State workers should pay more -- not taxpayers

The "low fuel" light on the state's dashboard has lit up once again, and this time, it's the public employee health-care program's tank that's running on empty. 

Over the weekend, lawmakers worked on a plan to cover a $220 million shortfall in the public employees health-care program, managed by the Public Employees Benefits Board. The problem was kicked forward last session when legislators, faced with emerging budget woes, chose to fund only 3 percent of the estimated 9 percent increase in health coverage costs. To address that shortfall, the Legislature charged the PEEB with adjusting state employee premiums and co-payments, but the minimal increases brought forward by the board fell short of the revenue needed to pay for these rich benefits. 

To get by this year, legislators are proposing to take funds from a variety of sources, including the dwindling state general fund. But they're also tapping two state treasury accounts to help cover the deficit:

• $13 million from the Public Works Assistance Account -- the pot of money used for loans to local governments for public works projects
• $30 million from the Data Processing Revolving  Fund, which is used for everything from equipment and software to salaries within the state's technology agency, the Department of Information Services. 

That's the preferred method by legislators, rather than asking state employees to shoulder a greater percentage of their health-care costs. The amendment, offered by Rep. Mark Ericks, D-Bothell, can be seen here.

The Olympian's Brad Shannon wrote about the shortfall this week in his Politics Blog:

The health contribution is one of several sticking points in budget talks, and lawmakers are facing a deadline of Thursday to finish work and go home at the end of their regular session. The dispute is not small money -- $134 million more spending in the House alternative, just under $40 million in the Senate plan, and about half of the funds in either scenario come out of the state's general fund.

The governor, according to Shannon, has suggested raising the state contribution to $830/month per worker, about $35 more than proposed by the Senate and $33 less than offered by the House.

Under any of these scenarios, it's worth noting that state workers would still only pay 12 percent of their health-insurance premiums; the state would cover the remaining 88 percent. Most business owners would say those figures are largely out of balance with what the private-sector employees are facing today.

Instead, state taxpayers will be footing the bill.