Christie Punts on Pension Reform in New Jersey

In an especially unctuous edition of Ask the Governor tonight there was one moment of enlightenment when a caller asked whether public employees should be racing for retirement in anticipation of another set of benefit reforms.

The answer was ‘no’ but (after months of speeches, warnings, reports, and general posturing) it was the reason that made news.

There will be no amendment on the November ballot. There will be no reform and court rulings will get handled on an ad hoc basis.  It’s not Christie’s problem any longer.

We are going to have to do something about this at some point because if we don’t we are not going to be able to have the type of pension system and benefits that people are going to be able to feel good about but that’s a conversation to continue and will continue in this state for quite some time until people get together and resolve it and we’ll see how that goes.

But don’t take my word for it:

84 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 1:02 am

    To those expecting a NJ pension ….. this is NOT something to cheer about.]


    • Posted by Anonymous on June 2, 2015 at 7:53 pm

      I’m ecstatic! Taxpayers are still on the hook. It means that soon the state will have only the pensioners contributions left.

      But it shouldn’t be just me happy. It should be my bank because I will pay my mortgage, and other debts. I will be able to spend some money to keep the NJ economy going.

      But make no mistake–those property tax rebates that were paid for by eliminating pension contributions will come home to roost. At some point the NJ taxpayers will have to pay something towards pensions. It is obvious that that state will lose the deferred compensation case.

      Pay up TL. I guess they may have to get rid of some of those business credits you get that haven’t done anything to spur the NJ economy–you know the 5 billion Christie has given to businesses. What a joke.


  2. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 3:32 am

    For Taxpayers this definitely not something to cheer about. No matter what happens to pensions, taxpayers will share in the pain, especially in NJ


  3. Its not something to cheer about for anybody and that is the sad reality. Glad we already sold our house and moved on!


    • Who got the benefits of lower taxes and richer pensions that go with the future crisis? Those who sold their house and moved on.

      The real issue isn’t taxpayers vs. union. It is Generation Greed vs. those coming after.


      • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm

        Lower taxes than …. the full cost of the current grossly excessive Public Sector pension promises ……. but not taxes lower than …. the full cost of a pension EQUAL TO (but no greater than) that typically granted comparable Private Sector workers.

        The taxes “actually paid” are indeed reasonable. What was NOT, and is still NOT reasonable are the grossly excessive Public Sector pension & benefit promises, always MULTIPLES greater in value at retirement than those of Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME age with the SAME pay, and he SAME years of service.

        While I agree with you that there IS a problem of “generation greed”, THAT problem PALES in comparison the the insatiable greed of all PUBLIC Sector Unions & workers…… and enabled via these Unions BUYING the favorable votes of our Elected Officials (on pay, pensions, and benefits) with campaign contributions and election support.


        • Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 9:37 pm

          TL this may come as a complete shock but your words on the paper come across like the teacher did in Charlie Brown. Its really gotten to that point.


          • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 9:43 pm

            Then you needn’t reply to any of my comments …. problem solved.

      • Posted by MJ on May 28, 2015 at 12:38 pm

        could care less who gets what just glad I’m no longer stuck with the bill via real estate taxes


      • Posted by MJ on May 28, 2015 at 12:39 pm

        Who specifically is Generation Greed?


  4. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Quoting ANNON previous post;

    “Tick tock tick tock, soon we all shall see.

    Governor on to bigger and better things, God bless him & this Country if they materialize. We’re going to need it and then some.

    Supreme Court decision looming. It will only provide leverage for negotiations. Democrats don’t have override so any funding/reforms will probably stall for now.

    No significant movement will occur without reform and tax concessions from both sides.

    The clock continues to run jepordizing the State’s credit worthiness, pension funds viability, and taxpayer’s exposure.”


  5. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 9:08 am

    TL and devout followers; individuals presenting a right wing conservative perspective based on half-truths and lies.

    TL continual posts repetitive misinformation citing sources with extreme ideology. Yet sumarial dismisses other posts with conflicting opinions and sources.

    Specifically, purposely misstated the tax status of public pensions in the following post; When called to task tried to double talk their way out of it. Standard operating procedure for most of their commentary.

    Fair and equal for all is the mantra. Fair enough, but not when I suggest Federal workers and members of our beloved Armed Forces be part of the bigger conversation. The response, they’re different. But why, because they risk their lives like first responders at home. Their DBP are paid with Federal tax dollars as opposed to State or Local. Everyone knew the job risks when they accepted employment. But they also knew what their salary, pension, and benefits were supposed to be.

    UPDATE: TL and supporters recant their support for Armed Forces and reiterate their disdain for first responders at home and abroad. Basically anyone receiving a public sector DBP. Another example of their double talk further diminishing their credibility. Don’t take my word, click on the blog link and confirm for yourself;

    To blame and demonize public workers for the current situation is unfair and untrue. Do politicians make “deals” with unions that don’t always have the taxpayers best interest? I think everyone knows the answer to that is yes. But politicians are always making “deals” it’s what they do. Just ask the various segment market corporations; defense spending (lucrative contracts), farming (subsidies) and the list goes on and on.

    Your bully tactics and demeaning attitude only motivate me more to push back your parties ridiculous vision for NJ and America. Yes I’m sure John knows all of our IP address, so you and your business name can be exposed as well.

    The purpose of continually posting this comment is to allow the counterpoint perspective to be heard. I will no longer personally engage your comments tit for tat.


  6. Posted by Equal Time on May 28, 2015 at 10:45 am

    After a statement like that, how can this Governor claim to have leadership skills?


    • Good point and I am sure his growing list of opponents will also mention that.

      However, that he even made that statement indicates that he is definitely moving on. His other viable option was to stay in NJ and work on the problem for his last 3 years and then challenge Hillary in 2020 with a record of success. He (or someone) decided that that’s not going to work.


      • Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 11:39 am

        Interesting note of hesitation in the Governor’s voice when mentioning the additional reform proposals he adopted, thru a Commission that came up with them. Guess he wanted to make sure he didn’t say the Commission adopted his proposals.


      • Posted by Ralphie on May 28, 2015 at 3:35 pm


        While I enjoy your blog and have learned useful information here, your constant denegration of the only governor who has put his neck on the line to try and do the right thing, and if therefore public enemy number 1, is troubling. While you seem to fully grasp the desperate condition of the pension system, you have consistently thrown rocks at the only plan proposed to fix the problem. Now you have the gall to question the governor when he once again states the truth, that he cannot fix this without the cooperation and help of others. I truly worry about the future for members of my family who are retired PW, or nearly so, in NJ. Fortunately, they plan to retire elsewhere, which may serve to be their saving grace.


        • Corzine also warned about the problem but caved in too whereas governors before them were blithely unaware of any problems.

          Christie probably will wind up as public enemy number 1 on pensions and benefits in NJ because he could have done something 5 years ago (pretty much what the study commission recommended except for that silly part about getting $3 billion from health benefit savings instead of getting it by eliminating county government and other wasteful spending) but instead went with COLA cuts, not making contributions, and pumping up asset values with alternative investments. All are time bombs that will go off which is when checks start bouncing. What was unthinkable when Christie rolled into office is now inevitable.


          • Posted by Ralphie on May 28, 2015 at 4:43 pm

            If we are being honest here, it was inevitable then unless the economy had recovered much more robustly. It still needs to be fixed now more than ever due to the basic inequity to current private sector/taxpayer norms.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 7:44 pm


            In 2001 few people realized the trajectory that NJ’s pension Plans were on and I doubt that a pension freeze proposal (although “necessary”) would have gained any traction in 2011. Sweeney was practically run-out-of-town just for supporting the relatively minimal changes enacted.

            As for the Pension Commission’s call for getting $3 Billion from healthcare reductions ….. while a long-shot, such reductions are certainly appropriate even if NOT applied to reduce the UAAL. There is no reason for taxpayers to fund benefits so much greater than THEY get. Applying the savings toward the UAAL amortization was actually a good idea ….. as would be an elimination of County governments.

  7. Posted by MJ on May 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    No significant reforms coming and they wonder why the pensions are such a mess!


  8. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    NJ has a roadmap to P&B reform, it’s c.78. Legislation signed into law by the Governor and followed by all except the Governor. Follow your statute if you expect to be taken seriously and negotiate additional reforms instead of running for POTUS.


    • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 2:32 pm

      c.78 was about 20% of what was truly “needed” and without the COLA suspension it would have been almost NOTHING at all (for decades, until the changes for NEW workers started to yield real savings).

      It was just meant to buy “time” with the 1/7, 2/7, 3/7. … grade-in resulting in an ADDITIONAL $15 Billion of underfunding over the 7 year period.

      Anyone who understand pension funding was well aware of that.


      • Posted by BH on May 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm

        Lol!! Nothing will ever be good enough for you TL!! You won’t be happy until you bring everyone down to your level…. Instead of rising up!!
        You think “your” reforms will change the course of NJ…. Sorry. The greedy politicians serving corporate scum while in bed with the financial elite will just look elsewhere.
        I hope you’ve noticed that there is an ever increasing interest in transparency lately. Corporate greed is next (private sector)….. Hurry up and duck TL, because people like you have now brought the microscope unto yourself. Get ready for the next wave of layoffs and downsizing in the private sector. You want to stir up the hornets nest…. But you forget you’re standing in harms way as well….. Too busy on your soap box thinking you’re lofty… Equal and fair….. Here it comes!!! Pucker up….. It’s far easier to downsize the private sector.


        • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 8:51 pm

          Quoting BH ………”Nothing will ever be good enough for you TL!!”

          What will be enough for me will be for the FUTURE service pension accruals of ALL of NJ’s CURRENT Public Sector workers to be a reduced to a “value” (factoring in BOTH the richness of the pension “formulas” and the generosity of Plan “provisions such as VERY young full/unreduced retirement ages, and COLA increases, if reinstated) EQUAL TO but no greater than those of similarly situated (in age at retirement, wages, and years of service) Private Sector workers.

          YOU, have a HUGE problem with “EQUAL” because you are VERY VERY greedy, and think that you are “special” and deserving of greater pensions & better benefits.

          Well, earth to BH, you’re NOT “special”.

          You should be thanking me for not (now*) ALSO calling for a reduction in PAST service pension accruals …. undeniably excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair, unaffordable, and granted only because of the underhanded deal-making between your Unions and our Elected Officials.

          * The jury is still out on WHETHER we will need PAST service reduction.


          • Posted by Michael S Polish on May 28, 2015 at 9:24 pm

            And that’s that. After the Supreme Court ruling the legislature will evaluate the appropriate tax hike and if that isn’t enough it can always be evaluated for an additional hike. The Gov. will be gone in a few weeks,the new boss won’t be coddling you.

          • Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 9:47 pm

            bwhahahahahahahahahahah, thanking her for not calling for past pension reductions, that is hilarious, as if she has any power at all while drinking her bloody marys and sitting in front of the computer day in and day out. Now that was funny!!!! You cheap bottle of chip oils, come over here and take one in the yabbos, that is if you have any yabbos,

          • Posted by BH on May 28, 2015 at 10:28 pm

            Whatever TL….call me greedy. I don’t get a pension. Isn’t it obvious there isn’t enough interest to screw these people other than you and like 5 people on this blog?? Nobody wants to do it or blimpy boy would make the hard press. It’s all about votes. Bottom line. And screwing the hard working middle class just doesn’t help get votes.
            So, now what in the world are ya gonna do??? Years and years of spewing your venom…. With nothing to show for it!!!
            Did I not tell you this is exactly as I predicted!!!

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 10:53 pm

            Quoting BH….. “. Isn’t it obvious there isn’t enough interest to screw these people other than you and like 5 people on this blog?? ”

            Let me get this straight ……… reducing their FUTURE Service pension accruals to a level EQUAL to those who pay for almost all of it (the Private Sector Taxpayers) ……….. is “screwing these people over” ?

            Really ?

            Boy, you live in a whole different reality.

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 28, 2015 at 9:42 pm

          Quoting BH … “You won’t be happy until you bring everyone down to your level”

          But you’re quite OK with demanding that Private Sector Taxpayers …. at that “low
          level” you speak of (and who have no leverage to make “demands” of THEIR employers, as Public Sector workers do) ….. fund 80-90% of your MULTIPLES- greater pensions.

          And you don’t see a conflict there ?
          More transparency is EXACTLY what is needed and what I would like to see, as the grossly excessive level of Public Sector pensions & benefits will become MORE apparent, and ramp-up Taxpayer demands for the very material reforms that I support.


          • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 7:20 am

            Why aren’t you up in arms about all your politicians collecting pensions for life while not investing nearly as much as the hard working Public servants???
            Sayerville Mayor O’brien….how can Christie speak of a broken pension system yet oversee a not-so-subtle political move that will allow an individual who has only contributed to the pension system from his $5,500 a year mayor’s salary for the past 20 years to collect $40,000 a year for the rest of his life?

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 10:03 am

            Responding to BH …….

            I have LONG called for elimination of that loophole, whereby after very limited part-time work (but sufficient to annually earn a year of pension service credit), they use their political connections to land a high-paying NJ Gov’t job, and after 3 years, can retire with a pension equal to that of a full-time, full-career worker.

            This happens ONLY in the Public Sector because the threshold to earn 1 year of pension service credit is defined as earning a minimal $ amount of pay in the year (now $7,500). I have many times called for that requirement to CHANGE to the one used by PRIVATE Sector pension Plans, that in order to earn 1 year of Pension service credit you must have worker a documented and paid 1,000 hours in the year.

            I find it interesting that you raise this as though in some way it supports YOUR arguments challenging my position that ALL public Sector pension must be materially reduced.

            What it simply is, is just one more of the MANY MANY ways the Taxpayers are ripped-off.

      • Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 11:37 pm

        TL fails to realize that every single reform was paid for by the employees, not the taxpayer.


        • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 12:18 am

          Duh ….. and where do think the reforms are aimed ?

          Hint…. taking back (at least prospectively for FUTURE Service) the gross excesses in place today. Where would you think those give-backs are SUPPOSED to come from, other than those now promised this excess?


    • Posted by BH on May 28, 2015 at 4:18 pm

      Chris Chrispie has officially left the building!!! I’ve been saying this allllllll along. He does not care about NJ. This pension threat was only to get him on the radar. Now that he’s got an agenda….. He could care less about the pensions. That was never his goal. He won’t even be a resident of NJ in 3 years…. Mark my word.


  9. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Truth be told, the pending court hearings will expose the attempts by CC to manipulate the higher education NJABP trust fund. These accounts owned by the participants contain billions of vested monies. Using the 2011 reforms CC tried to impose a retirement age. The retirement payout process was interrupted since 2011. The revised NJ statute was reinstated in May 2014. No age requirement was reinforced, there was no need for a disruption in NJABP retirement payouts for lifetime income. There would be no borrowing vested funds from NJABP to shore up defined benefit pension programs sponsored by the NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits. There is no board for NJABP, I believe all decisions regarding the NJABP are made by Christie appointee Susan Culliton of the NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits, no oversight by the NJEA, one person following orders from CC to devise a plan to slow distribution from NJABP participant accounts because the Division receives money for handling administrative duties from the six contracted NJABP providers, revenue for the general fund State of NJ. This is another example of official misconduct by members of CC administration. Desperate attempt at money grabbing. The old and new statutes are available on the Division website. So trust even participants trying to retire from the NJABP are victims of an administrative sponsored money grab.


    • Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 11:38 pm

      This is for higher ed employees & retirees?


      • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 10:34 am

        Absolutely, no one monitored the impact of attempted reforms on vested participants in the NJABP, so 401a lifetime income annuities which can be received at any age were suspended, while the administration attempted to impose an annuity limit and minimum lifetime income retirement age. Federal tax penalties for early withdrawal before 59 1/2 do not under defined contribution plans if the accumulated funds are annuities for lifetime income. The NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits representing the State of NJ which is the policyholder,since annuities are insurance products. Distribution restrictions are determined by the policyholder. My suggestion is since the NJABP is touted as an alternative to NJ sponsored defined benefit pensions, the union lawyers should call the providers in to the pending court proceedings to learn how the Administration interfered with lifetime income payouts to qualified NJABP retirees. The six providers can explain the revenue generated from the NJABP trust when vested participants choose other payout options than lifetime income. Ask more questions I will make it clearer


  10. Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    John, is the COLA case settled? If so how is the state able to delay following through on the verdict?


    • It’s Berg v. Christie and I don’t know where it is. Can’t find it when searching NJ Supreme Court site:

      An appeals court on June 24, 2014 “concluding that it cannot decide the constitutional impairment-of-contract claim on the record, the panel remands Berg to allow all sides to create a complete evidentiary record.”

      If anyone involved has an update, please post.


      • Posted by truthnolie on May 29, 2015 at 1:19 am

        JB –

        From what I’ve heard from someone “in the know”, the COLA Case is currently on hold with the NJ Supreme Court as they decide whether to hear it or remand it back down to a lower court.

        Of course, in my opinion (and the person I heard it from) this is a deliberate choice to stall the case/decision even further and keep kicking it for as long as possible while Christie gets to detach himself from it while trying (and failing….oops, couldn’t resist) to mount a presidential run. Also, stalling it obviously & purposely further pushes off any payout and reduces the compounding COLA rates that would be accumulating if it were properly restored.

        Some public workers I’ve spoken to expect to have COLA restored and retroactive payments… which I laugh uncontrollably and then realize that there are some PE’s as delusional as TL (no small feat).


        • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 7:48 am

          haha, in the know! I have known a few in the know people and the information they give you is as reliable as inside trader information if you know what I mean.


      • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 7:23 am

        The appellate court issued its decision in the COLA lawsuit. The case involves the 2011 statute which suspended the cost of living increases (COLAs) to current and future retirees. This appeal stems from a lower court ruling which found that the suspension of COLA was constitutional because the Legislature had the authority to amend the pension systems pursuant to the Constitution’s Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses. In its decision, the appeals court reversed the lower court decision and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. In reversing the lower court, the appellate court made some significant findings.

        1. At the current time, there are sufficient funds in the pension systems to fund COLA to current retirees.

        2. The Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses are not implicated because the payment to retirees is from the pension funds, rather than by the Legislature into the funds.

        3. COLA is included in the non-forfeitable right provision of the law.

        4. The non-forfeitable right provision creates a contractual right to receive pension benefits inclusive of COLA.

        Since the appeals court found that current and future retirees have a contractual right to COLA, and the lower court did not address whether the 2011 statute impaired that contractual right in violation of the Constitution, the case was sent back to the lower court to make that determination.


        • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 9:02 am

          Honestly would be a severe detriment if reinstated. We need to move forward from c.78 and start the funding process. The numbers are already staggering. Retro and future COLA would be the stick that breaks the camel’s back.

          I think reducing health care coverage is reasonable. The disability approval and ongoing review process needs to be tightened. Anyone retiring on a work related disability would contine to receive current coverage.

          Maybe for first responders their coverage could have a work related illness clause with coverage at current levels.


          • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 10:13 am

            In fairness to the Taxpayer, AND when considering that NJ’s Public Sector pensions are ALWAYS multiples greater in value at retirement than those of their Private Sector counterparts, BEFORE there is ANY increase in taxes to better fund pension promises, the pension accrual rate for the FUTURE Service of all Public Sector workers must be VERY materially reduced ….. and even a 50% cut DOESN’T get then to a level EQUAL to that typically granted Private Sector workers.

          • Posted by truthnolie on May 29, 2015 at 11:25 am

            posted by BH:

            “Since the appeals court found that current and future retirees have a contractual right to COLA, and the lower court did not address whether the 2011 statute impaired that contractual right in violation of the Constitution, the case was sent back to the lower court to make that determination.”

            This and everything else you posted is old news from almost a year ago. What JB was asking was for info on the current status of the case…, if it was remanded to a lower court, where is it/what lower court??!!

            No one can seem to find out and like I posted it is in some sort of limbo with the NJ Supreme Court. So, unless you have new information that specifically addresses the current situation, regurgitating the same old stuff is not helpful and is not an update.

          • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

            Public sector workers should get no more than 34,000 in retirement and no health benefits. Go on Medicare like the rest of us. You work for us. Save your own money.

          • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 4:30 pm

            Hey truthnolie…. Whatever…. Guy!!!

  11. Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 10:39 am

    TL spreading lies with no facts to prove them. She uses the word always when it is simply not true. Although she has no cloud at all to cause anything to happen


    • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 10:43 am

      Readers….. judge for yourself. You can see demonstrations of MULTIPLES GREATER Public Sector pensions in 2 prior comments on this blog. Look for the 2 long ones toward the end of the comment list here:


        • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 1:50 pm

          I am familiar with both of those studies.

          The first is a comparison of PUBLIC Sector pensions in NJ with other “PUBLIC” Sector pensions, and the second, a similar comparison for healthcare benefits.

          Here’s the problem with that …..

          Only a VERY small percentage of the total cost of the VERY GENEROUS promised benefits is actually the responsibility of the workers ….. rarely above 20% of the total cost, and sometimes even below 10%, and with the 80-90% balance the responsibility of the Taxpayers. And for retiree healthcare promises, many NJ retiree pay nothing at all, with the FULL cost foisted upon the Taxpayers.

          With ALL (yes ALL) Pubic Sector pensions & benefits EXCESSIVE, some more so than others, and with the TAXPAYERS (NOT the workers) picking up the vast majority of Plan costs, the APPROPRIATE and FAIR way to look at the generosity of these Public Sector Plans is to compare them to the Plans offered to those who PAY FOR THEM …. Private Sector Taxpayers.

          And EVERY such comparison will show that the PUBLIC Sector Plans are MULTIPLES more generous.


          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on May 30, 2015 at 1:23 pm


            “And EVERY such comparison will show that the PUBLIC Sector Plans are MULTIPLES more generous.”


            Not true:

            “With ALL (yes ALL) Pubic Sector pensions & benefits EXCESSIVE”

            You’re obviously too obsessed to see it (or to admit it) but it’s just a rant. It’s counterproductive. You are your own worst enemy. By all means, please continue.

      • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 11:17 am

        Comparing private to public is apples to oranges. The other links compares public to public. Most, not all, other states are in a funding crisis like NJ.Conclusion, it’s not just a benefit problem.


        • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 11:18 am

          Correction to above post, most other states are not in a funding crisis. There are a few others in funding crisis situation both most are not.


          • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 4:28 pm

            They are not in a funding crisis because they kept up with their bills. They made the corresponding payments instead of allowing it to grow, unchecked for decades and then point the finger at the poor folks who payed their required portion all along…..duh

  12. Snap. Crackle. Pop. I will enjoy my front row seat. Don’t know why the rest of you waste so much time arguing. The public takers are scared. I get that. Tough Love I have no idea why you would waste time with people who it’s impossible to get to understand something when their pension is based on them not understanding.


    • Posted by Tough Love on May 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm

      I’m growing very weary of this ………..

      While I believe my efforts (as a NJ Taxpayer very knowledgeable on the design & funding of pensions and benefits) were needed to counter (WITH FACTS & DEMONSTRATIONS) all the BS coming from the Unions and the workers/retirees (working so diligently via misinformation, omission, and outright lies to protect their grossly excessive and unjust pension & benefit “promises” …. EVEN for their FUTURE Service) a while back (perhaps YEARS back), I question whether it’s needed any longer.

      I hope I have constructively added to the conversation.


      • You have and are to be commended for your zealotry on behalf of the already terribly overburdened taxpayer.


      • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 4:26 pm

        Well TL, while I don’t envy your position…. Being a taxpayer myself, if you would have stepped down off your high horse and attempted to look at things amicably, you may have received a warmer response. But since you simply spew hate filled venom, it’s difficult to get behind you. Sure, you have a couple followers… Must are clueless to the real issues.
        I’m sure somewhere deep down inside… Even you feel a little bad for these poor public employees. You know it’s not their fault and you regret some of the harmful and hurtful things you’ve labeled these people. One day…TL… Even you may need the help of a safety worker who just happens to be in the public pension…. But at that moment… You won’t care. You’ll just be happy someone., anyone… A complete stranger showed up and saved or helped you!!!!
        Just maybe you’ll see why these people used to get free healthcare. Why they are compensated fairly and purposely have a pension.. Maybe??


    • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 3:04 pm

      “I have no idea why you would waste time with people who it’s impossible to get to understand something when their pension is based on them not understanding.”

      As are the pensions of the politicians and judges who will be in control of how it plays out… scared???


  13. Posted by javagold on May 29, 2015 at 3:51 pm



    • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 4:20 pm

      DUMBDOWN PUBLIC TAKERS??? Lol. Go re-read your post.
      Nuff said….


      • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 4:38 pm

        There’s been a lot of misinformation and outright lies on both sides of this conversation. Any additional reforms, excluding health benefits, shouldn’t impact vested workers or current retirees. Non vested workers, new hires, and health benefits should be the primary focus of reform/savings. Otherwise we’ll be playing the revolving door court ruling game indefinetly.


        • Posted by BH on May 29, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          Bingo!!! That’s the magic word boys and girls. And it’s the only way any deal has a chance to pass…… Vested!!!!!


  14. Posted by Eric on May 29, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    I hate to burst your bubble, but vesting does not “carry the day”. Do some research on pension modifications; also look to other jurisdictions as persuasive such as California.


    • Posted by Anonymous on May 29, 2015 at 9:23 pm

      Local governments can and have filed for bankruptcy, based on current law States can not do so.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: