Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Diego And San Jose Approve Pension Cuts In A Landslide Vote
Business Insider ^ | 06/06/2012 | AP

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 ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: approve; cuts; goldplatedretirement; landslide; pension; pensions; sandiego; sanjose; union; unions; vote; walker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: pfflier

San Jose unions sue to block pension reform


61 posted on 06/06/2012 1:36:02 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BLOC77

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.

62 posted on 06/06/2012 1:38:35 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1
In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand. If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business. This puts a real world restraint on what these unions demand in terms of compensation and benefits. Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees. Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies. Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands. If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses? There is no market mechanism to keep the price of labor in line.

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 (

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 can’t give what they don’t 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. Walker’s 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.

63 posted on 06/06/2012 1:38:54 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator can always hope.

64 posted on 06/06/2012 2:08:12 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

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.

65 posted on 06/06/2012 2:11:45 PM PDT by BLOC77 (bloc07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Now you see why ObamaCare has that "Death Panel" clause. And why, just when so many Baby Boomers are retiring this bill was pushed through. It was NOT just for those who did not have insurance.

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.

66 posted on 06/06/2012 2:15:05 PM PDT by CitizenM (Obama - The architect of the decline of the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
NO ONE should get paychecks for not working. Social Security checks are bad enough.

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.

67 posted on 06/06/2012 3:34:19 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Criminaliens or Crimigrants...0bamao's people?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Heh—you got that right.

68 posted on 06/06/2012 4:04:08 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


I’m hearing Anita Ward,
the one-hit wonder who recorded “you can
Ring my Bell.”

(As in Bell, CA.)

69 posted on 06/06/2012 4:05:01 PM PDT by QuestingElf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Sometimes even CA has had enough, eh? LOL!

70 posted on 06/06/2012 4:05:19 PM PDT by CAluvdubya (I just try to stay out of the fray...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Oh and welcome to FR.

71 posted on 06/06/2012 4:05:51 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Criminaliens or Crimigrants...0bamao's people?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
Unfortunately, the taxpayers are still stuck with the high salaries and hugh pensions of current employees.

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.

72 posted on 06/06/2012 4:07:10 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sanjuanbob

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.

73 posted on 06/06/2012 4:31:02 PM PDT by JD_UTDallas ("Veni Vidi Vici")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BLOC77

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.

74 posted on 06/06/2012 5:54:57 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

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!

75 posted on 06/06/2012 6:51:05 PM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

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.

76 posted on 06/06/2012 6:54:15 PM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

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!

77 posted on 06/06/2012 9:06:48 PM PDT by Free_in_Alabama (The average citizen is too lazy to steal from you, instead they are asking the government to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
Are you man enough to go steal the funds from others yourself or are you one of those people who will send the jack boot thugs to do it for you? Lets assume I am the person that is allocated to pay your ss check. I can pay for gas/food/mortgage/kids/... or pay you, what do you think my preference is? Lets assume now that you can't vote yourself money from the treasury and get the feds to force me under threat of violence and/or incarceration. Are you willing to to try to collect it yourself?

This I'm owed because someone stole from me attitude sucks from FR conservatives.

78 posted on 06/06/2012 9:16:50 PM PDT by Free_in_Alabama (The average citizen is too lazy to steal from you, instead they are asking the government to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
lets be real folks....any public pension will need to be affected by necessity...

I suggest that the public unions decrease slightly those currently 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...

79 posted on 06/06/2012 9:54:35 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner
"Naturally, he moved out of California and moved to Idaho"

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...

80 posted on 06/06/2012 9:58:40 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson