Replies

Pension reform is needed but once the government/companies makes a promise of a pension, they should be held to paying for that pension. People make decisions based upon benefits offer and if one person takes a lower paying job with a guarantee of a pension verses a higher paying job with no pension, the government/company should have to follow through on that. Few on this site would argue that our military pensions should be cut. It's the same principle.

No one minds military pensions being cut-as appropriate. The appropriate cutting of them would be last and least.

The principle is that no legislature can bind a later legislature. It would make a mockery of their democratic nature.
I assume the judge found something in the state’s constitution that bound the legislature to the contract.
Using some counterargument to the old “the constituion is not a suicide pact” reasoning..

once the government/companies makes a promise of a pension, they should be held to paying for that pension.

The judge says you cannot change the pension for people who are currently hired and may have been on the job for only a few months.

For these people, maybe they should get some credit for the time under the old system but in the private sector they can change the terms at any time going forward even for people who are employed at the time.

Once someone is retired that is a different story. In places like CA where government employee unions are allowed, they basically own the politicians. They give them anything they want. I see no problem with scaling back the bennies that the retirees gained through manipulating the system. This will probably have to be done in bankruptcy court like they are doing in Detroit.