Posted on 04/04/2011 3:22:50 PM PDT by Libloather
Are you really paying now for a future unsecured medical benefit when you retire? That seems to be the issue here — not paying for this year’s benefits, but putting into an account for the promise of retirement medical benefits.
I would guess that requiring the retirees to pay more for the medical benefit would be constitutional — just taking some of their money now isn’t.
Of course, social security is just taking our money now for some future unsecured promise of benefits that congress can take away at any time — but maybe the Michigan constitution has more protections than the U.S. constitution.
....well you taxpayers will just have to fork over more money. :D
This particular judge, who thankfully is retiring, has been the biggest activist judge in Michigan for a couple decades. This ruling was entirely anticipated once they judge-shopped and got the case into his court.
The Legislature and Governor Engler once ended appropriations for a welfare program for single non-disabled adults. Even though the funding was removed from the budget for the next year, this judge ruled that funding should continue because the recipients had an expectation that the program would continue.
Needless to say, that laughable ruling was overturned by the higher courts (otherwise you could never end a government program).
So if they means test social security the government can’t collect SS tax payments because the benefit isn’t guaranteed?
Same story? Dated this March -
Kansas: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging School Budget Cap
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 11, 2011
Parents in a wealthy suburban Kansas City school district cannot seek to raise property taxes above a state limit because it could bring down the state’s entire school financing system, a federal judge ruled Friday. Parents in the Shawnee Mission district claimed in a lawsuit that state school financing was inadequate; they sought a temporary injunction that would allow the district to ask voters for a local tax increase. But Judge John W. Lungstrum of Federal District Court dismissed the suit, saying the local option budget cap, which limits the amount of money local school districts can raise, is not severable from the rest of the financing formula. The local option tax is capped so wealthy districts do not have an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12brfs-JUDGEDISMISS_BRF.html
From a judge.
The same breed who ruled about ten years ago that Kansas City had to tax the people to the tune of about a billion dollars to upgrade all the “underprivileged” schools.
Folks, at what point do we stop deluding ourselves and simply call this what it is: tyranny.
Not guaranteed? Oh well, guess they’ll have to nuke their benefits. Thanks for the good counsel, judge.
In a lot of cases of "judicial activism", I think the legislature WANTS the judge to legislate from the bench, in order to provide cover to the legislature. In this way, the unelected judge is the target of anger rather than elected politicians.
In much the same way, politicians allow executive-branch bureaucrats to legislate via regulation, so that the unelected bureaucrats are the targets of voter anger.
Hey! try this one out on your boss tomorrow. “You can’t charge me for health care! Its unconstitutional because its not mandatory.”
America... kiss your freedom and your *ss goodby...
SOunds to me like we need a new system of government...
HA! Just set the pay scale to the Lefties sacred Minimum Wage! "Social Justice? No problem, your Honor. Please bend over..."
Excellent point.
Wow, it never occurred to me. The budget crisis solution has been in front of us the whole time! Simply declare running out of money to be illegal! The genius of it!
“Just eliminate the health benefit.”
On a similar note, stop paying for health care but keep the benefit. Adjust the salary of every employee by the cost of health insurance minus 3% and let them pay for it on a sign up basis with the new salary adjustment.
I am sure the insurance companies would love that. No more guaranteed money.
Seems a win-win for the Left. Make a mockery out of the American Judicial system while using it against us.
The ruling isn’t logical. For the current year he state should deduct 3% as indeed, there is a health benefit in place. if in the future the benefit isn’t there, then there would be no reason to deduct 3% anymore and the state would cease. The judiciary is a co-equal, but not superior, branch of government. The state needs to learn to ignore them when they over reach.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1614/article_detail.asp
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.