Christie Appealing to Iowa?

A Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal has been filed in the pension payment case and some see that as presidential.

According to an nj.com story:

Appealing first to the appellate court will give Christie two bites at the apple, said Matthew Hale, a political science professor at Seton Hall University. He added that the longer and harder Christie fights this, the better he looks to presidential primary voters in Iowa.

“He wants to play this out as long as he can,” Hale said.

So if Iowa voters were less attracted to law-breaking procrastinators then New Jersey might not be facing fiscal fiasco?

 

43 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on March 17, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Seton Hall might want to reconsider this lunatics contract or tenure…no wait Seton Hall is in NJ they can’t afford any traffic problems.

    Christie will not win any republican primary so far everyone is just playing softball wait until this campaign starts in earnest, his record among other factors will sink him.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 17, 2015 at 11:17 am

      His getting defeated quickly (or clearly having no Presidential chance) would be good for NJ.

      Perhaps THEN he could get back to the business of fixing NJ’s many financial problems, not the least of which would be tremendously moved forward by ending NJ’s DB pensions for the future service of ALL of it’s CURRENT (State & Local) workers, and materially reducing active and retired healthcare benefits …… as proposed by his Pension Commission.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 17, 2015 at 1:00 pm

        The DB plans if frozen will still be in existence until the last pensioner or their widow or widower is paid their final check. Which conservatively could be 50+ years.

        How does the blue ribbon pension commission propose paying these benefits?

        With DB plans frozen and only a 403B or whatever one wants to call it wouldn’t public employees who are now not covered by a pension plan qualify for social security just like the private sector? What’s fair is fair.

        Wouldn’t the state or local EMPLOYER then be responsible for the 4 or 5 percent matching plus the share the EMPLOYER must pay social security? Wouldn’t that be in excess of the percentage they would pay into a DB plan alone.?

        Just asking

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 17, 2015 at 1:26 pm

          (1) Quoting … “How does the blue ribbon pension commission propose paying these benefits?”

          The NJ pension Commission’s proposal was to amortize the UAAL over 40 years, paid for primarily via reductions in taxpayer-funded healthcare for all State & Local workers/reirees.

          (2) Quoting … “With DB plans frozen and only a 403B or whatever one wants to call it wouldn’t public employees who are now not covered by a pension plan qualify for social security just like the private sector? What’s fair is fair.”

          Yes they should be in SS, but in NJ all but police (and likely paid firemen) are already in SS. Taxpayers should be thrilled with that trade-off, because the REAL cost of fully funding a safety worker’s pension over their career (as a level % of pay) is AT LEAST 5 times the SS contribution.

          (3) Quoting …. “Wouldn’t the state or local EMPLOYER then be responsible for the 4 or 5 percent matching plus the share the EMPLOYER must pay social security? Wouldn’t that be in excess of the percentage they would pay into a DB plan alone.?”

          Re 1-st question … yes.

          Re 2-nd question …. It’s greater than what NJ is NOW putting in for STATE workers, but only because NJ is (on a true-cost basis) likely only funding about 10% of what they should be contributing to fully fund theses pension over the worker’s careers. LOCALITIES are NOW contributing MORE than they would under the Commission’s Proposal.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on March 17, 2015 at 1:33 pm

            Well what could possibly go wrong?

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 17, 2015 at 3:16 pm

            Anonymous,

            Well …. we may need more hospital beds for cardiac patients as the Public Sector workers (getting only what PRIVATE Sector workers typically get in retirement benefits) join the rest of us and start having heart attacks in droves.

          • Posted by Anonymous on March 17, 2015 at 7:37 pm

            Wish you the same TL

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 17, 2015 at 7:48 pm

            I wasn’t “wishing” anyone anything ……… It was how concerned & upset they might become if they had to live in the real world (where Private Sector workers reside) where a guaranteed, secure, and adequate (and mostly far better) isn’t handed to you.

  2. Posted by dentss dennagan on March 17, 2015 at 11:27 am

    The dumping of pensions onto towns might lead us to this …http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83074861/

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 17, 2015 at 11:52 am

      The DB pensions must be frozen for all CURRENT workers, but NOT dumped on the backs of LOCAL Taxpayers. The benefit levels must be reduced to a level that current taxes levels can realistically support.

      And the 50+% share that must be lost was NEVER “earned” (as the workers like to say). It was always unnecessary, unjust, unfair to taxpayers, unaffordable, and CLEARLY the direct result of the Public Sector Union’s BUYING the favorable votes of our elected officials with campaign contributions and election support.

      Greed HAS consequences !

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm

        ” the 50+% share ”

        is bogus. Even the most conservative studies don’t come near that number.

        Rush Limbaugh, of course, would say 50% is conservative. But Limbaugh, as Arnold Governor Schwarzenegger has pointed out, is irrelevant.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 18, 2015 at 12:48 pm

          50% “looks like” too big a reduction when you ONLY compare Private/Public Sector monthly “dollar” pension payouts, but when the VERY SUBSTANTIAL ADDED value of (a) annual COLA increases, and (b) MUCH younger full retirement ages is factored in, the TYPICAL non-safety Public Sector pension is 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than that of their Private Sector counterpart, and that 3x-4x increases to 4x-6x for safety workers with the MOST EGREGIOUS pensions.

          PRIVATE Sector pensions RARELY allow unreduced pensions before age 65 (sometimes 62 with VERY long service), and almost NEVER included annual COLA adjustments.

          Who are you trying to hoodwink ?

          The readers aren’t stupid. The INCREMENTAL value of receiving an UNREDUCED pension at 60, 55, even 50 (for police) is HUGE, as is the value of annual COLA increases which often doubles the dollar amount of the initial pension over the retiree’s lifetime.

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 18, 2015 at 1:28 pm

          S Moderation Douglas, You’re from California, the world of the MOST outrageous (and egregious) pensions.

          While CalPERS to an extent limits some of the more outrageous attempts at “spiking” ones final pay and “pensionable compensation” many of the non-CalPERS-administered CA County Plans still include overtime (and sometimes unused vacation and sick-leave cashouts) in “pensionable compensation” …. an incredible taxpayer ripoff.

          Suppose a worker boosts a base pay of $100K to $125K in the final year to “spike” his pension, and suppose his final pension is 75% of “pensionable compensation” (common for a career-worker in CA). What’s the impact ? Taxpayers not only pay for the $25K in OVERTIME in the year earned, but IN ADDITION, they pay 75% of the $25 = $18,750 in EVERY YEAR in the future, AND that too gets COLA-increased.

          California’s Public Sector pensions are STRUCTURED to SCREW their Private Sector Taxpayers.

          NJ is NUTS too, buy thankfully not as nuts as California.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 18, 2015 at 4:47 pm

            Suppose………..

            “………….a worker boosts a base pay of $100K to $125K in the final year to “spike” his pension……”

            I don’t know why you exclusively use the outliers for your TL GIGO math, but $100,000 is well over the average $65-$70 public worker pay in California, and 25% of income in overtime is even more rare.

            Even at that, though, your example, as usual, is extremely exaggerated and oversimplified.

            First……”Taxpayers not only pay for the $25K in OVERTIME in the year earned,……..”
            sounds as if you are implying this is some form of unearned gift for which the taxpayer receives no quid pro quo. In most cases it is a conscious economic decision by the local government; a tradeoff between covering manpower needs by adding more personnel or by use of overtime.

            When I worked overtime, like nearly all state employees, no pension contributions were deducted from my pay, the state contributed no matching funds, and OT was not used to calculate pensions.

            For those counties who do include OT in pension calculations, contributions are made on OT just as they are on base pay. So an employee who earns $100K salary plus $25K OT contributes as much, and should receive as much pension as an employee who earns a $125K salary with no OT……..

            UNLESS the $25K in the last year is substantially higher than normal. If, for instance, the employee routinely earned an average (inflation adjusted) $20,000 OT for the previous five (or more) years, you “might” make a case that his pay was spiked by 5 grand, increasing his pension by $3,750 a year, as opposed to……”$18,750 in EVERY YEAR in the future”

            And, should they choose, it is within the counties abilities to limit this spiking by controlling OT usage.

            I have responded to Steven Maviglio’s posts in the past that he should not continue to use the……”California public employees average pension of $30,000″……because it may undermine his credibility. I have said the same to you about your exaggerated “math” examples, and I reiterate; these statements are true”ish”, but highly misleading.

            I also disagree with Maviglio’s opinion that….”refusing to provide your name instead of hiding behind an anonymous handle.”….is a problem.

            You are correct…..your name is irrelevant.
            As the fact that I am a retired state worker is irrelevant.

  3. Posted by Tough Love on March 18, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    (1) Quoting S Moderation Douglas, …”I don’t know why you exclusively use the outliers for your TL GIGO math, but $100,000 is well over the average $65-$70 public worker pay in California, and 25% of income in overtime is even more rare. ”

    Does it really matter what the base pay is or what is the amount by which their pay (and hence PENSION) is “spiked”?. No, it should NEVER be allowed … because it is stealing from the Taxpayers …. under legal protections created by self-interested legislators in cahoots with the Unions whose members benefit from this thievery.

    —————————————————————–

    (2) Quoting …”For those counties who do include OT in pension calculations, contributions are made on OT just as they are on base pay. So an employee who earns $100K salary plus $25K OT contributes as much, and should receive as much pension as an employee who earns a $125K salary with no OT……..”

    To be blunt, HORSESHIT ! EVEN if we were to accept the existing pension formulas (which I DON’T… because they ALWAYS result in grossly excessive pensions), the ONLY way your statement MIGHT have some validity is if the overtime was worked IN THE SAME AMOUNT and and employee pension contributions were made in EVERY year of the worker’s employment. If the worker’s pension is only based on the FINAL year of pay, he will get the LIFETIME additional income I described for ONLY working (and contributing) for ONE SINGLE YEAR, the last. And it’s just slightly less bad when the pension is based on the average of the last 3-year’s wages.

    But again, you CERTAINLY knew this …..
    —————————————–

    (3) Quoting …”UNLESS the $25K in the last year is substantially higher than normal. If, for instance, the employee routinely earned an average (inflation adjusted) $20,000 OT for the previous five (or more) years, you “might” make a case that his pay was spiked by 5 grand, increasing his pension by $3,750 a year, as opposed to……”$18,750 in EVERY YEAR in the future””

    Sure, but we BOTH know that when “spiking” via overtime is include in their pension calculation, the soon to retire worker loads up “to-the-max” ….. a 25% increase in the average overtime (per your ridiculous example … from $20K to $25K annually) worked is the ultimate in low-balling what they really do.

    Just MORE of your distorted (and biased) version of reality ……….

    ——————————————

    (4) Quoting …”I have responded to Steven Maviglio’s posts in the past that he should not continue to use the……”California public employees average pension of $30,000″……because it may undermine his credibility. ”

    Ah, you saw my rather spirited back-and-forth comments with Steve Maviglio, a political consultant and “mouthpiece” for many Public Sector Unions. It was fun …. this big bad well-paid “consultant” couldn’t effectively counter anything I (a simple blog-commentator) stated without resorting into sleaze. And when I called him out on it, he slithered away …. likely crawling back under his rock from which he came. Read the fun exchange in the comments here:

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_27700825/daniel-borenstein-labor-perpetuates-pension-myth-that-80

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 12:56 am

      TL: “Ah, you saw my rather spirited back-and-forth comment”

      SMD: All I saw was the same old rants: “public pensions DOUBLE”……”taxpayers ripped off”…..”COLLUSION between unions and officials”….”benefits BOUGHT with union campaign contributions”…”OUTRAGEOUS pensions & benefits”….”Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society”…..”paid Union “mouthpiece”……

      etc., etc, etc.

      And, of course, the old standby: “SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service”……AKA, the Fireman Fallacy.

      TL: “No need to ….. I’m SURE (when it come to all things pensions) that I have …. as they say …. forgotten more than you will ever know.”

      SMD: Problem is, again, a lot of what you “think” you know, ain’t so.

      And, contrary to what Mr. Maviglio says, your true identity is irrelevant. Of course, most of your wildly exaggerated rants are irrelevant.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 2:01 am

        S Moderation Douglas,

        Not rants … and everything I said is true.

        Your vision is colored by the green color of your Public Sector pension check, 50+% of which would never had been granted but for the collusion between your Unions and the elected officials granting those pensions.

        Rest assured that taxpayers are going to keep working on materially reducing those pensions. We may not succeed for those ALREADY retired, and will have an uphill battle outside Bankruptcy Court for Past Service accruals of “actives”, but you can bet the time MUST (and WILL) come when pension accruals or the Future service of CURRENT actives will be very materially reduced. The MATH will leave no other options.

        Reply

  4. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 4:23 am

    A typical Caltrans maintenance worker with thirty years service or more retires at age 62 or older with a pension of about $30,000 a year.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 1:22 pm

      I don’t know the pension “formula factor” for a Catrans worker’s pension plan, but if we GUESS say 2,25% per year of service, we can back into “pensionable Compensation” (i.e., final or final-average salary) as follows;

      Letting PE = “pensionable Compensation” we have …..

      $30,000 = 30 x .0225 x PE,

      which gives PE = $30,000/(30 x 0.0225) = , $44,4444.44

      I do NOT believe that TODAY, a Caltrans worker with 30 years of service makes only $44,444K annually …………. not by a long shot.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 1:38 pm

        I should have added ……….. should it be correct that such a long-service “maintenance” worker earns $44k, then we would STILL need to ask:

        (a) what does a Private Sector worker with the SAME job responsibilities earn
        (b) what “pension” would the PRIVATE Sector maintence worker get vs the pension afforded the Caltrans worker … and is it COLA-increased?
        (c) what healthcare benefits (BOTH while active and retired) would the PRIVATE Sector maintence worker get vs the pension afforded the Caltrans worker

        Get the point ???

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 2:12 pm

          I already responded to MJB on the second point:

          “The AEI study nationwide data shows that at the lower pay ranges, public sector workers earn 19% more total compensation than equivalent private sector workers……largely due to the value of retiree healthcare (and at highest education levels, public workers earn 19% LESS)”

          Got the point.

          (Those are national stats, in California (and likely New Jersey) the public sector advantage is higher, at least according to AEI.

          Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 2:05 pm

        SMD: Problem is, again, a lot of what you “think” you know, ain’t so.

        6287 CALTRANS HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE WORKER

        Base Salary Range: 2873.00 – 3276.00

        Note: The payscales used by this search engine are the latest available from the State Controller’s Office, but may not reflect all of the pay raises granted recently. You should verify the salary levels with the department personnel office before making any committments.

        http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/spbpay2rd.cfm

        Interesting anecdote: years ago a friend asked me to pick up an application for maintenance worker. That’s when I learned this is a *promotional* position. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands who earn less. TODAY. Believe it.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          S Moderation Douglas,

          Let’s take a look at that $30K annual Caltrans maintenance” worker pension that you mentioned ….

          You said he rec’d that for retiring at age 62. If a PRIVATE Sector worker, 62 is an EARLY retirement and the Private Sector worker’s pension likely would have been reduced by about 5% for EACH of the 3 years before age 62 … or 15%.

          So for the FIRST adjustment needed to get to an APPLES-TO-APPLES comparison with his Private Sector counterpart, his pension is EQUIVALENT IN VALUE to the Private Sector pension of $30,000/0.85 = $35,294.

          Next we need to increase that PUBLIC Sector pension (of now $35,294) because it (but NOT the Private Sector pension) is COLA increased. With a retirement age of 62, that adds just about 25% in value (to an otherwise identical pension but w/o COLA). So now we have $35,294 x 1.25 = $44.117.

          Summarizing, the Public Sector worker’s $30,000 COLA-increased pension starting at age 62 is … after appropriately adjusting for COLA, and collecting the full pension at an earlier age ….. is equivalent to a $44,117 NON-COLA-increased pension beginning at age 65 (as would a PRIVATE Sector would get … IF one of the few lucky such workers that get ANY DB pension AT ALL).

          Next ….. given that RARELY would even the most generous PRIVATE Sector Plan (with 30 years of service) generate a pension greater than 50% of final salary, the Private Sector “maintenance” worker would have had a final salary of at least 2 x $44.117 = $88, 234 to get a pension of EQUIVALENT VALUE to that granted the Caltrans maintenance worker in your example.

          How many Private Sector “maintenance” workers earn even HALF of that even after 30 years of service ?

          —————————–

          In EVERY way possible, PUBLIC Sector workers PENSIONS are MUCH greater in value at retirement than those of their Private Sector counterparts …. and their employer-sponsored BENEFITS (e.g., retiree healthcare) are often “INFINITELY” greater …. because Private Sector workers typically get …. NOTHING.

          Public Sector pensions should be reduced to a level no greater in value than those of their Private Sector counterparts, and Taxpayer-funded retiree healthcare benefits should END.

          Reply

  5. Posted by MJ on March 19, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Still pretty good deal for a “maintenance worker” if you consider the life time health benefits, extensive sick time, vacation and overtime, shorter work weeks and more paid holidays typical of public secotr. Some people working full time jobs don’t make 30,000 a year. Just sayin….

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 9:59 am

      Just sayin….

      As I told TL, more than once: a lot of what you “think” you know, ain’t so.

      “Paid leave encompasses sick time, vacation days, paid holidays, and personal leave. On average, paid leave is almost precisely the same in the private sector as in state government, with values of 11.11 percent and 11.06 percent of wages respectively.”

      That quote is from a study by the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a liberal rag. It is corroborated by Bureau of Labor Statistics report on employee costs.

      As TL states above, “we BOTH know” that when spiking, the employee loads up “to-the-max” ……..everybody knows, right?

      I won’t say it doesn’t happen, but it is the exception, not the rule. Most departments have strict guidelines on OT distribution.

      “Everybody knows” a lot of “facts” about public employment that just aren’t true. Not long ago I mentioned an article calculating the pension of a state employee who earns $47,000 a year. Almost instantly some expert replied that NOBODY working for the state makes $47K.

      Fact is, “Some people” working full time jobs FOR THE STATE don’t make 30,000 a year. Just sayin….

      Which is why more than once I have criticized TL and others about using outliers for their examples. Most public workers don’t make $100K, not even close. Most public workers do NOT retire at 50 or 55.

      Having said that, you may be more correct than you know when you say “Still pretty good deal for a “maintenance worker”

      The AEI study nationwide data shows that at the lower pay ranges, public sector workers earn 19% more total compensation than equivalent private sector workers……largely due to the value of retiree healthcare (and at highest education levels, public workers earn 19% LESS)

      We could even that out by eliminating retiree healthcare. Nationwide single payer healthcare would go a long way in eliminating the disparity in public/private compensation.

      Reply

  6. Posted by MJ on March 19, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    Douglas, I don’t know much about what goes on in CA with your pensions and perks other than they are quickly fading, but in NJ, huge unused sick time and unused vacation payouts are typical in the public sector and are usually quite generous. In NJ it is not uncommon to read about 50 year old retiree police employees getting pay outs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Secretaries and clerks frequently received close to 100,000.00 or more depending on length of employment That’s typical not unusual. Public sector workers such as state workers, teachers, school employees, county employees, maintenance, etc work shorter work weeks, receive free or very low cost cadilac health plans for themselves and family, more vacation time and greater job security bc nobody can get rid of them if they are not up to par. That all adds up to quite a bit more than a private sector worker doing a comparable job and having to pay for it all.

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      “In NJ it is not uncommon to read about 50 year old retiree police employees getting pay outs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

      Precisely.

      If you read Burypensions or pensiontsunami or Calwatchdog, as well as mainstream papers, it is “not uncommon” to read about
      $100,000 pensions.

      Perhaps you missed the front page above the fold headline when I retired after at age 63 with 37 years service and a pension over $40,000. (And I agree, it’s “still pretty good deal”)

      Thousands retire every year with pensions MUCH closer to mine than to the “ones you read about”.

      That’s the difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 3:04 pm

        I’d bet dollars-to-donuts that the TYPICAL Private Sector pension of a worker with a job comparable to yours and retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME service, and the SAME pay, would be no more than HALF of yours …. and with no annual COLA increases.

        AND, typically with zero retiree healthcare subsidy.

        Reply

  7. Posted by MJ on March 19, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    My point was that what I wrote is typical not unusual. That’s the problem. Paying out way too much to way too many who end up making more in retierment than when they actually worked.

    Reply

    • Posted by PatB on March 19, 2015 at 4:00 pm

      Not typical.
      1,988 out of 285,000 retirees have pensions of $100k or greater. That’s 0.08%.

      A $50k tier 1 PERS “clerk” would have to work 110 years to get a 100,000 pension.

      It’s much easier to envy and hate using statistics made out of thin air.
      http://m.watchdog.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwatchdog.org%2Fcategory%2Fnew-jersey%2F#2894

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 5:07 pm

        And EVERY ONE of the OTHER 285,000- 1988 = 283,012 assuredly gets a pension AT LEAST twice (and MOST OFTEN 3x-4x) greater than what the SAME position would generate in Private Sector.employment.

        There is ZERO justification for the TAXPAYERS funding this …. and they should REFUSE to do so.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 5:35 pm

          ” and they should REFUSE to do so.”

          You first, TL. Then Steve Maviglio will learn your real name when the story appears in NJ.com.
          ……………..
          Seriously, please don’t incite others to violate the law based on your opinion.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 19, 2015 at 6:54 pm

            That’s my opinion indeed …. taxpayers should refuse to fund the PUBLIC Sector pension/benefit financial “mugging” of the Taxpayers.

            You’re NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …. MUCH greater pensions, and MUCH better active AND retiree healthcare benefits ….. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

      • Posted by MJ on March 19, 2015 at 6:48 pm

        PatB, however you want to spin it, fact remains that there are way way too many publics being paid out at 30,000, 50,000, 100,000 plus health plans, sick day pay outs and there isn’t any way to pay for it. Never was, never will be. I don’t hate you or envy you I consider you to have a gullible nature. After all, a promise is better than nothing at all.

        Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 19, 2015 at 5:22 pm

      And my point was, you *believe* what you wrote is typical not unusual, mainly because those are the ones which get all the headlines.

      por ejemplo:

      TL: “I do NOT believe that TODAY, a Caltrans worker with 30 years of service makes only $44,444K annually …………. not by a long shot.”

      TL allegedly is “SURE (when it come to all things pensions) that I have …. as they say …. forgotten more than you will ever know.”
      ……………..
      Be careful what you wish for………now he’s working his GIGO voodoo math on maintenance workers instead of firemen.

      And now he’s apparently wagering doughnuts and dollars.

      “I do NOT believe that TODAY,……….yadda, yadda, yadda….”

      LOL

      Reply

  8. Posted by MJ on March 19, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    SMD–the only thing I believe is that way too much was promised to way way too many doing way too little for way too much without any viable way of paying for it. Could care less how it ends up, that’s for you folks to worry about. After all, a promise is better than nothing at all. I actually feel sorry for all of the public workers who suddenly find themselves on such shaky ground. We will just have to agree to disagree.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: