|
||
|
|
BHI Survey: Voters point to way out of budget shortfall: Raise employee cost sharing to save public sector jobs(BOSTON - May 28, 2010) – A new survey conducted by the Suffolk University Political Research Center for the Beacon Hill Institute shows that a plurality of voters prefer increasing public employee contributions to municipal health insurance plans over other alternatives as a way to meet budget gaps faced by cities and towns in Massachusetts.
Voters were asked to support four options: overriding Proposition 2 ½ , cutting public employee pay by 5%, increasing health insurance contributions, or laying off police, fire and teachers. Thirty-four percent (34%) of those surveyed supported higher co-insurance cost sharing while only 6% preferred public employee layoffs. Only 17% preferred Proposition 2 ½ overrides, while 25% favored an across the board 5% salary cut. About 17% offered no opinion. “Voters, who are clearly tax-averse, think part of the solution to local budget cuts lies with reforming the unsustainable municipal health insurance system,” said Frank Conte, BHI’s director of communications. “Few voters support outright layoffs; they want to save jobs and they suggest that cutting pay and benefits may be the best way to save public sector jobs overall. “ On the issue of municipal health insurance, the survey revealed a split between voters according to age. Support for this option begins to diminish with voters over 54 years of age. Voters between 35 and 44 expressed the strongest preference (46%) for raising insurance contributions while voters over 75 years of age were less enthusiastic, with only 23% in favor. The statewide survey of 500 Massachusetts registered voters was conducted May 20-23, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence. The results summarized will be posted at www.beaconhill.org. For more survey-related information, contact David Paleologos at 781-290-9310, dpaleolo@suffolk.edu. CrossTabs
|
|
