spend and spend and spend.
Look at what is being proposed for the New Britain to Hartford to nowhere bus ramp and what is being proposed to complete
Read MoreYou vote against concessions (whistles and mirrors -- no real reductions in work force) , you end up with voluntary incentive retirement plan (hard knocks) to entice a lot more retirements. One way or the other the state needs to cut the state work force and wring concessions or savings in one form or the other. You want to have a double whammy, that too can be arranged.
The Connecticut Republican Party "leadership" continue to be totally clueless, as do their "SEBAC Union Members Vote NO!" henchmen.
The most bizarre collection of political b.s.-ers I've ever seen.
I just do not get everyone! Why is it when you need the help of the union, they are your best friend. When they try to “Negotiate” for all of us, they are selling us out or screwing us. Look at what they have achieved for us in the past. Sick days, pensions, health care, vacation and pay increases. Don’t get me wrong, it is some what self-serving, but what the heck do they gain if we revolt against there efforts?
It is the same thinking as most of the residence of CT. They look at us as the bad
Read MoreTo Helen on Sun,
I congratulate you. You are one of the few state workers that actually get it. As a conservative I believe that there should be no unions for state workers. Roosevelt actually felt the same way i do. I realize that will never happen so we have to deal with what we have. Your comments are 100% right on!
Well, I don't think Malloy cares. He knows the package is going to go down by a landslide NO! vote. Few in their right minds would vote yes. It's on to plan B, which was dramatically overstated. All will be well, and he can blame the workforce for whatever he needs to blame them for over the next few years.
ERIP in 2 years. You heard it here first.
An ERIP only makes the problem worse. If the employees hate plan A just vote no and they will do plan B. Why does it take so long to vote?? Just make a decision. If you think poeple do not like state workers wait until July when taxes go up
Helen: you seem to think the proposed deal is about the budget. It's not. It's about advancing the liberal/socialist agenda in Connecticut. It's all about state run medicine and state control over the individual. It's also about feathering the nest of certain individuals including our union representatives. This deal is bad for state employees and our families; it's also bad for the citizens of Connecticut. All state employees should vote NO; not because we can get a better deal, but because the "deal" as presented to us is just plain bad for the individual and for Connecticut.
Helen, thank you for standing up for what you think is right.
It was quite obvious during Malloy's town hall meetings that the unions were preparing their workforce to vote NO. In the earlier meetings, the unions' propagandic handouts were blaring "Shared Sacrifice". Towards the end of his tour they were blaring "tax the rich" and "corporate greed". This was obvious to those of us who pay attention. Sadly, there are not enough of us to go around.
Continue to urge your peers to see your side. Concessions need to be made - otherwise where are all of
Read MoreThis was all planned
The health plan part of the 2011 SEBAC Agreement was planned long before union ”talks” began. This is not a new concept, just new to most of us!
…See the below link
http://www.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/6-Health_Care.pdf
This is a very long report but well worth a scan (on page 49 you’ll find a letter regarding Healthcare System Change by Executive director of CSEA SEIU Bob Rinker). See how much went on “when you weren’t looking”
from https://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/
Well no. An ERIP can work very well if those in charge do it right. You get folks off the payroll and out of the general fund. They then get paid by the pension fund - all together different.
But the politicians must NOT refill positions once folks retire. And they must fund the pension obligations. Had those 2 things been happening for the past 20 years we would not be in this mess.
The problem has never been the employees, it has been, and most likely will remain, the politicians.
The state employees know this, and that is why
Read MoreJen: An ERIP cannot really work for a few reasons.
1) The state cannot offer the ERIP selectively, at least to Union members, and probably not to non-union either really. This means that it cannot offer it only to those people in positions that the state can choose not to refill. Even if the state promotes or transfers people from positions that the state can choose not to refill, the promotions or transfers will likely create increased costs.
2) You are right that the pension fund is a different pot of money so to speak, but as you indicate it
Read MoreThe only tactic to sell this concession package is...fear(something might happen). Get the facts, ask the hard questions, make informed, rational choices. If information is hard to come by (i.e. healthcare terms)a red flag should go up.
Negative changes to your careers can't happen...unless you allow it. You hold all the cards.
Vote in fact...not in fear. Don't let people play you.
Jen State workers need to realize that the state has made promises that cannot be kept. The pension and medical obligations are around $ 40 billion underfunded. There is 9% unemployment. People in the private sector have been layed off and taken lower paying jobs. They are just getting by. Gas is over $4. In July property tax, income tax and sales tax will go up. Do you really believe the state will be able to fund these obligations? The state has 2 choices
1) Be honest with the employees and tell
Read MoreLarry -per my previous post, you are arguing your point out of fear. You should turn your anger to big banks, untaxed coporations, mortgage companies, etc. the causes of this economic downturn.
Economys are cyclical. A two year budget shortfall does not require a decade deep structural change in employee benefits.
Get off the back of the middle class worker. This "deal" is a snowjob.
To ratify this deal is to succumb to fear tactics. Not going to happen. Go bully someone else.
Hapkido If you think the big issue the state faces is a 2 year budget shortfall you live in fantasy land. The unfunded liability is $40 billion. The 2 year budget is around $40 billion. The state would have to not spend a penny for 2 years to meet their obligation. The employee benefits need to change for more than a decade to fix the problem. The people being taxed are the middle class. You seem to think that only the state workers are middle class. Vote yes or vote no either way the unfunded liability problem
Read MoreGood God, people are shortsighted. If State workers turn this deal down then they can kiss collective bargaining rights goodbye. Don't think it can happen here? Think again. It can and it will if union members vote "no." And btw, the release of the Plan B detailed cuts sure made made a lot of union members a lot bolder as they realize that their chance of getting laid off is slim to none (for example - why would anyone in DDS vote yes when only 1.5% of the work force is being laid off?).
Read MoreKent
At least if they try to revoke our collective bargaining rights outright, it would be honest.
This whole agreement was done behind closed doors, without employees input, and no communication from union leaders to members until after they made the agreement...the plan B threats are the only "arbitration" that we are told will take place at this time.
As most unit contracts end 7/1/2012 (as do contracts with Anthem and United/Oxford) there will be the opportunity over the next year to transparently negotiate a more amenable deal, one that doesn't discriminate between the tiers of union members in terms
Read MoreFear has its use but cowardice has none.
Mohandas Gandhi
We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Don't let fear drive your decisions.
The unfunded liabilities have nothing to do with fear or courage. It is simple math. People are living longer so they will receive more out of the pension plan and more in medical benefits than was projected. This is happening to most states and cities.
Or the fact that the state has, even in good economic times, deferred payments to the pension fund for decades...
Had they made scheduled and agreed to contributions, we wouldn't be having this debate. Much greater impact than mortality.
What good is a contractural agreement if it is repeatedely forced open when times are tough? In the rare event this deal is radified, will it be reopened on the threat of layoffs in 2012 or 13 or 14? Serves the Union employees right if they don't push back.
Negotiate in 2017.
P.S. I called my bank today and said
Read MoreSo, these issues aren't new...
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both."
Eddie Fitzpatrick
"We paid the price to get here. We'll pay the price to stay."
Woody Guthrie
"Some men rob you with a six-gun -- others rob you with a fountain pen."
Lane Kirkland
"The plain truth is that labor is the chief representative force that keeps the real special interests from dominating American political life."
Vote with reason and resolve.
Larry: the unfunded portion of the pension fund is the direct result of the decades-long spending spree that Connecticut has been on. We have long suffered with a liberal democratic legislature for whom no social program could be turned down. Now we have a governor who is also a liberal/socialist. He called for concessions from the state workforce. What we are being asked to ratify is a sham. It's not a concession package; it's a fundamental change in personal choice. This whole thing is about advancing the liberal/socialist agenda in Connecticut, and the United States. Ask me to pay more
Read MoreLane Kirkland
"The plain truth is that labor is the chief representative force that keeps the real special interests from dominating American political life."
Thank you Hakido for that one!
Aristotle...I agree 100%
here are a couple more in that light....
http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/2011-sebac-agreement-thou...
http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/new-evidence-on-public-pens...
Thank you all for your thoughts. However, the state has no choice but to fund it's obligations, it's only out would be bankruptcy, and we are so far from that its unrealistic. The package before the membership now is also unrealistic. You see, the pension shortfall is due, of course, because past legislatures and governors chose not to fund it appropriately, but it was "fixed" in 1984 with the introduction of tier 2, which is s benefit for sure but not nearly tier 1. The vast majority of the unfunded liability is attributed to the generous tier 1 benefits,
Read Morehapkido 1) payments were deferred with the consent of the union last year 2) Do not open the agreement by voting for plan B 3) the state union is the biggest special interest in this state
Jen 1) There are 50,000 state worker out of 3.5 million people in connecticut. I agree with your statement that the good of the many should out weigh the few. 2) ERIP will not happen People are starting to understand that pension plan is broke. Even the governor the union owns is against that 3) Please
Read MoreVote NO. An Agreement is an agreement and the union should have never opened this agreement until 2017 they have opened it one to many times every year we pay more and more. THe bottom line is that Dan Livingston should not be negotiating anything he is on the board of Directors for CHART univerisal health care who paid consultants to work on sustinet. AFSME Sal Luciano and many more received money. SAl LUciano was appointed to sustinet by speaker of the house. Do the research yourselves!! Go onto Sustinet the bill they just past and go to chart
Read MoreDid you ever wonder why they were so quite and behind close doors letting the public crucify state employees?? Well I asked and asked why there were no billboards no newspaper articles, no speaking on radio stations funny how i never got any reasonable answer. THe reason is that they were in on this healthcare sustinet that just passed with the union leaders. Educate yourself and go to website Chart, ceO WEBSITE AND SUSTINET. you will see all of your union leaders selling you out!!State employees have been sacrifing for years even in good times. Why would a union
Read MorePlease understand that we (all CT voters) are to blame. The managers of this State (politicians) who were put into power by our vote have been allowed to get away with every conceivable unethical act. Not only do we vote them back in, but we allow ourselves to be manipulated into accusing our fellow middle class workers for the fiscal mess.
The middle class is taxed high enough. Private enterprise has raped their employees of their pensions, wages and health care benefits while their executives garner incredable wages and stock options. The private labor force, under the manipulation of their
This has nothing to do with the private sector. The unions orchestrated this whole thing so that they could get sustinet through to the collective bargaining people. It is also wrong that managers have absolutely no vote nor the retirees who it effects. THe SEBAC Agreement is not the same as vote for the contract. There is an agreement, DAn, Sal, Bob, Larry Dorman and presidents of the unions you know who you are. Selling out union worker rights is beyond words. It is your duty to fight for the agreement it is a legal binding contract unitl 2017.
Read MoreMalloy is blowing any chance for respect from the voters who did not put him in office but who have been praying for his success. We are doomed without good leadership to get us out of the mess we are in.
The man continues to dig for surpluses, loopholes, union concessions, and Fed help: why the heck isn't he able to do some serious spending cuts? OMG, he is acting like Obama - pander to one side, then pander to another and all along the way, the real hardworking citizen is stuck paying the bill!
Wake up,
Read MoreI can understand why people do not like the health care portion of the agreement, but I see it a bit differently.
Health care costs are increasing rapidly for the state. The state was going to ask for an increased premium share from state employees (actual premiums will increase as the costs of the premiums rise even under the current 2017 agreement).
The SEBAC agreement offers an alternative so that state employees have the OPTION of avoiding those increased premium payments (and may see some small cost decreases on copays).
The agreement also gives state employees the OPTION of choosing
Read MoreStill waiting for a definitive date so I can cast my NO vote.
Don't let Malloy & SEBAC scare you. This is just a ruse to get Sustinet implemented as the State health plan with the goal being that state & municipal workers will have to join along with all the non-working folk who get free medical care from the state. The biggest problem I have with this is that ONLY the state workers will have to pay. Municipal employees don't pay nor do welfare recipients. So guess whose $$$ will be supporting this wonderful program
To the public you should be very worried about sustinet. it is giving healthcare to every person at your expense. Another words you will not get the same care that you presently have they are coming after you next research it yourself it saves no money period. It takes years to get into doctors. Chart website, CEO Website, Sustinet website this is obamacare. OUr unions are working with Nancy Wyman, Governor Malloy, and the legislature. It is dispicable we have an agreement period. OUr union lawyer Dan livingston needs to step dowm, Sal Luciano Asfcme Union executive director 198000
Read MoreTo the CT mirror since your review comments why are you not investigating what state employees are reporting?? Dan Livingston Chief negotiator on the board of Directors of CHart conflict of interest is this ethical??? Sal Luciano appointed to sustinet by the speaker of the house executive director of Asfcme ??? Who excepted 100,000 Asfcme local 4??? Bob Rinker executive director of seiu??? All selling sustinet without any union member knowing. Larry Dorman. Who are they working for???
Michael seriously get a clue. Do your research before you except everything with nothing written. You have no idea what you are getting for healthcare. you receive two pages and you think that is it??? I mean really. Voluntary does not require commitment letters nor does it give consequences or punishments. Are you a follower or do you take some responsiblity to check on what you are getting?? How mANY people will have your medical information and what is the next disease they will at to the list?? Really so asthma can be prevented??
They thought state
Read MoreOH helen Bob Rinker it is your job to fight for the dues paying members. The dues paying members dont want this period. If the Governor comes after the unions it is your job to back them up. Why have a union and why pay dues helen Bob Rinker if the union is not going to fight for the workers??? We have an agreement until 2017 and your job is to honor it not to put your socialistic agenda and sell the worker out we cant make this up it is what you are doing. We are adults you
Read More725 million bob is unscathed are you kidding me?? Private sector is against us because you failed to put the truth out about what we have given up. THe state employees did not cause anythimng the corrupt politicians did. Unscathed people had furloughs for two years that is there paycheck that went down and their retirement went down??
Two years of wages hello. MOre into our health care paid every two week paycheck plus 3% for the employees more from their paycheck to fund retiree health care. 200 million of our pension fund that we pay into and have for
Josephine you wrote the following
Michael seriously get a clue. Do your research before you except everything with nothing written. You have no idea what you are getting for healthcare. you receive two pages and you think that is it??? I mean really.
If there is nothing written how can you say it is so bad?
Josephine there is 9% unemployment. You are getting job security with this sweetheart deal. the union leaders are trying to save your union members from getting laid off. Would you rather see your union members get laid off or make a few minor concessions. The elderly are being hit hard with tax increases so you can get benefits they do not have.
red lady we did not know about sustinet until now
Larry this is not a sweetheart deal this is about socialized medicine period are argument is socialized medicine to leave our health care alone period. It is not our responsiblity nor yours to pay for everyone and get poor health care in return. larry you are priceless buy a house and dont look at buy a car and dont look at it larry do you have socialized medicine? If you can break one agreement then what would make you follow this one? whats the saying fool me once etc??
This is going to get everyone they start with collective bargaining and are you larry dorman?? The little old lady will get this same poor awful health care ask those that have it canada,ireland and england how about here there is not one person that likes nor gets care it takes months if not years to see a doctor. State employees have given concessions and are taxpayers. I would not want my mom or dad or grandfather actually anyone to have this health care. There is no much the government does not have contol over now they want to control
Read Morejosephine Using your logic I should get a tax refund because I do not want to pay for state emoloyees benefits. I pay for mine so they should pay for theirs.
larry we do pay for our benefits you just dont get it do you. we have paid for a very long time. UNFORTUNATLEY YOU HAVE BELEIVED LIES. What amount of money would be good for you for us to pay larry what is your salary what are your benefits, what college did you go too what experience do you have? Larry because we work for public service does not mean we work for no benefits and min wage. There are 45000 employees that have different jobs and different contracts none are the same not even retirement. So before you coninue
Read MoreTo michaelthoughts:
Just some thoughts I would like you to ponder:
1. Health care premiums paid by the State employees will continue to be assessed in the same manner. If the insurance companies raise their prices, those increases are passed on to the the State employee, or selected services are reduced or eliminated. It is my understanding that any and all cost savings will be realized exclusively by the State.
2. If passed, the only “option” that this agreement will provide will be to quit/retire or accept the proposed plan.
3. The $100/mo. and $350 co-pay are not options, they
Josephine you pay a small % of the premium and small copays. The taxpayer pays for the majority of state employee healthcare and pension.
I'm thankful I have a job. you seemed to feel you are owed a job, benefits and pension. Wake up. We are in a recession if you have to make minor concession (that your union agreed to) it should not be that big of a deal
Red Lady Blue State
Wish I knew about SustiNet last year! I found out about it in February while on the DPH website. . Anyone I mentioned it to had no clue about it and even a medical professional questioned me as to where I read about it, she knew zero about it.
We have to be responsible for our own ignorance....but WOW I so wish I knew you were fighting this last year! Who are the "us" you are referring to? Does the group have a website? Is there a list of Senators and Reps fighting it's implementation?
To tier-1 st empl: I have pondered your thoughts, and here is the result:
1. You are right that premiums will increase and they will assess them in the same manner either under the agreement or if the unions reject it. What I was trying to say was that the state was likely to ask for an increased SHARE of the premium from state employees absent the health care plan offered in the agreement.
2. You are right that the agreement is not an option if it passes; I was talking about the option of deciding whether to enter the
Read MoreJosephine: I understand that you do not like the proposed agreement, and if I were in your circumstances, I may have the same reaction. You have the right to vote no.
I, however, do have a clue. I have read everything very carefully. The signed agreement is specific. Attachment B lays out what the new health program will require of employees.
It is voluntary. State employees can choose to participate or not participate; they can change their minds if they decide they do not like it. Yes, if they choose not to participate they will pay higher premiums/deductible, but at
Read MoreMichael you do not have a clue voluntary would not have penalties attached or consequenses period!!! We do pay larry we pay more than alittle larry. We have an agreement and it needs to be honored period. These are penalties period you pay on top of your health care costs from anthem or oxford plus 5% more this year added from these two health care companies. What will happen in 2012??? please this is sustinet pure and simple and we dont want it period it is not our responsiblity to pay for everyone that does not have health care.
Read MoreJosephine If you do not like plan A vote for plan B. I do not understand the state employees. You elect your union leaders then complain about them. you back Malloy then you complain about him. You have better benefits than 90% of the people but you act like a bunch of spoiled children when asked to give concessions. Greed loses in the long run
To MichaelThoughts:
Well, I guess our definitions of the word "option" regarding the value based health care proposal are going to remain in conflict. But I'm going to try one more time to explain the reality of this agreement.
If it passes, or even if it doesn't, the premiums being assessed by the insurance companies will be the same (except for any price increases that are affecting everyones insurance costs). The State will maintain it's contribution to the total cost in approximately the same proportion as it has in previouse
tier-1 st empl
I do not think we disagree on the first part of what you said. Voting no or yes will have no effect on premium share unless employees decide not to participate in the new health program.
What I was trying to point out was what would have happened as an alternative to this agreement. Without the new health program, I am sure the state WOULD have asked for employees to pay an increased share of the premium. You are right that this did not happen, and if the agreement does not pass, premium shares will stay the
Read More