Burgos Excerpts

I expect to comment on several aspects of the Burgos opinion (including a fairly obvious point that the lawyers for the union seem not to have made) but, for now, some raw excerpts for you to comment on:

 Justice LaVecchia for the majority (5)

The individual members of the public pension systems, by their public service, earned this delayed part of their compensation. That those men and women must be paid their pension benefits when due is not in question in this matter.

Although plaintiffs correctly assert that a promise was made by the legislative and executive branches when enacting Chapter 78, and morally their argument is unassailable, we conclude that Chapter 78 could not create the type of legally enforceable contract that plaintiffs argue, and the trial court found, is entitled to protection under the Contracts Clauses of either the State or Federal Constitutions. The Debt Limitation Clause of the State Constitution interdicts the creation, in this manner, of a legally binding enforceable contract compelling multi-year financial payments in the sizable amounts called for by Chapter 78.

We therefore hold that the Legislature and Governor were without authority to enact an enforceable and legally binding long-term financial agreement through this statute.

We conclude that the Legislature and Governor clearly expressed an intent that Chapter 78 create a “contract right” to timely and recurring ARC payments to reduce the unfunded liability of the pension funds to safe levels. But, that conclusion does not address the question of authority to do so.

The decisions in Lonegan I and Lonegan II distilled the animating principle applied throughout those decisions: the State cannot by contract or statute create a binding and legally enforceable financial obligation above a certain amount that applies year to year without voter approval.

In light of the Debt Limitation Clause’s constitutional command, we hold that the contract rights set forth in Chapter 78 did not create a legally binding financial contract enforceable against the State.
Voter approval is required to render this a legally enforceable contractual agreement compelling appropriations of this size covering succeeding fiscal years; otherwise, this agreement is enforceable only as an agreement that is subject to appropriation, which under the Appropriations Clause renders it subject to the annual budgetary appropriations process. In that process, the payment may not be compelled by the Judiciary.

Because of the importance of maintaining the soundness of the pension funds, the loss of public trust due to the broken promises made though Chapter 78’s enactment is staggering. We recognize that the present level of the pension systems’ funding is of increasing concern, as does the dissent. But this constitutional controversy has been brought to the Judiciary’s doorstep, and our obligation is to enforce the State Constitution’s limitations on legislative power. The hyperbole of the dissent is no replacement for legal precedent, and it does not nullify state constitutional law interdicting the formation of the so-called binding contractual right asserted by plaintiffs. Our State Constitution compels the declaration that there is no valid contractual right under Chapter 78 that provides the basis for a contract impairment analysis under
either the State or Federal Constitutions.

That the State must get its financial house in order is plain. The need is compelling in respect of the State’s ability to honor its compensation commitment to retired employees. But this Court cannot resolve that need in place of the political branches. They will have to deal with one another to forge a solution to the tenuous financial status of New Jersey’s pension funding in a way that comports with the strictures of our Constitution.

Justice Albin for the minority (him and Chief Justice Rabner)

Today, the majority strikes down a law — Chapter 78, L.2011, c. 78 — vaunted by the Governor and Legislature as the solution to the State’s pension crisis. The decision strikes down the promise made to hundreds of thousands of public workers by the political branches of government that deferred wages earned for years of service would be funded during their retirement. The decision unfairly requires public workers to uphold their end of the law’s bargain — increased weekly deductions from their paychecks to fund their future pensions — while allowing the State to slip from its binding commitment to make commensurate contributions. Thus, public workers continue to pay into a system on its way to insolvency.

Never before, until today, has the Debt Limitation Clause been applied to the ordinary operating expenses of government, such as deferred compensation earned by public workers and payable as pension benefits. Indeed, this Court previously held that a statute requiring the State to make annual contributions to a pension fund is not a debt within the intendment of the Debt Limitation Clause. Moreover, this Court has held that the Appropriations Clause cannot stand as a barrier to the enforcement of constitutional rights. In short, the majority’s contention that the Governor and Legislature’s contract with public workers is unenforceable under state law has no contemporary legal support.

Even if enforcement of the contractual rights embedded in Chapter 78 were barred by the majority’s interpretation of the New Jersey Constitution’s Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses, those rights would be enforceable under the Federal Constitution’s Contracts Clause, which was intended to prevent precisely what occurred here — a State destroying a contract of its own making. Rights protected by the Federal Constitution cannot be defeated by a novel interpretation or reconfiguration of state contract law.

The majority’s decision will have far-reaching, negative consequences. The majority has declared that it will not enforce a statute intended to stem decades of political dysfunction that has resulted in the balancing of budgets on the backs of public workers. The majority has concluded that it will not uphold any law that the Governor and Legislature pass that is intended to bind the political branches to funding a pension system on which public workers relied when entering public service. The majority states that the rights contractually promised by the Legislature require voter approval. However, the Federal Contracts Clause was expected to protect contractual rights from majority rule. The majority’s cheery assurance that “there is no question that individual members of the public pension systems are entitled to [the] delayed part of their compensation upon retirement,” runs counter to its constitutional analysis that the political branches cannot be compelled to fund the pension system. The dismal logic of the majority’s decision is that the political branches, in accordance with the State Constitution, can let the pension fund run dry and leave public service workers pauperized in their retirement. The public workers, now left without an enforceable legal right to funding of wages they have earned, are not strangers to us. They are the police officers who protect our citizens and neighborhoods from violent crime; the firefighters who enter burning homes to save lives and salvage property; the teachers who educate our children; the prosecutors, public defenders, and judges, and their staffs, who operate our system of justice; the crews who pave our roads and recycle our waste; and the myriad other workers who, in their unheralded ways, improve the quality of life for almost nine million people in New Jersey and allow State and local governments to operate. Unlike the majority, I believe public workers have protectable contractual rights under the United States Constitution — as the Legislature and Governor intended in enacting Chapter 78. Chapter 78 was not an aspirational or moral promise, but a solemn contract, which, once made, is binding on the State and cannot be nullified without offending the Federal Constitution’s Contracts Clause. I therefore respectfully dissent.

The “non-forfeitable right” to receive one’s deferred wages is a hollow right if there is insufficient money in the pension fund to pay those wages.

Even if the majority were correct about its interpretation of the Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses, state law must bow to rights, such as contractual rights, protected by the United States Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, provides: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Federal Contracts Clause forbids precisely what the State did in this case — legislatively impairing the contractual rights conferred on public workers by Chapter 78.

The majority’s novel and strained interpretation of our State Constitution cannot defeat the federal rights of public workers in this case. The United States Supreme Court has held that although it will “accord respectful consideration and great weight to the views of the State’s highest court,” it will not permit a statutory interpretation that renders a “constitutional mandate . . . a dead letter.” Thus, the Supreme Court will appraise for itself “the statutes of the State and the decisions of its courts” to determine “whether a contract was made, . . . its terms and conditions, and whether the State has, by later legislation, impaired its obligation.” “The question whether a contract was made is a federal question for purposes of Contract Clause analysis and whether it turns on issues of general or purely local law, we can not surrender the duty to exercise our own judgment.” stating that when court “is asked to invalidate a state statute” on ground that it violates Federal Contracts Clause, “the existence of the contract and the nature and extent of its obligation become federal questions . . . and for such purposes finality cannot be accorded to the views of a state court”.

The majority pretends that it is not “declaring Chapter 78 unconstitutional” and that “Chapter 78 remains in effect, as interpreted, unless the Legislature chooses to modify it.”  Words, however, matter. As a result of the majority’s decision, the State’s contribution to the pension system is no longer binding, but merely optional.

50 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by bpaterson on June 9, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    wow. So hopefully now a financial dialogue can begin, to heal the state of affairs we are in, as things got way out of hand over the last 15 years….or is it just more cans down the road, more political conniving and pandering. Good luck to both the taxpayers and the public sector.

    Reply

  2. Posted by truthnolie on June 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    All anyone needs to know from above:

    “The Federal Contracts Clause forbids precisely what the State did in this case — legislatively impairing the contractual rights conferred on public workers by Chapter 78.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 4:44 pm

      LOL ….. there a reason it’s called a dissenting opinion. His opinion DOESN’T count….. his side LOST.

      And ultimately, YOU will lose as well ….. as reality and the MATH always governs, and there never WAS, isn’t NOW, and never WILL BE sufficient money to fully pay for the grossly excessive pension & benefit “promises” that your Unions BOUGHT from NJj’s legislators with campaign contributions and election support..

      Reply

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm

        We shall see. The outstanding obligations must be paid. So why would any public worker union agree to any more concessions when past agreements appear to be enforceable only to the employee.

        Why would anyone trust the state at this point? There will be no concessions, it will have to run its course. More Moody’s cuts, more debt to be paid later by taxpayers.

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 12:46 am

        In your bubble there is not right to seek relief at the federal level. Christie created this legal disaster intentionally for political purposes. He knew it would fail and his NJSC gave him temporary relief. Pensions are a long-term obligation in the State budget, pension payouts continue, this whole orchestrated disaster has immediate and long-term effects, beginning with the rating agencies.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 11:03 am

          No, the “disaster” was CREATED by the Unions and our politicians colluding to grant NJ’s Public Sector workers TAXPAYER-FUNDED pensions & benefits FAR FAR greater than necessary, just, fair, or affordable.

          Grossly excessive pensions ARE VERY VERY costly to ‘fund”, and it is that grossly excessive “generosity” that is the “ROOT CAUSE” of the problem

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on June 11, 2015 at 5:37 pm

            Have you reviewed pension payouts on data universe.com for public employees, where is the excess? burypensions $200-9000 month is excessive 7 yrs-47 years of service you are delusional. Until Ms. Cullitan is monitored I would not promote the NJABP as an alternative. The State receives an undisclosed fee for administrative services, the state has undisclosed rules with providers regarding lifetime income. I blame the NJEA for a lack of oversight, one person does not constitute a board or commission governing NJ pensions per existing statutes.

  3. Posted by Jitters on June 9, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Net result. Quagmire. The unions will wait out Christies eventual exit in hopes of a democratic governor. The hole gets deeper. Credit ratings drop further and everyone in the state suffers. Of the three possible outcomes this was probably the worst for taxpayers long term. There is now no incentive for either side to negotiate.

    Reply

  4. Kicking the can. Right off a cliff. Bunch of lemmings and parasites. Those colluded contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. Except for toilet paper which will be needed when next collapse breaks the supply chain. So at least we have that going for us…..free toilet paper for all public takers.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

      In what language did you read the court ruling. The new plans will impact invested employees and future employees. The State of NJ is still obligated to pension payouts to long-term vested employees.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 11:04 am

        “obligated” …. with no money ……LOL

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 11, 2015 at 5:42 pm

          There is money, there will continue to be payments by the state and there will be a solution. Have you heard of any mass layoff plans for public workers pre July 1, 2015? Get a hobby you’re magic has no power.

          Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    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; https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/christie-curses-out-nj-media/#comments 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;
    https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/phonying-up-numbers-to-suit-your-client/#comments

    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.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    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; https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/christie-curses-out-nj-media/#comments 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;
    https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/phonying-up-numbers-to-suit-your-client/#comments

    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

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 2:29 pm

      I love it! TL must be steaming right now, however she wont react until after happy hour.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 4:48 pm

        Steaming ???

        I’m thrilled with Court’s decision ….. No Court-forced funding of these grossly excessive pension Plans.

        The Plan’s “death spiral” is now irreversible !

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 1:36 am

          He still must make a payment, retirees still get payouts, the court assisted in kicking can down the road. TL you are the idiot you claim others are, NJ public employees will always have pensions.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 2:01 am

            Quite likely, but also VERY likely that future service accruals will be a great deal lower than the thievery going on today.

  7. Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    John, would you agree that Christie made things way worse because he made believe that he actually did something to help the situation but in actuality did nothing but stroke his own ego for his entire governorship and he was did so in the face of many failure.

    Reply

      • Sure, because there was obviously the option of raising taxes enough to take what ever the federal govt does not already claim from the taxpayers, right? Saying he made it way worse buy drilling two holes in the hull of a ship made of Swiss cheese is, on Mr Bury’s part, pandering to the unions who are the sole parties left with a need for a pension actuary. Conflict of interest, much?

        Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 8:06 pm

      Ok, now that you got John to say “yes”, how does THAT help address the “impossibility” of funding the current grossly excessive Public Sector pension & benefit “promises” in NJ?

      Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    TL is your typical republican threatened hoping to take away free speech and privacy from the citizens. She loves to say we know your IP address because we are Big Brother and we will watch your every move and you will not be free to do what you wish. We have the power and we will control you.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      Imbecile. When/where did I say ANY of that ?

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 9:59 pm

        Read the idiot ANNON repetitive comments with links you imbecile!

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 7:25 am

        TL wants John to ban anyone who she does not approve of from the blog, she states this over and over.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 11:06 am

          No, I don’t, but when someone repeats the SAME comment 15+ times, it’s time for the administrator to exercise some control.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 1:21 pm

            TL you have stated the same comment more than 15 times, but I dont think you should be banned. At any rate you dont agree with the way John runs the blog. You dont think John exercises any control. You think people should be silienced especially if they dont agree with you or your agenda. Are you sure you live in America? Are you sure you want to live in America? Start your own blog and kick out everyone you dont like or agree with, it would suit you better.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm

            Quoting ANON ….”TL you have stated the same comment more than 15 times”

            Be specific …. show me.

          • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2015 at 5:02 pm

            TL , does you are a moron ring a bell, or maybe you are an idiot. Do that sound like something you have said more than 15 times.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 5:18 pm

            Anon, was THAT your “answer” to “show me” ???

  9. The report paid particular attention to three states selected at random. They were Virginia, California and New Jersey. Volcker believes that Virginia’s methodology is good, using impartial outside economists. It was still heavily reliant on federal funding however.

    The current governor of California has acknowledged the “wall of debt” that was hidden behind budgetary gimmicks and has reduced the debt significantly since 2010.

    New Jersey, however, is a case study in bad budgetary practices. The New York Times reports,

    “In contrast to California, New Jersey is still producing structural imbalances, according to the report. It has been struggling from year to year by, among other things, taking money out of special dedicated funds and spending it on unrelated activities.”

    “For instance, the state has raided hundreds of millions of dollars in toll revenue from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and used the money to pay for the day-to-day operations of New Jersey Transit. The toll money was supposed to pay for highway construction and maintenance, not mass transit.”

    Reply

  10. Posted by Lucas ustaszewski on June 9, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    The Supreme Court of New Jersey has turned itself into an embarrassing joke. The ruling handed down is an absurd decision rendered by a bunch of political hacks. They should be ashamed. The rule of law in NJ is no longer. The supreme court says so. The Supreme court is supposed to decide the law, but they refused to do so. So unless the US Supreme Cort acts, the State can do whatever it wants and cannot be held accountable. This is certainly an opinion that is a setback for all new Jerseans and a very dangerous precedent that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with law and the rights of NJ citizens.If the law is not enforceable against the state then it should not be enforceable against anyone and therefore should no longer exist as a law. The US Constitution was written to protect its citizens against such behavior by the government, but I have little faith in the US Supreme Court either because they too have become political hacks doing the bidding of the corporate power brokers. It is a very sad state that our country has become. The rights of the common man have once again been stripped away. What next? Legalize indentured servitude?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      Quoting Lucas ….”The Supreme Court of New Jersey has turned itself into an embarrassing joke. The ruling handed down is an absurd decision rendered by a bunch of political hacks.”

      Why ? Perhaps because YOU (very likely a Public Sector “taker”) disagrees and wants to keep your unnecessary, unjust, unfair, clearly unaffordable, and GROSSLY EXCESSIVE pensions & benefits ?

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 6:49 pm

      Quoting Lucas …. “This is certainly an opinion that is a setback for all new Jerseans ”

      LOL…. no, it’s a well-deserved “setback” for the Public Sector Unions and their grossly over-compensated members, but a WONDERFUL decisions for NJ’s Taxpayers called upon to pay for 80%-90% of the total cost of these absurdly generous “promises”.

      These grossly excessive pensions must END, and for all CURRENT workers.

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 6:54 pm

      Quoting Lucas …”The rights of the common man have once again been stripped away. ”

      The Public Sector Union membership is HARDLY the “common man” any longer …. but the new “ROYALTY”, with pensions TYPICALLY 3x-4x (4x-5x for safety workers in NJ) greater in value at retirement than those of there Private Sector counterparts…… and all while those Private Sector counterparts are called upon to pay for almost all of it.

      —————————

      Crawl back under your rock.

      Reply

  11. Posted by Ed Mecka (@edmecka) on June 9, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    The 5-2 vote:

    MAJORITY: 4 CHRISTIE (r) appointees, 1 WHITMAN (r) appointee

    Minority: 1 CHRISTIE (r) [formerly Corzine appointee], 1 Corzine (d) appointee

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 7:07 pm

      No surprise there …. Sweeney can’t kiss enough Union asses in his work-up to the next NJ governorship.

      Reply

  12. Posted by Ed Mecka (@edmecka) on June 9, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    N.J. troopers union to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of pension ruling – http://ow.ly/O6cgR via @edmecka on Twitter’

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 8:01 pm

      Quoting Christopher Burgos, president of the NJ State Troopers Fraternal Association ….. “I would warn anyone doing business or intending to do business with the state of New Jersey to be wary, with this majority decision giving the state an out if they don’t want to fulfill a contract,”

      Well maybe instead twisting the meaning of the Court’s decision to apply to contracts with Private Sector Corporations, he should move to materially LOWER the pension/benefit GREED of his Union and membership …. now (when properly factoring in BOTH the VERY rich pension “formulas” AND the VERY generous “provisions”, such as VERY young full.unreduced retirement ages, and COLAs… now suspended in NJ) getting pensions in NJ TYPICALLY 4 to 5 times greater in value upon retirement than that of a Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME years of service, and the SAME pay ……. and with the taxpayers (NOT the workers) routinely being responsible for 80%-90% of the total Plan costs.

      Reply

  13. Posted by PatB on June 9, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    What Christie won was the right to save the taxpayers from a $5B payment today and created a $10B + payment when the plan fails and the state has to pay out of the general budget. Is this not creating a future debt to NJ taxpayers? Maybe a future gov will use that argument to shirk their responsibilities.

    Reply

    • Exactly the point I was going to make in another blog but I’ll probably make the point here since I just finished tomorrow morning’s blog about the 4 big questions that this decision raises.

      If the Debt Limitation Clause applies then why does it apply to to those having to make the payments and not to those creating the debt? That $1.6 billion that is not being deposited this year is theoretically a debt that future taxpayers will have to pay (with interest). But, with this ruling those future taxpayers will also be able to renege on that payment. So, who then IS going to pay it?

      This was the nuanced argument that I expected the union lawyers to make.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2015 at 11:31 pm

        John,

        A large portion (if not ALL of the $1.6B) is BECAUSE the “funding” calcs are “BASED ON” undeniably excessive pensions (undeniably the result of the Unions BUYING our Elected Officials favorable votes with campaign contribution and election support).

        There never WAS and is not NOW a justification for the Taxpayer to fund such excessive pensions.

        PatB is a fool if he really believes that pensions will continue as currently structured once we hit pay-go. While I’m sure great efforts will be made to limit pension reductions for those already retired, I will indeed be AMAZED if future service pension accruals for CURRENT workers are not VERY materially reduced….. as well as across-the-board reductions in retiree healthcare subsidies.

        The vast majority of continued pension “funding” will come from these “savings”, not from increased Taxation.

        Reply

        • Posted by PatB on June 10, 2015 at 12:11 am

          “The individual members of the public pension systems, by their public service, earned this delayed part of their compensation. That those men and women must be paid their pension benefits when due is not in question in this matter.” -Justice LaVecchia

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2015 at 12:39 am

            “Aspirational” ………….. in the context of a “Decision” that clearly states that the NJ Supreme Court cannot, should not, and will not interfere in the appropriations process that belong to the Legislative and Executive branches….. and evidenced by the fact that the Court tossed the problem right back in their laps to deal with.

    • Posted by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 at 10:03 pm

      TL, not tough love but TURKEY LURK – tea party antagonist!

      Reply

  14. […] after the Burgos decision which confirms that the state can make up their own contribution […]

    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: