The state Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow over whether Gov. Chris Christie broke the law by refusing to contribute over $1.5 billion to the public workers’ pension system. The unions think so and they’ve sued the governor. The court’s decision will have huge ramifications for the state budget and for the governor’s presidential hopes which were likely not helped by the Bridgegate indictments. Assembly Republican leader Jon Bramnick spoke with NJTV News Anchor Mary Alice Williams about the pension reform debate and Christie’s potential involvement in Bridgegate.
Bramnick believes there’s no evidence that Christie was part of the planning or execution of closing the lanes on the George Washington Bridge in 2013.
“Anytime someone’s indicted, a politician — Democrat or Republican — it just saddens me because I always feel for the family and the individual so that’s overwhelming to me, people being in trouble. It’s just a sad day,” he said. “If there was any evidence that the governor was involved in the past 16 months I guarantee that someone would have come forward with it. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a sad day for New Jersey with respect to the indictments.”
When asked what he makes of David Wildstein’s attorney Alan Zegas insisting that Christie “knew of the lane closures as they occurred” and “evidence exists” that Christie knew about the lane closures, he reiterated that if Christie was involved we would likely already know.
“I’m a trial lawyer too. Lawyers are advocates. I know Alan Zegas as well. What he said is he knew that the lanes were closed. I think those were his words. I don’t think he said he was part of closing them or the reason why they were closed. So look, they’re advocates. Mr. Critchley’s an advocate, so is Mr. Zegas. I’ll let them become advocates. I can tell you now that in 16 months, if Gov. Christie knew or was part of the lane closures we would know by now. I can guarantee that based on all of the people asking questions,” Bramnick said.
He thinks Bridgegate may not hurt Christie’s chances if he decides to run for president.
“I don’t think people in New Hampshire or northern Iowa are concerned with this issue,” Bramnick said. “I think what we have is a lot of candidates from the Republican Party in this race and therefore Chris Christie will stand on his own merits. When he gets into town hall meetings he’ll be very strong as he is in his town hall meetings in New Jersey.”
Democrats are pushing to reform the Port Authority starting with the old bill Christie vetoed. When asked if the indictments give reform new traction, Bramnick said that he thinks Sen. Tom Kean’s bill may be the solution.
“Tom Kean Jr. actually has a bill that’s a global bill, that means addressing many, many issues involving reform. We need reform and I support Tom Kean’s bill and I think that bill will clearly sail through both houses. If they want to try an override again, I think they’re wasting their time. I think we should move on with the Kean bill and just pass it,” Bramnick said.
Tomorrow the lawsuit against the Christie administration to fully fund the pension system will be heard in state Supreme Court. Bramnick says despite the ruling, the courts aren’t solving the crux of the problem: where the money is coming from.
“First, the court wants to order the state to pay money. That’s great but the court should tell us where we should get the money. The important thing is we need to save the pension system for the people who we’ve promised a pension. We need to work together and find the solution to the underfunded pension issue, but the court getting involved doesn’t tell us where the money is to save the pension,” Bramnick said.
Christie originally struck a deal in 2011 with Sen. Steve Sweeney to reform the pension system and make it manageable. Bramnick says many things have changed between then and now.
“In the private sector they’ve ended these defined payments, these long-term pension obligations. Almost no corporate entity has it so we’re just like the private sector now. We are going to have to change our ways as well so things have changed in a couple years,” he said. “The revenues aren’t there. We have high taxes in the state and people are moving out. We don’t have the revenues that we need so now we have to sit down and say, ‘How do we save the pensions for people that are in it?’ Maybe new people need to get a different deal than the people in the system, but just to say, ‘Hey go find the money,’ I don’t think that’s an answer.”