As Plainfield's City Council struggles with the budget mess bequeathed it by the cunningly calculated cowardice of the Robinson-Briggs administration, my eye was caught by a tactic used elsewhere I have never heard mentioned in Plainfield.
Over the holidays, the Ledger reported on a move by Linden's council to sweeten the amount an employee would be given to opt out of the city's health plan (see story here).
I have never heard opting out discussed in Plainfield, and now wonder why we might not consider it; or, if we do have an option in place, sweetening it to encourage more participation as Linden is trying to do.
Linden, which had been giving $2,500 to those who had other health plan options, will be sweetening that amount to a one-time payment of $4,000.
With benefits that can cost the municipality up to $14,000 per year, a one-time payment for a lifetime savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars strikes me as the kind of thinking that needs to go into budget considerations, which are often focused on layoffs or reduction of services.
It would at least be worth looking into, though the time is probably past for this fiscal year.
Which leds to another thought: Budget planning should be a year-round activity.
Why should the Council wait for the Administration's (always late) proposal before getting its thinking in order? And why can't the CBAC work on a year-round basis to look into how other communities try to control budgets? There is something flawed about going through this same scenario year after year without trying to get a better hold on things.
The only thing crazy about it would be NOT trying.
-- Dan Damon [follow]
9 comments:
Hi Dan,
The CBAC thought, as you have, that the CBAC be a year long appointment and help with the budget process. There are cities that have such a thing. The recommendation will be in our presentation to the council.
Jeanette
If memory serves me, there was a time when a City employee could receive payment in lieu of health insurance but I thought it was rather a low figure - something like $450. Not sure since it did not apply to me but then I believe the policy was discontinued but can't remember the reason why.
My school district pays me $5k a year to opt out of their insurance plan. My wife also buys out of hers for vacation time. PPS (who wouldn't let me opt out when I worked there) and the City should definitely consider it.
The City offers the opt out benefit for employees. The amount paid to opt out is 25% of the benefit.
Dan...seriously..."Our" lack of forward...dare I say ( ie..giving her credit with the word ) thinking "Mayor" wouldn't consider a cost saving measure that was SHOVED down her throat..she is as blind as the NJ State Government. There is no consideration of cost cutting, simply where's the money?
- The problem with the "Mayor" is that she could be given an idea for creating a source of revenue and she would stand there slack jawed and glossy eyed with no real concept of moving it from the idea stage.
She reads the blogs in Plainfield ( we all know her ego cannot allow her to ignore them ...yes "Mayor" Sharon, we all know your game it's no secret you suffer from the "Jan Brady" complex. There are and have been plenty of sound, intelligent and fair cost cutting measures put out there. All she does is peruse the blogs hoping to see the random and odd ball comment saying - " Go Sharon" ....which we all know is rarer than a Republican at a Gay Pride Festival on the Jersey Shore...oh..there was my moment of self glorification :o)
It shouldn't even be an option. All employees should be paid more in exchange for the benefit. For starters, begin with all city officials. Then, extend this to pensions.
The city doesn't provide medical care, nor is it an investment manager. Give the workers more, and let them individually, or as unions, buy their own insurance and annuities.
It is time to free the taxpayer-hostages from the prognostications of politicians and bureaucrats. Healthcare and retirement benefits are built through savings and investment. The City of Plainfield doesn't save or invest as part of its day-to-day business. So give them the money today, and let the saving and investing go on where they ought to be, which is not in the taxpayers' pockets.
Actually, the City's opt out benefit annual incentive is 33% of the cost associated with the health plan the employee would have chosen. Which on average equates to not less than $4000 annually. This option was adopted by the City Council via resolution and has been in placed more than six years.
Here is what I find interesting (although I support it strongly) about this approach. The notion that the people can make better decisions for themselves about healthcare and retirement savings is not a novel one...in fact, it almost sounds like that “Republican at a Gay Pride Festival on the Jersey Shore” that Rob was mentioning.
The much hated George W. Bush was lambasted for proposing this very same thing regarding Social Security. His view was that privatizing these services...by "letting the people invest their money"...by letting people “make their own decisions regarding healthcare” the net result will be a lot less administrative costs and better performance.
After all, when it’s “your” money sitting in an account...versus...some far away distant payday...aren’t you more likely to take care of it?
The Democrats in Congress led us all to believe that his motive was really to funnel investments to his buddies on Wall Street and that the public was not smart enough to handle this responsibility on their own. These same Congressional Democrats now want us to believe that they know best when it comes to our healthcare.
Dan, I think you are on to something here...perhaps on a smaller scale...but either way you make me proud.
Bo
Wow, too bad we don't have some kind of ... public option(?) that gov't employees, could buy into and save municipal taxpayers some money. And gee, maybe with that money the taxpayers could buy into a public option thereby saving their employers money! Too bad nobody thought of that, right Bo?
Post a Comment