Stephen Sweeney on NJ Budget Battles

Monday, July 25, 2011

Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's A Free Country, we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. Today on the Brian Lehrer Show, New Jersey Senate president Stephen Sweeney discusses budget battles in New Jersey.

This fall voters will vote on every member i the entire New Jersey legislature. The vote may well turn out to be a referendum on Governor Chris Christie and his budget cutting, and this November’s election may be a preview of things to come next November on the national stage.   

Senator Sweeney was an ally of Christie's during the big health and pension reform deal, angering liberals and the unions, who felt Sweeney was betraying them. But when Christie began with the line item vetoes to the budget, Sweeney lashed out angrily.

Sweeney explained that he backed the governor on requiring workers to pay more in contributions to their health care plans and pensions, because, he said, “it had to be done.”

I raised this issue in 2006 to fix the pension and health care system and basically was shouted down with inflatable rats and an administration that wouldn’t support us.

Christie’s defense of his actions has been to claim that by cutting salaries to make the worker’s contribution larger, he was actually saving their pensions. Sweeney said Christie “got that  from me.”

The legislature submitted their budget to the governor expecting some cuts, but Sweeney claimed that in his zealousness to cut, the governor even cut the budget that he submitted. Christie’s defenders say that those cuts were made, not out of spite, but because of lower-than-projected fiscal revenue returns. Sweeney doesn't buy it.

It’s not true. They were actually better. You know, they were better than when he proposed his budget…He cut nine hundred million dollars. You know, so for $289 or $300 million, you didn’t have to cut nine-hundred million. And where he cut is what caused the problems.

After Christie vetoed so many items in the budget, the relationship soured, with Sweeney calling Christie “mean spirited” and a “bastard.”

We accomplished some things, pension and health reform in a really bipartisan fashion, and then watched the Governor just, in a very mean-spirited and cruel way, go after the most vulnerable people in this state.

Christie cut funding to programs for sexually abused children, programs to provide medicine to AIDS patients, and early intervention programs to help disabled children. He also cut transitional aid to distressed cities, such as Camden and Newark, though he eventually relented on the transitional aid.

Know what the problem was? Some of those communities were talking to bankruptcy attorneys. You know the governor talks about our bond rating all the time. You can only imagine what would happen if one of our large urban areas filed bankruptcy. So the governor says "I always intended to restore it”, then why did you cut it? It’s not a legitimate argument.

Christie restored the aid to distressed cities, but left some of the other programs shut out of the budget, claiming he can make up the difference with federal aid. Sweeney thinks the federal aid offer is an attempt to deflect the criticism Christie received after making the cuts.

When people started looking at these cuts, they were getting angry like I was...People see this as mean-spirited, cruel, honestly it’s heartless. Look, if you want to fight with me, fight with me. But don’t take innocent hostages.


More in:

Comments [4]

amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

@ Maria -

I agree that cuts to NJ state govt. had to be made.

I don't agree with the "pleased" sentiment but peeved (and there are many like me) at how it was handled (poorly); to wit, some of the poor target choices for cuts, some conditions that were part of budgetary decisions (especially legally binding union contracts) and how it was done (NJ political bosses).

The problem is that Sweeney gave Christie carte blanche and is now complaining. Christie's extremism will show instead of wisdom, not only in cuts, but also in his choices as to what investments should and should not be included in any smart budgetary plan for the state of NJ going forward.

Jul. 25 2011 01:09 PM
Phoebe Pollinger from Montclair, NJ

For the guest: New Jersey has historically received virtually the lowest return from the Federal government on the taxes paid to the Federal government. What are you doing to increase the return from the Feds to receive the State's fair share??


Jul. 25 2011 11:46 AM
Maria from South Plainfield

oh, please. this segment is a complete waste of time as it is completely one sided. NJ taxpayers for the most part are quite happy with someone willing to make dramatic cuts to bring this state back to sustainable levels.

Jul. 25 2011 11:38 AM
Thomas from Maplewood, N.J

Pension reform was a backroom door deal that effected 100,000's of people's work of a lifetime. The legislation was introduced and passed within two weeks. Every Democrat who voted for this was associated with political boss Norcross or Divincenzo. There was a very limited one day hearing on this matter where no alternatives were considered. Is this democracy? The contract clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from passing legislation that effects existing legal obligations. This legislation eliminates the 60% cola for all current retirees. How can this legislation withstand a constitutional challenge? Why doesn't the state have to make a full payment to the pension fund for years to come?

Jul. 25 2011 11:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at


Supported by