Christie's pension cut overturned.

[Dondilion]

A New Jersey court struck down governor Christie's plan to cut contribution to its public pension system.........the court cannot simply allow the State to walk away from its obligation...

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...sion-cuts.html

[nailer]

The first victory in what may become a long war in the courts.

[Tom Joad]

Typical Republican strategy.

It's what Jeb Bush did as soon as he got to be Governor in Florida.

The State Pension system was in great shape when he came in, but Jeb hired a "consultant" to do a "study" which found it to be "overfunded".

So he cut the amount that the state contributed to the fund way down.

At the same time he gave big tax cuts that benefited the rich.

Low and behold a few years down the road the pension system was then found to be "underfunded" and the Republicans have been using that as an excuse to chip away at benefits. The first step was to make the employees contribute 3%. Step two was to eliminate the 3% COLA for anyone hired after 2011. Then they raised the number of years required for vesting from 6 to 8. All the while putting on a full court press to force new hires into a 401K type system. And now they are looking at more ways to "save" money on the pension system.

Slick.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Typical Republican strategy.

It's what Jeb Bush did as soon as he got to be Governor in Florida.

The State Pension system was in great shape when he came in, but Jeb hired a "consultant" to do a "study" which found it to be "overfunded".

So he cut the amount that the state contributed to the fund way down.

At the same time he gave big tax cuts that benefited the rich.

Low and behold a few years down the road the pension system was then found to be "underfunded" and the Republicans have been using that as an excuse to chip away at benefits. The first step was to make the employees contribute 3%. Step two was to eliminate the 3% COLA for anyone hired after 2011. Then they raised the number of years required for vesting from 6 to 8. All the while putting on a full court press to force new hires into a 401K type system. And now they are looking at more ways to "save" money on the pension system.

Slick.

Exactly. Defund, disinvest then point to the failure caused by these actions as unpreventable. "It just doesn't work." Of course things fail when you refuse to fund them. DUH! Your car WILL fail to run if you refuse to put gas in it. It's the same principle. This trick has worked well for the GOP for over three decades, now.

What they gamble on is this;

"Why should they get a pension when I don't?"

(The "they" can be anyone and you can substitute "pension" with a number of things. Overtime pay, paid time off, etc., etc.........)

The real question, of course, should be "Why don't I get ____? You do it for them!"

Ah, but that is a dangerous line of thinking, isn't it?

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The real question, of course, should be "Why don't I get ____? You do it for them!"

of course you are correct. The problem is people like me.

I see a drop dead drunk and his wife collecting well over $200,000 annually as retired teachers and know how hard Ike and I worked and human nature sets in. Why should I pay for such outlandish retirements to people who worked
outrageously fewer hours in a job that was for losers when they took them.

(Sorry, my virtue is not what it should be the last month or so.)

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

of course you are correct. The problem is people like me.

I see a drop dead drunk and his wife collecting well over $200,000 annually as retired teachers and know how hard Ike and I worked and human nature sets in. Why should I pay for such outlandish retirements to people who worked
outrageously fewer hours in a job that was for losers when they took them.

(Sorry, my virtue is not what it should be the last month or so.)

I think you're being unduly hard on teachers, Ed...... and on alcoholics.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by noonereal

of course you are correct. The problem is people like me.

I see a drop dead drunk and his wife collecting well over $200,000 annually as retired teachers and know how hard Ike and I worked and human nature sets in. Why should I pay for such outlandish retirements to people who worked
outrageously fewer hours in a job that was for losers when they took them.

(Sorry, my virtue is not what it should be the last month or so.)

Now I'm pissed!

Where the Hell is this?

My pension is only 25K a year.

And my daughter who teaches in Florida won't even do that well if she makes it to retirement because of the cuts the Republicans have made.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by noonereal

of course you are correct. The problem is people like me.

I see a drop dead drunk and his wife collecting well over $200,000 annually as retired teachers and know how hard Ike and I worked and human nature sets in. Why should I pay for such outlandish retirements to people who worked
outrageously fewer hours in a job that was for losers when they took them.

(Sorry, my virtue is not what it should be the last month or so.)

A little bit harsh. Just because you choose to work in a different field with a different set of promises if any. No reason to now say one who choose to work with with a promise of a retirement to begrudge them now it is time to pay.

As to the person working fewer hours, don't know many teacher do you?
Plus if the person has a problem effecting their performance would they not have been weeded out before retirement? I know here the spot light is on the teachers and one with any hint of a dependency problem is gone ASAP! They are Union members in the public system if they choose to be.



Barney

[Oerets]

The courts have been letting the private sector do it for years. Given the choice of raising taxes to pay pensions or the not paying the pensions 100% my money is on the laws changing.



Barney

[merrylander]

^^^ not slick but sick