| Cross post from Jon Pelto's Wait What?
Last month, in a post entitled, Define fiscally and morally irresponsible? Malloy's plan for older, retired teachers. Wait, What? readers had a chance to learn about Governor Malloy's budget proposal to eliminate the state's contribution to the retired teacher's health insurance fund.
The fund pays a portion of the health insurance premiums of retired teachers. The bulk of the cost still rests on the individual teachers.
The Legislature's Appropriations Committee will be holding a public hearing on Malloy's proposal tomorrow.
Malloy's plan would force the Connecticut Teacher Retirement Board to spend the existing fund down to almost zero over the next two years.
According to an article in yesterday's CTMirror, while Malloy's plan would "save the state" $70.7 million in the upcoming FY14-FY15 biannual budget, but it would "put the plan's funding at a 'dangerous level in two years."
Why take such a fiscally irresponsible action you ask?
Because eliminating the contribution would make the state budget look more balanced during the next gubernatorial election cycle, although the "rob Peter to pay Paul" approach would require a massive boost in the state contribution to the teacher's retirement fund in FY 16, the year after the next election.
However, as the CTMirror notes, without that massive increase in FY 16, the state would be unable to pay its share of the teacher's health premiums starting in the summer of 2015.
There's more below the fold...