Taxpayers still picking up the tab for Magazzu’s health care

This year we saw an unprecedented number of layoffs at the county level. Every department had to make concessions, and still Lou Magazzu and Jane Jannarone slap the fired county workers in the face by continuing to accept free healthcare. When is this insanity going to end, and when will Lou keep even one promise?

The Cumberland County Board of Freeholders is getting pressed to follow up on a 5-month-old commitment to drop health coverage for part-time workers.

The 2010 budget year enters its last quarter next week, and the bill for the coverage is in the $45,000 range, according to one freeholder.

It has been the position that part-time positions should not get full-time benefits, and this refusal to make a personal sacrifice after firing loyal county workers is unacceptable. No study is required for the elected Freeholders to make this decision for themselves. After all, no study was required when Lou demanded his constitutional officers accept a lower than legally mandated pay check.

This is another example of Lou saying “Do as I say, not as I do”.


One Response to Taxpayers still picking up the tab for Magazzu’s health care

  1. Calhoun says:

    If Jannarone is recusing herself from the meetings where this is being discussed, then why the hell is she planning on voting on the measure? That makes no sense. One recuses oneself from an issue when he or she is not allowed to vote due to a conflict. It’s nuts to recuse yourself from a debate and then state your intention to vote on the matter!

    Anyway a scorecard is in order. First, at current, health benefits for some part-timers, including freeholders, is currently the law of the land. Thus, in order to get rid of this perk, an ordinance will have to be passed taking the benefits away. If Magazzu makes good on his promise to remain recused, then that leaves six freeholders to decide this with four needed to vote in the affirmative to remove the benefits.

    Pepitone is a likely “no” as is Jannarone, if she refuses to stay recused. Sheppard and Whelan are likely to vote “yes” on an ordinance that would remove benefits for part-timers.

    That leaves Thompson and Dunkins. Both of these would have to vote “yes” for the ordinance to pass and benefits for part-timers to be eliminated. I am not sure how Thompson will vote. Part-timers are not really an important cog in his union world. Dunkins is also a hard read. He is a public employee himself and I am not sure how he feels about this issue. Nonetheless, I would look for one of them to vote “no”; this would ensure at least a 3-3 vote, and thus benefits for part-timers would remain.

    Sorry to be late on this. I just got back from Carl’s birthday bash. A drink in every hand, , a Cuban cigar in every mouth, and a stripper in every lap. All in all, a helluva time. One thing: Carl wasn’t there. What the hell Carl? Would it kill you to come to your own effing birthday party? Sheez. I left when the music got too loud, Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney playing at the same time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: