It's yet another frustrating, upside down issue: self-serving judges and justices claiming they are above the law. Seeking a fix, Democratic state Sen. Jeff Van Drew is supporting the Republican governor while his Republican challenger David DeWeese agrees with the state's Democratic leaders.
Last week, Gov. Chris Christie said "it's all about fairness" as he asked legislators whether they stood with him or "the privileged 432."
Christie was fuming over Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg's ruling that the state constitution protects Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices from salary reductions while in office, thus shielding them from legislation requiring all state employees to contribute more towards their pension and escalating health care costs. Christie lashed out, vowing that the state would appeal. He asked legislators for a constitutional amendment.
"They are public servants. They are not kings and queens in black robes; and their desire to be treated as such is really, really distasteful," he said.
No wonder those of us toiling in the trenches of the public sector love this man so much.
"This outrageous, self-serving decision, where a judge is protecting her own pocketbook and those of her colleagues, is why the public has grown to have such little faith in the objectivity of the judiciary," Christie said.
Feinberg concluded that increased contributions are an indirect pay reduction. The state constitution, she said, specifically forbids this for judges and justices. Salaries can't be touched, she said, noting the constitution protected judges from "potentially vindictive acts" of the executive or legislative branches.
Superior Court Judge Paul DePasquale filed the lawsuit after Christie signed landmark legislation on June 28 increasing judge's pension contributions from 3 to 12 percent of their annual salaries while requiring them to pay 35 percent of their health care premiums. DePasquale earns $165,000 a year. His health care contributions would more than double to $5,230.86 a year.
Christie's response was music to the ears of a struggling public. Tired of funding their own health care and pensions, the average New Jersey resident can only dream of such a sweet deal.
"These political appointees, who are the most lavishly paid public workers, with the richest lifetime benefits, have now had one of their own rule that they are above the law and should be treated preferentially. We trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this ridiculous decision and find that judges should have to pay their fair share, just like every other public employee," Christie said.
"Let the people decide whether there should be two classes of public servants: 500,000 who pay their fair share, and 432 who don't," Christie said. "This is an egregious and self-serving decision that protects a small class of individuals who believe they deserve exclusive treatment. I could not in good conscience stand by and watch hard-working state employees earning a fraction of a judge's salary pay their fair share while the judiciary exempts itself while claiming special constitutional protection."
The average public employee's salary is $56,700 and they contribute between 6.5 and 10 percent towards their pension. The average judge's salary is over $166,000 and they want to pay only three percent, Christie said.
Get this – judges qualify for a lifetime pension at 75 percent of their annual salary after as little as 10 years on the bench. The average annual benefit is $107,540.
These judges would contribute less than $60,000 toward their pension during their time on the bench. Once retired, they'd collect over $2.3 million in benefits.
"Less than one year into retirement, a judge will collect the entire amount they personally contributed toward their pension fund," Christie said. "The rest of their lives will be on taxpayers."
Democrat Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver noted that she is "not inclined to support pursing a constitutional amendment."
"It sets a very unhealthy precedent," she said. "To circumvent a judge's ruling and put a public question on the ballot is not an appropriate thing to do at this time."
Senate President Stephen Sweeney said "whether I agree or disagree with the decision, the judicial process must be respected."
Calls for a constitutional amendment are growing. It's an enormous campaign issue for Republicans, a gift for those willing to embrace it. Assemblyman Vince Polistina, challenging state Sen. Jim Whelan in nearby District 2, stood next to Christie in Trenton last week as the governor railed about "fairness."
"There is an election in two weeks, and everyone behind me has stood up and said if the courts do not do the right thing, we will do the right thing by the people and put this on the ballot in Nov. 2012," Christie said. "Every Democrat in the legislature and every Democratic candidate should answer that question now: Where do they stand on the issue?"
Christie said he hoped to "make history" on Election Day, but it will probably be without District 1. I guess he figured Republican support would be a given.
Most people have a gut reaction: highly paid judges fighting a $5,230.86 health care contribution while standing to reap over $2.3 million in pension benefits. It's enough to make you sick, right? Christie predicted the average person on the street would "go nuts."
DeWeese said he would have to "wait to see the proposed legislation," thus agreeing with Sweeney, the Democratic leader who said he would have to wait for the case to make its way through the courts before deciding what to do.
"Right now it's a court issue," DeWeese, a retired municipal judge said, adding that the state's Supreme Court "will ultimately make the decision."
If "presented," DeWeese, an attorney, said he "would look at what they are proposing." Laws are "designed to protect the independence and integrity of the judges." An amendment as proposed "is legislation to change that, to permit a deviation."
Given a deviation, he "would have to see the legislation first."
Why? Christie needs your support! Coming from a Republican – in this economic climate - that's stunning. Is he speaking as a retired judge - in the system - or a potential Republican state Senator? There was no gut reaction that this is wrong, absurd, unfair. I wish he'd said it but he didn't. Is DeWeese merely being careful, or thoughtful? He's certainly not showing concern for taxpayers.
Running as an anti-tax, anti-regulation conservative, he has relentlessly attacked Van Drew as a tax and spender. But Van Drew had a "gut reaction."
"You gotta be kidding me," Van Drew said. "I agree with the governor 100 percent. I'm disappointed with the legislators who supported this decision. There are a lot of people who are making a whole lot less in income who are paying more towards their health care and pensions. I'm just shocked."
Van Drew's gut reaction even included "piggish."
"Everyone should pay their fair share," he said. "Judges earn a good salary and they are tenured. They're paying the least on their pensions. It's just shocking. No one wants to interfere with their decisions on the bench. This has nothing to do with their rulings. The taxpayers are funding their pension and health care."
Van Drew said he would support legislation offering a constitutional amendment.
"It's a no brainer to me," he said. "We're supposed to be sacrificing together. We have all agreed on that."
Van Drew, who maintains a local dental practice, said his private sector experience serves as a barometer. When folks are hurting financially, they put off dental work. "People are hurting," he said.
DeWeese has repeatedly accused Van Drew of voting to raise permits, fees and taxes. Van Drew was featured in a campaign video with a drill, "drilling" taxpayers with fees and so forth. There is some merit to that argument. As a member of the Democratic majority Van Drew often supported the tax and spend mentality, but not all the time. When push came to shove he provided Christie with a much-needed vote to pass historic reforms that may save the pensions of retired and current state employees and taxpayers $120 billion over 30 years. Van Drew has both supported and battled against tolls, fees and taxes.
I'm not trying to tear down the Republican, I'm just stating the obvious. Christie described the judiciary as a "little cliquey club." If the pension system is broken, he said, so be it "as long as she gets hers and her colleagues get theirs."
To unseat a popular legislator like Van Drew, you can't try to run to the right and outflank him on the left. You can't run a nasty campaign and expect a positive reaction either. Van Drew is a likeable guy, people don't want to hate him even if they won't vote for him. You have to win on the issues.
Touting support from the state's police and firefighter unions, DeWeese said last month he would not support pension and health care reforms that interfered with the collective bargaining process. He argued that public safety officials had planned their family budgets based on what was promised.
Try telling that to the struggling residents in the private sector as their self-funded 401K's take a nose dive and health care costs skyrocket. Supporting public safety is a good thing, but offering reform-minded Christie wishy-washy support is a deal breaker.
Christie wants a measure on the ballot in November, 2012 asking voters to define judicial "salary" as money earned, unrelated to pensions and health benefits.
"We are going to place this in the people's hands if the courts want to put their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers," Christie said.
Christie gets it. We need to send people to Trenton who support him. Who is going to best help him keep the courts out of our pockets?
Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog
"Turn to us when you need help"
