Keynote Clint, Keynote the empty chair . Anything but the blob.
Rab.
Was it just me , or did the empty chair have a teleprompter?
PROPERTY RIGHTS!
That money belongs, not to the State, but to the retired person.
If the money had gone into a 401(K) there would be no question who the money belonged to.
Yes, many States have promised too much, in their pension programs. That is a different question.
We should ENCOURAGE people to keep working, and these “double dippers” as you call them, are paying taxes on their higher earnings, and paying into Social Security and Medicare.
You really don't have any moral argument against this. Do you want a State to be powerful enough to order a person NOT to go back to work?
How is that a conservative value?
The Unions are a plight on this country..
Veritable Parasites.. even Vampires in some places..
What is NEVER SPOKEN OF “IS”....
Myth Romney is also a Union Stooge..
You know like Zero Obama..
Much of Federal State and Local TAXES go to support Union members in a thousand ways.. maybe two thousand..
(( YES ))..... Even in right to work States..
Honest question: What is the down-side to double-dipping (either public sector or private sector). I know there is an objection, but I haven’t yet figured out why. I’m in the commercial sector, so I’m looking at this from outside of the public sector.
If I understand the situation (correct me if I’m wrong), the issue is that:
1. City Employee works one career-term (20 - 30 years?) and retires.
2. City Employee later goes back to work for the City in a new position (new salary & benefits).
3. City Employee *may* last another career term and retire again (two earned retirements for two separate career terms in two different positions)
Here’s where I get lost: If #2 & #3 was a completely different person with the same skills & qualifications with a similar salary & benefits — how would the $$-cost to the city’s budget be any different?
Again, it’s a serious inquiry - someone slap me with a clue-by-four...