Skip to comments.San Diego And San Jose Approve Pension Cuts In A Landslide Vote
Posted on 06/06/2012 7:37:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
SAN DIEGO (AP) Voters in two major California cities overwhelmingly approved cuts to retirement benefits for city workers in what supporters said was a mandate that may lead to similar ballot initiatives in other states and cities that are struggling with mounting pension obligations.
Supporters had a simple message to voters in San Diego and San Jose: Pensions for city workers are unaffordable and more generous than many private companies offer, forcing libraries to slash hours and potholes to go unfilled.
"The public is frustrated," said San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio, a Republican who staked his mayoral bid on the pension measure and advanced to a November runoff in Tuesday's election to lead the nation's eighth-largest city.
In San Diego, 66 percent voted in favor of Proposition B, while 34 percent were opposed. Nearly 97 percent of precincts were tallied by early Wednesday.
The landslide was even bigger in San Jose, the nation's 10th-largest city. With all precincts counted, 70 percent were in favor of Measure B and 30 percent were opposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
San Jose unions sue to block pension reform
Pensions like other forms of debt indeed one of the great political frauds in any system of government that allows them.
A fraud because the politicians who promise them get all the political benefits of spending the money of future yet to vote or be elected generations who are then somehow obligated to bare the burden.
There is nothing fair or just about such a scheme, and if you ask me it is apparent that Thomas Jefferson was right in that no generation has the right to incur more debt than they can pay in their lifetime. That as much includes so called “pensions” as it includes any other type of debt.
With the lack of market forces, taxpayers must rely exclusively upon management to say no to costly demands. Management in this case of the current issue in Wisconsin is the Governor, but the scenario is no different throughout other levels of government. County Executives, Mayors, & Town Councils all act as management in the government corporation. The government official must work even harder to represent the taxpayer in negotiations with public employee unions under these circumstances. There is a political party, however, that is beholden to the very government unions they are supposed to be negotiating with.
The Democratic Party receives an overwhelming amount of money in political donations from public sector unions, in fact their top 4 donors are various government unions (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php).
Many candidates go to union sponsored events, and pledge their support. This would not be a problem if not for the fact that the elected official in question will be sitting across the negotiating table from the very union that supported them in their campaign. If a candidate for office received a donation from a corporation, then after elected gave a no bid contract to that corporation it would be called corruption. How is this situation any different?
Considering most government entities (other than federal) must balance their budgets every year, you would think that politicians would be restricted from offering paybacks to the unions. They cant give what they dont have. Right? The problem with this argument is that the official has the ability to promise, and get passed into law, retirement and health benefits that will be paid for in the future. This takes away any current budgetary restraint that may exist, and puts us in the situation we find ourselves today in Wisconsin and all across the nation.
Mr. Walkers proposal specifically eliminates collective bargaining for pension and healthcare benefits. This addresses the problem of politicians overpromising future benefits for unions that helped elect them. Any progress made in Wisconsin or other states, however, may be short lived if the screamers get to rule the debate. It would not be surprising if unions spend even more than the current record amounts in the next election in order to drown out rational discussion.
Well...one can always hope.
Brilliantly articulated. You said in two sentences what I have been trying to formulate in my head while arguing with friends why public unions should be outlawed. If you don’t mind I am going to used your words in the future.
Under ObamaCare it will be hard or impossible for the elderly with multiple health problems to get care based on their prognosis for longevity as determined by some non-medical government appointed panel. It is not just about the cost of the medical care. In essence, the longer we live, the more retirement money has to be paid, and the majority of the big retirement bucks goes to the government retirees. If they die out, voila, problem reduced. That is the kindness of the Liberals who wrote and enacted ObamaCare. That is the way they want to solve the problem of paying retirement funds in the future.
This is also why the current administration and Democrats are always trying to deplete the military. It is not because they want us to seem less of a military power or threat, that is just a screen they hide behind to satisfy the left-wing anti-military/war protesters. The Dem politicians hope that by reducing the number of service members, the military service pay needs will be reduced, along with future retirement pay requirements. They care nothing about the result and the detriment to our security. Nor do they care about the military who have already served and are receiving retirement after sacrifices during their active service.
Of course they shouldn't get paychecks for nothing.
Bad enough? How old are you, 15?
Evidently you're not paying into SS like the rest of us have been doing for years. We want our money back! So stop with the crap.
Heh—you got that right.
I’m hearing Anita Ward,
the one-hit wonder who recorded “you can
Ring my Bell.”
(As in Bell, CA.)
Sometimes even CA has had enough, eh? LOL!
Oh and welcome to FR.
From the article: "Tuesday's votes set the stage for potentially lengthy legal challenges by public employee unions. The measures are unusual because they address pensions for current employees, not just new hires." Unless I'm missing something, it looks like it affects all working employees.
The Supreams have already ruled that Social Security is nothign but a payroll TAX nothing more nothing less, the also have ruled that no individual is entited to the money they put in. There is no lock box or account with anyones name on it. The court has ruled that no individual has the right to any funds they put in as the funds were simple a payroll tax. If you get benefits it is at the rates in the current valid social security act passed by congress, who could just as easily pass an act ending the program and stopping the payments. The court has ruled that any money put in the system was a payroll tax to the system and individuals have no standing to compulsory compensation from said system for any funds contributed. Do you get back the money you put in income tax above the refund rates set by the congress? No of course not why is it so hard to understand that SS is and always was and will be a PAYROLL TAX and nothing else. The lies that have been feed to this country are now self perpetuating but a simple search of Supream court ruling will show you me nor anyone else has legal standing to a single cent we “contributed” via the payroll tax systems.
I don’t believe political ideas are the property of any man. My words in phrasing this idea as imperfect as they are are yours to claim and take as your own.
Although if I could restate them I would have done so a bit more clearly.
The real question is how do we address the evil of inter-generational government debt(including pensions)?
In general the question comes down to either prohibiting debt all together, or transferring the financial debt to the individuals who “voted” to incur it.(IE: Individualizing the debt.)
Both solutions are really very much a like in that both demand a form of taxation increase equal to the amount of excess spending. The real question as always is how to admissible that taxation.
To give everybody a government debt account into which their taxes must go, or to simply mandate Congress never spends more money than they have.
I know... I’m pretty fed up with a friend who is a few years older than I am — she’s 52 — who just retired from the NPS. She couldn’t stop bragging how she could keep living in the city of San Francisco (and stay retired, as in, not needing to start a new career). Meanwhile, I in the private sector, will be lucky if my job isn’t outsourced one day, and we lost our pensions a long time ago (we still do have 401Ks). I’ll be lucky if I can stay in my relatively cheap town AND will still need to work into my 70s!
Exactly, I’ve been paying in since about 15/16 (around 30 years) and I just want my money back. While I’d rather have it back with even minimum interest, I’d settle for just having it back. We’ve been robbed and all we ever hear is that the fund is broken and we’ll never see a dime. It’s torture to get those statements in the mail about what we would get if we retired at xx age.
I didn’t steal your SS contribution and neither did my children or future grandchildren. If I get the chance to vote to kill SS today, I would. Do not steal from me just because someone stole from you. It is not moral, ethical or even based on common sense. SS should be ended cold turkey!
This I'm owed because someone stole from me attitude sucks from FR conservatives.
I suggest that the public unions decrease slightly those currently collecting..do it in the name of saving jobs for fellow union members...
and starting immediately, no one in any govt entity can start collecting until at least age 60 or 62....
of course that will go over like a lead balloon...
states could fix this immediately by charging a nice fat deduct from every pensioner moving to another state...they either stay in the state that they robbed from, or they don't get all that fraudulent money...