Posted on 09/12/2015 9:45:48 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Coming soon to a shopping center near you is the latest attempt by former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and his well-financed anti-public pension cabal to undermine the retirement security of teachers, firefighters and other hard-working public employees under the guise of an altruistic-sounding initiative called the Voter Empowerment Act.
A legal analysis by Attorney General Kamala Harris, and confirmed by both of California's major retirement systems, shows that the measure "eliminates the constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree health benefits" that were promised to public workers when they were hired.
Reed is using the politically motivated argument that retirement promises made to public workers are primarily responsible for cities' and counties' inabilities to balance their budgets. This argument has been repeatedly proven false including in San Bernardino where years of budget mismanagement -- not pensions -- created a fiscal hole. In Stockton as well, other factors, not pension obligations, led to that city's bankruptcy filing. The measure is also unnecessary. In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Gov. Brown, along with a bipartisan majority in the legislature, passed the Public Employee Pension Reform Act in 2013 that is projected to reduce the cost of public worker retirement benefits throughout the state by more than $50 billion, primarily by requiring that newly-hired workers take on a larger share of the funding of those benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
All right! I just retracted my head out of my rectum.
Nothing like drunk-posting to get the right info on FR.
Then who doesn’t pay into it? Congress? Public employee/teacher unions?
I thought some significant group had their own plan.
The FERS retirement is based upon working 30 years, getting 1% of the average of the highest three earning years. 30% of salary, plus social security, plus what you put in the TSP (401k). You can decide for yourself if that is a Cadillac plan.
No government pensions.
No matching 401k.
You save what you want to save.
It’s public service, not a career.
Don’’t like it, get a real job.
The Government Monster needs to be reduced, that means FEWER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Yes, I’m sure that some are “hard working.” Can’t say as I personally know any, though.
I’m with Macoozie. Government jobs are not meant to be Cadillac jobs with Cadillac pensions. It is public service, not the Great Teat. I’m all for reining in pensions, promised or not. The promises were made in politicking, were they not? The politicians promised other people’s money. It’s not there.
Better to solve the problem now than see what a bankruptcy judge will give them.
Promises made should be promises kept.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you work for a company that promised you a pension and they go under who keeps that promise?
Politicians promise these benefits that the taxpayers are forced to pay. Why not put it up to the taxpayer what benefits and how much gets promised? After all we are the employer
That's all I needed to know; if Comrade Harris opposes it, then it must be good.
The entire system is corrupt.
We are suppose to live in a republic. However, once the elected representative begins taking money from special interest, the public are no longer being represented.
Politician take money from public employee unions.
When it comes time to negotiate new contracts,the politicians that have taken money negotiate good terms for the union.
No where in this process is the interest of the tax payer being served.
Any contract between public employee unions and the politicians should be null and void because of fraud.
The bottom line is no government, certainly at the state and local level, should be allowed to have any debt that carries over to the next year (with the exception of bond issue for major projects).
One more thought on the subject.
Economics like physic, have “laws” that must be obeyed. Failure to do so will end up hurting.
As it is possible to over come gravity for a period of time, it is possible to pretend there is no end to amount of money a government can spend. Sooner or later, reality takes over and you will hit the ground.
The question is, will you do it under control circumstances (such as landing the plane) or wait until you run out of fuel and spiral into the ground?
Attempt to get spending under control is not cruel and mean spirited. Pretending there is not a problem and not even trying to fix it is cruel and mean spirited. If the unions wait until it is too late, they will end up with nothing.
Hmmmm,
1. Pensions are promised.
2. Corrupt (is there any other) politicians spend all kinds of money on ILLEGAL ALIENS, giving them welfare, health care, driver’s licenses, etc.
3. Pension funds are insufficient.
4. Politicians want to increase taxes.
Question: Increase taxes, or off the politicians?
To say that Deferred compensation is reason for public sector employees' willingness to work for lower wages is a joke when you look at what those "civil servants" make for the little work they do.
And, yes, this even applies to the military, police, firefighters, and others who "serve and protect"...just not for all the same reasons.
No country can afford o continue paying out over half of every civil budget to people who once worked for a public entity...it's hard to fill a pot-hole today when the money has already been paid out to support the guy who filled it in twenty years before. Further, it's absurd to pay "deferred compensation" to employees who "retire" in mid life or before and immediately double dip themselves into competition with civilians who need the income to eat.
When civil "servants" (and entrenched mega unions)are willing to play by the same rules as the rest of us, I'll listen to the wails of victimhood.
Maybe.
Did the taxpayers sign contracts to give government employees/officials lavish pensions?
Or did government employees/officials sign contracts with themselves to obligate the taxpayer to fund their lavish pensions?
Does that sound like a conflict-of-interest to you?
Why should people who don’t even have pensions of their own be required to fund YOUR pension just because you are a government employee/official?
Government is the greediest, most corrupt and murderous force on Earth. It’s not even debatable. Governments, primarily redistributionist governments, murdered 262,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th century alone.
And you, evidently, approve of government raping the peasants as long as the money goes into your pocket.
Promises made with Money from Future Generations to pay for your WANTS TODAY are an Act of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE and should be struck down as so. It is a Cowardly Act of SLAVERY!
If anyone here thinks the Promises should be Kept, I AGREE, and they should be Kept by SEIZING ALL ASSETS OF THOSE THAT MADE THE PROMISE! EVERY LAST PUBLIC SERVANT THAT MADE THE PROMISE
Privatizing can sometimes be a back door way of introducing cronyism. You just can’t take the politics out of politics.
Our anger is misguided when we see employees and pensioners as the bad guys.
In years past our Federal government spent a huge baby boomer surplus, which existed in the Social Security Trust Fund. IOUs replaced real money in the trust fund. When that fund goes bust, are Social Security Annuitants to blame? If you believe so, your anger is misplaced.
When a state or local government promises employees a pension to be funded with equal contributions from the employee and the government - but later the government decides not to contribute its promised share. Whose fault is when the pension fund gets in trouble. It's not the employee.
Private or public - a promise is a promise. If governments want to change or eliminate pensions - that's fine. However, let's not allow politicians to place blame on innocent parties when it's they and those administering pension plans who are responsible .
I had said, "Private or public - a promise is a promise. If governments want to change or eliminate pensions - that's fine..."
I meant to say, "If governments want to change or eliminate pensions for new employees - that's fine...
Nonsense.
Gubmint Union Employees and Pensioners ARE THE BAD GUYS.
You all bought the LIE and voted for the crooks who promised the world, with no intention of ever providing for it.
And now. MY KIDS and YOUR KIDS have to pay for it?
Not in this world, my friends.
It’s happening right now in lots of blue states. Current tax revenue gets gobbled up by past pension lies. Residents are paying for things they didn’t vote for, get no benefit from and WILL DEMAND relief from.
Sorry, but you should have planned more realistically. Future generations will learn from past mistakes, as it always has been
Contract’s a contract? The greatest contract ever among people, the US Constitution is being dismantled.
Tell your story to other GM bond holders who got NOTHING, maybe they will be sympathetic. s/
Why, that would be yes when it involves 2 groups contracting to steal from a 3rd...
If your contract terms were a line item on a general election ballot then it would be OK...
Funny that you make that comment when unions typically are adamantly against individuals contracting amongst themselves for employment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.