Some Targets Shoot Back

You can ridicule little girls or the New Jersey press corps and expect little in the way of blow-back (from most little girls that is) but take a shot at the New York City Police Commissioner and you get:


.
The fool of a governor referenced by Commissioner Bratton is of course Chris Christie who had an issue with some crime statistics that the mayor of New York trumpeted in an earlier appearance on Morning Joe:
.

.
But instead of retreating to a room to take solace in the new Justin Bieber CD or pen another futile editorial this target shoots back:
.

61 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on September 10, 2015 at 10:13 am

    Some blog posters who allege to advocate for the greater good yet indicate their own personal vested interest and quite possibly a professional conflict of interest – ah yes their distorted version of fair and equal!!!

    Reply

  2. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 11:44 am

    JFK: “Ask not what your country can do for you……..”

    George Bush: “Read my lips; no new taxes”

    Christopher James Christie: “Sit down and shut up!”?

    Bill Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III): “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman… “

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
      ― Margaret Thatcher

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm

        “Why should women and blacks in the public sector earn more than women and blacks in the private sector?”
        ——-S Moderation Douglas

        http://www.epi.org/publication/bp339-public-sector-jobs-crisis/

        “Got a problem with EQUAL?”
        ——-Tough Love

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 12:46 pm

          2 workers, 1 in the Private Sector and one in the Public Sector doing identical jobs should get equal total compensation WITHOUT even knowing their race or sex.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 1:13 pm

            “That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works. …. ”

            There is inequality. Undeniably. If they “should get equal total compensation”, how do we achieve that? By reducing the compensation of women and blacks in the public sector?

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 2:16 pm

            Sorry S Moderation Douglas, but this latest tactic won’t work …… Private/Public Sector jobs with very comparable responsibilities should have EQUAL Total Compensation … we should not consider and not even know the race or sex of the workers.

            YOU seem to be advocating FOR discrimination by paying based UPON race and sex.

            Is there no limit to your depravity ?

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 4:48 pm

            Quoting:

            “we should not consider and not even know the race or sex of the workers.”

            Logic, again. “Private/Public Sector jobs with very comparable responsibilities should have EQUAL Total Compensation”

            How would we know if they are equal if we don’t compare equal jobs by race and sex? Rhetorical question. We do know; they ain’t equal.

            The question is; what, if anything, do we do about it?

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 5:03 pm

            S Moderation Douglas,

            Because Race and Sex should be IGNORED and NOT a function of compensation determinations. Compensation should be based solely on the requirements of the job and the qualifications of the incumbent …. and the compensation should be EQUAL in the Public and Private Sectors

            I KNOW you’ve not this “thick-headed”.

            For those who think that I am too “aggressive” in my advocacy for Public Sector pension /benefit “reform” (yes, mean material REDUCTIONS for the future service of all CURRENT workers), I so that it’s NECESSARY …. due to A-holes like S Moderation Douglas who seek-out and use every dirty trick in the book to maintain their current (and very material) Total Compensation ADVANTAGE.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm

            Quoting:

            “I KNOW you’ve not this “thick-headed”.

            Please don’t shoot the messenger. The inequality already exists, primarily in the private sector.

            In the private sector, on average, blacks earn much less than similarly qualified whites. I did not create this condition. I do not approve of this condition. I do not condone this situation, but it exists.

            In the public sector, for equivalent education and skills, blacks and whites are more nearly equal, and they both earn about 12% less than equivalent private sector Caucasian workers, on average.

            And it’s still ……alleged….. “Total Compensation ADVANTAGE.”

  3. Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Quoting …… “In the public sector, for equivalent education and skills, blacks and whites are more nearly equal, and they both earn about 12% less than equivalent private sector Caucasian workers, on average.”

    Here we go AGAIN with your misinformation and omission of material facts …

    Yes, per the AEI Study, in CA Public Sector workers (taken together as a group) make 12% less in “WAGES” (i.e. CASH PAY) than their Private Sector counterparts …….. a DISADVANTAGE that once pensions & benefits are included swings the to a 23% PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE.

    Not important ? Just forgot to mention it ?
    ———————————————————————–

    Now back to your rather disgusting “sex” and “race” baiting …………….

    Race and Sex should be IGNORED and NOT a function of compensation determinations. Compensation should be based solely on the requirements of the job and the qualifications of the incumbent …. and the compensation should be EQUAL in the Public and Private Sectors.

    And right now (coincidentally being same % in both CA and NJ) the PUBLIC Sector has a 23% Total Compensation ADVANTAGE. That advantage must be eliminated …. WITHOUT looking at the sex or race of anyone impacted …. because sex and race has nothing to do with “comparable” jobs” and “equally qualified incumbents”.

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 10, 2015 at 10:03 pm

       “race” baiting …………?

      Tough Love, thou art a special species of ass. Arrogant and ignorant.

      Yes, we can agree, “Race and Sex should* be IGNORED and NOT a function of compensation determinations.”

      (You may capitalize, italicize, or accent that word with bottle rockets, it is still “should”.)

      In the real world, after controlling for “education, experience, gender, race, marital status, organizational size, metropolitan status, citizenship, Census region, full-time status, and total work hours”

      In the private sector, average wage income for African Americans is 12.9% less than for whites.

      In the public sector, average wage income for African Americans is 2.2% less than for whites.

      http://www.epi.org/publication/bp339-public-sector-jobs-crisis/

      (Table 3)

      You are free to IGNORE that if you want. That won’t make it go away.

      It is another complicating factor in your “23%”. We’ve already found that, because 23% is an ” average”, you can’t reduce ALL compensation by 23%.

      If YOU want equal, you must reduce the compensation of the lower educated public workers while simultaneously increasing the compensation of higher educated public workers. (That is YOUR solution, by the way, not mine.) All I did was point out the facts, as determined by AEI and all the other major studies. I’m fine to leave the distribution just as it is, pending further study.

      This is just a further layer of complication. On average, public sector workers earn 12% less than the private sector, according to AEI. At the same time, on average, private sector African American workers earn 12.9% less than private sector whites, according to Economic Policy Institute. The EPI study did not factor in benefits, but that is a significant difference in pay.

      Quoting Tough Love:

      “For those who think that I am too “aggressive” in my advocacy for Public Sector pension /benefit “reform”………”

      Not aggressive, just too simplistic and doctrinaire.

      Reply

    • Posted by lukeu on September 10, 2015 at 10:05 pm

      Nobody gets the average salary and compensation anywhere. Basically the salaries paid everywhere equate to what the workers in the profession are willing to accept in exchange for their services..If Alex Rodriguez negotiates for a certain salary through his agent, it is no different than a union negotiating on behalf of a state worker. If the unions are so powerful and make deals with politicians to over compensate workers then how is it that they are not able to negotiate higher salaries than private sector workers? Somehow they are able to negotiate well only for pensions and healthcare? The arguments you present for lowering public sector pensions are fraudulent and are propaganda supported by right wing ideologs who pay for such fraudulent studies.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 10, 2015 at 11:19 pm

        Quoting …”If the unions are so powerful and make deals with politicians to over compensate workers then how is it that they are not able to negotiate higher salaries than private sector workers?”

        Well on the Union side, Private Sector Unions realize that demanding more than is affordable to the Company is counterproductive. Push too far and they go broke or move to a non-union State. No such Controls exist, as they can’t go out of business, and ca\n’t move elsewhere where employees are less demanding.

        On the Plan Sponsor side, Corporations are negotiating with THEIR money …. unlike Public Sector Elected Officials who are giving away Taxpayer money. And of course understood (quietly) is that if they’re nice to the Unions, boatload of Campaign contributions will follow.

        (Get you head out of your ass).

        Reply

        • TL – again, why do you continuously humor these morons? You religiously answer their idiotic posts. Your indomitable efforts are admirable but you might as well be talking to a wall. Fortunately, despite their continued vomiting of the same tired “race to the bottom”, “deferred compensation”, “annuity not a retirement plan” blah blah blah commentary, reality will intervene and they will all learn the hard way that arithmetic always wins in the end.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 11, 2015 at 1:09 am

            Of course you’re correct. Earlier-on (5+ years ago) my comments were needed, as few understood the depths of this pension/benefit rip-off of the Taxpayers and it’s unstoppable trajectory (without VERY material cut to the future service of all CURRENT workers, or better yet, a DB-Plan freeze and shift to DC Plans).

            The problem is MUCH more widely understood today. My continued efforts certainly won’t be the straw that triggers action, and to be honest it’s getting tiring.

        • Posted by lukeu on September 11, 2015 at 12:30 pm

          Once again you must have missed the point or maybe you don’t have a right wing talking point for it. why are public sector unions so powerful that they can negotiate better pensions but can’t negotiate even equal salaries?’ Maybe if you get your head out of your ass to use your expression, you could read the comment and actually respond with a lucid answer rather than some more right wing drivel, but that would be too much to expect from someone who doesn’t actually think but spouts propaganda instead.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 11, 2015 at 1:05 pm

            Quoting your specific question … “why are public sector unions so powerful that they can negotiate better pensions but can’t negotiate even equal salaries?’ ”

            Answer …..

            They can negotiate better pensions & benefits because our Elected Officials ALLOW THEM TO BE GRANTED in exchange for Campaign Contribution and election support. They grant for almost all that they want, and then go further by passing laws and regulations to make reform measures (which are both legal and routine in PRIVATE Sector pension Plans) near impossible in PUBLIC Sector Plans.

            Per the AEI study, Pubic Sector salaries (cash pay) lags Private sector cash pay by only 4%, a DISADVANTAGE that swings to a 23% Public Sector ADVANTAGE once the MUCH greater value of Public Sector pensions and benefits are included in the Public/Private compensation comparison. That 4% is the AVERAGE for all Public Sector workers taken as a group. Most (the lower and middle-income workers) make MORE in cash pay than their Private Sector counterparts, while the most highly educated (professional, those with PHDS, and to a small extent, those with Masters degrees …. again, per that AEI study) tend to make less.

            Perhaps that most highly educated group can’t negotiate equal cash pay because there is always limited cash to allocate to pay increases and (unlike some the lower paid), this group already earns enough for a comfortable life, and EVERYONE, especially our Elected Officials knows that once their extraordinarily generous Public Sector pensions & benefits are added to the mix, a VERY comfortable life in retirement is also awaiting them.

      • Posted by Anonymous on September 11, 2015 at 2:58 pm

        Hey Luke, you may be right that public-sector unions have done a good job negotiating for their members’ benefits over the years. It does not, however, mean that those actions will necessarily prove to be a wise, long-term strategy. The US automotive industry unions similarly negotiated excellent compensation and benefit packages for their members; in fact, they won many battles with management over the years. In the end, however, what they accomplished was to almost kill the golden goose by increasing the cost of a US vehicle to such an extent that it made the US automakers vulnerable to competition.

        The fatal flaw with the public sector negotiations is that they seem to believe there is no limit to the amount of taxpayer support available that will be needed to fund current compensation and benefits along with promised retirement benefits. Many cities and towns are already hitting the financial breaking point and taxpayers in those places will eventually say no to more taxes.

        I understand you may not like the opinion given your responses to TL, and these remarks are not meant to be personal in any way, but I sincerely believe many government employees face a real hard fiscal landing in the near future.

        Reply

        • Posted by lukeu on September 11, 2015 at 3:56 pm

          The negotiations of the UAW had nothing to do with the financial health of the auto companies. Their only problem was that they could not borrow enough money while sales were at rock bottom due to the recession and the near collapse of banking which froze credit. As you can see, the auto industry is doing just fine now. Over compensation was not the problem and it is not the problem with NJ. Wages and benefits are at reasonable levels. The financial problems of NJ are not the fault of the workers. Read the posted site I provided from the Center For American Progress. You are listening to too much right wing propaganda. do some research. don’t just accept what you read from TL and other right wingers. The workers in NJ are not the problem. when the state failed to fund pensions even in good times but chose to spend the money elsewhere, When hard times came the state was not equipped to deal with it. It would be like you skipping mortgage payments for a couple of years when you had a job, then losing your job during a recession and finding out you owed several thousand dollars on your mortgage and now you were facing foreclosure.The bank wouldn’t let you slide because you couldn’t afford to pay. But that is exactly what the state has been asking to do, Be forgiven the debt they owe to the pensions because they let themselves fall behind in payments. It just doesn’t work like that. You have to realize that that debt the state incurred in our name as citizens is our debt. Like it or not we as citizens have incurred the debt and it is time we start repaying the debt we incurred. The debt was put on credit and the bill is long overdue. Taxes were held artificially lower for all of us especially the wealthiest when Whitman lowered taxes 30% but did not in any way lower costs to the state and to taxpayers. Higher taxes will just be deferred tax payments from the 1990s on. There is no free lunch as Republicans like to say..

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 11, 2015 at 11:52 pm

            Quoting lukeu …. “The negotiations of the UAW had nothing to do with the financial health of the auto companies.”

            What an astonishing comment … showing an incredible lack of understanding of the primary driver of the downfall of the American car-manufacturing industry.
            ——————————

            AS IS THIS ONE with respect to the ROOT CAUSE of NJ’s financial woes …. “Over compensation was not the problem and it is not the problem with NJ. Wages and benefits are at reasonable levels.”

            As others riding the PUBLIC Sector pension/benefit gravy train in NJ, you CHOOSE to find as the “CAUSE” of the financial mess, NJ’s non-payment of the fully calculated annual ARCs. But you conveniently ignore the fact that those calculated ARCs are A FUNCTION OF and DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO Plan “generosity”, generosity that I have demonstrated to TYPICALLY result in Public Sector pensions that are 3x-4x (4x-6x for Safety workers) greater in value at retirement than those of Private Sector workers retiring a the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.

            NJ’s lack of full funding is not the “CAUSE” of NJ pension woes, It is a “CONSEQUENCE” of the real ROOT CAUSE …. grossly excessive Plan “generosity”.

  4. I cant understand the Christie hate. I know the actuarial numbers are nowhere near fixed but he was willing to take a stand and take on teachers, firemen etc. It is much more political than actuarial..a simple spreadsheet could solve all the problems if we had a dictatorial government. I know from my experience that to get up in front of people and speak like this..as well as being a parent and employee where you interact with so many teachers, pubic safety types and their spouses and relatives you could never get all that is required. A lot of people grumble correctly about how this system does not work but they never get anywhere.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 11, 2015 at 12:31 pm

      You’re correct, Christie is the ONLY one trying to address the pension/benefit problem the right way …. by addressing it’s ROOT CAUSE, the grossly excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair, and unaffordable pension/benefit “generosity”.

      Not one Governor before him had the guts to do so, including the financially savvy John Corzine, who by selling the NJ Turnpike, wanted to steal MORE money from the beleaguered and betrayed Taxpayers ….. with what would have be been another temporary fix because the ROOT CAUSE would STILL have been left unaddressed and CONTINUE to grow and fester.

      The stalemate is cause by NJ’s campaign-contribution-bought-off Democratic Elected Officials, but once the Plans hit (or more likely near) pay-go, I believe that even THEY will realize it’s game-over, and that there is know way to increase annual revenue by the $6-$10 Billion that would be necessary to continue paying retirees pension & beneits.

      Reply

  5. Posted by Ralph on September 11, 2015 at 11:31 am

    John – Are you catching on to the fact that your political opinions, not relevant to the pension crisis, are of little to no interest here.

    Reply

  6. Posted by lukeu on September 11, 2015 at 2:08 pm

    TL you can continue to quote figures from the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute ad nauseam but it doesn’t give it any more credence than if you said it once. They have a clear agenda which includes fighting minimum wage increases and promoting tax cuts for the rich. It includes people like Dick Cheney on its board. Anything they say doesn’t impress me. You still can’t explain how public sector workers are paid less as a whole according to your own admission. and yet their pension benefits are supposed to be greater because of union and political collusion. It doesn’t make any sense..But of course your goal is to try to hammer home the right wing agenda and not to make any sense while doing it..

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 11, 2015 at 2:21 pm

      Read the daily headline on the website pensiontsunami(dot).com …. everyone isn’t “wrong” and you (and the lying Public Sector Unions) are right.

      The material over-compensation of Public Sector workers (via grossly excessive pensions & benefits) is undeniable.

      Reply

      • Posted by summerphan on September 11, 2015 at 3:11 pm

        yes of course pensiontsunami written and edited by jack dean executive director of the reason foundation… funded by david Koch ( a trustee of the foundation) so once again your are spewing right wing garbage. Since before the time of FDR republicans and right wing conservatives have been tearing down the country’s middle class for the wealthy and powerful. the only reason the middle class even exists is because of unions. they braved beating and murders as hit men were hired to stop their growth. now it is not as obvious as beatings but is people like yourself who have been hired to brain wash the public to vote and go against their own best interests. there are VERY FEW public employees who are living high off the hog. I am not a public employee, never worked for the state but learned from my parents and grandparents who went through that and fought the good fight. read the papers from the 1930’s the message from the right wing was the same then. yet the middle class came to be because of unions. If you had your way you would probably eliminate social security and medicare and the minimum wage.

        Reply

        • FYI, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the Country and SS will soon be only able to pay 77% of benefits from current worker’ payroll taxes.

          I can’t comment on FDR’s real reason for enacting SS, but some say it was really just a disguised tax increase masquerading as an old age relief plan. But since there were probably 30 workers for each potential retiree at the time I dare say that a lot more taxes were collected than benefits paid out. A lot different now.

          And by the way to really get your goat, I have long since thought that LBJ was the worst President in history: Viet Nam, Great Society and yes, Medicare and Medicaid. If we never enacted Medicare and Medicaid, medical costs would be much less than they are now. Probably low enough to pay out of pocket for most health care without even having an insurance company middle man.

          Reply

          • Posted by summerphan on September 11, 2015 at 11:21 pm

            thank you for your comments. you are finally proved what a selfish sob you really are. Poverty for senior citizens and sick people not getting health care. great selfish beliefs. thank god that your are only 1% of the population. you know the mitt Romney believers. you don’t belong in society but rather in your selfish cave so no one could tax you and you don’t have to take care of your mother and father.

          • Posted by lukeu on September 12, 2015 at 12:35 am

            Thank you Herbert Hoover. You are really out of touch with the views of most Americans. So I guess you are saying we should end Medicare, Medicaid and social security. Obviously you have staked a political position to the right of Adolf Hitler. Most Americans do not side with you, fortunately. Most Americans are a tad bit more compassionate and may realize that we are all in this together. The country as a whole is better off when the poorest are still cared for. and you have the nerve to call public sector workers greedy. You might want to take a closer look in the mirror if you want to see a truly greedy, self interested individual, obviously not religious I would guess and certainly not Christian, though I wouldn’t hold either against you.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 12, 2015 at 1:18 am

            Hey luke,

            Public Sector workers are INSATIABLY “greedy”.

        • Posted by Tough Love on September 12, 2015 at 12:09 am

          Quoting summerphan … ” now it is not as obvious as beatings but is people like yourself who have been hired to brain wash the public to vote and go against their own best interests. ”

          (a) Now I’ve been “hired”…… Really? Is it so hard for you to understand that informed/educated TAXPAYERS (yes, that’s my ONLY interest in commenting) are FED UP with the decades-long financial “mugging” begin perpetrated upon them by the insatiable greedy Public Sector Unions/workers and our enabling, Union-campaign-contribution-bought-off Elected Officials?

          (b) So, I’m brainwashing the “public” to vote against their own best interests?

          How in God’s earth is it in the BEST INTEREST of ANYONE except PUBLIC SECTOR worker & retirees to unnecessarily OVER-COMPENSATE you from owr tax dollars?
          ——————————————
          And P. S., workplace gains (some quite appropriate to end abuses of decades past) were the product of PRIVATE Sector Unions, not PUBLIC Sector Unions, the latter being a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

          Reply

  7. Posted by lukeu on September 11, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Apparently the over compensation of public sector workers is quite deniable. Here is some reading for those who are interested in another point of view other than right wing propaganda.https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/report/2011/03/10/9206/state-budget-deficits-are-not-an-employee-compensation-problem/ It is quite clearly stated that public sector workers still lag behind in compensation even after healthcare and pensions are taken into consideration. Try reading this and turn off Fox News for a few minutes.

    Reply

    • What about the unfunded liability that exists? That is deferred compensation for work performed long ago. That deficit needs to be taken into account when they talk about compensation levels. The publics received a promise (which will have to be found to be empty because of math). And what about the impossible to find in private industry job security and much earlier retirement age?

      Reply

    • Posted by summerphan on September 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm

      TL you need to expand your mind and read the above article. The problem is not the pensions but rather the fact that the state did not meet its obligations to pay into the system and conservatives always want to give tax cuts. The negotiated benefits especially in the 80’s and 90’s were what the times allowed. The unions could not negotiate the type of large pay increases that private sector workers were reaping. Thus the state promised and negotiated deferred compensation. The taxpayers received services for lesser cost than the private sector counterparts were charging. Yet the state then decided to give tax cuts (Whitman) rather than pay the pension plan and bills due. This is similar to what was done on the national level by bush et al. Taxpayers received services at the lower than the going rate of the 80’s and 90’s and wanted their taxes lower also so they didn’t pay then and they don’t want to pay now. the benefits and compensation they negotiated then was proper for the times. If you deem it excessive now it is because the right wing conservatives have gotten their way and devastated the middle class so they accept less NOW in compensation. What is owed is owed. The services were performed by workers who have since retired and are now due their cola and pensions just as if you had hired a private sector worker at that time and decided to pay him years later. (which I doubt he would accept like the public worker who had no choice did)

      Reply

      • Two different issues.

        The politicians lied to the taxpayer when these obscene pension and heath insurance benefit plans were enacted or improved for no reason. Remember “free” retiree health insurance for public drones who put in a whole 25 years of service? I don’t recall voting for that one. How about when that bozo DiFrancesco shepherded through a 9% increase in pensions in 2001 for no reason other than the pension funds performed well during the dot com bubble – don’t recall voting for that either. I hope he is enjoying his own largesse. How about the idiot Albio Sires who lowered the State Police vesting period from 30 to 20 years for no reason other than continuing to receive the financial and voting support of the State FOP voting bloc?

        Then they lied to the public drones when they skipped making most payments for 20 years and then left office to enjoy their own pension(s).

        We’re all suckers in this God forsaken State.

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 12, 2015 at 12:43 am

        Summerphan,

        Jump the gun a bit there ? I was not the author of the comment that you apparently “assumed” that I wrote.

        Well, you know what happens when your …. “assume”.

        Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 12, 2015 at 12:40 am

      lukeu,

      I find it quite interesting that you claim the the support that I provide is from what you call …”right wing propaganda” …. but when I scroll down the the bottom of your linked article, it says …”© 2015 Center for American Progress Action Fund ” and further on the right when you click on “supporter” the following “major donators” appear on the list:

      American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME

      Service Employees International Union

      National Public Education Action Fund

      AFL-CIO

      Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees
      —————————————————-

      So is this not “LEFT wing propaganda” ?

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on September 12, 2015 at 1:16 pm

        So maybe if we move to the middle of this left and right BS propaganda we’d get to the real truth?

        Reply

        • The “truth” in Illinois is what is coming to NJ:
          http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/apocalypse-illinois-ious-projected-to.html

          All of the crocodile tears on this blog won’t change fiscal reality.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 12, 2015 at 2:31 pm

            As you said before:

            “Two different issues.”

            Whether or not one agrees that public compensation is excessive, the big difference in Illinois and New Jersey, and others, is skipping payments for decades.

            Clearly “overcompensation” of …..some….. employees may be a factor but …..all….. are not overpaid.

            In “fairness”, only those employees actually “overcompensated” should face cutbacks.

            However, as they say, at this point, math will probably win out over fairness.

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 12, 2015 at 3:14 pm

            The reality of today’s math is a direct result of the right and left wing propaganda BS and you’re right nothing on this or any other blog will change the fiscal truth!!!

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on September 12, 2015 at 1:59 pm

          Right wing propaganda…Left wing propaganda….

          “What difference at this point does it make?”

          Most are just preaching to the choir anyway. The propagandists will almost never change their opinion based on any data or perspective offered by “the other side”.

          What we need, of course, is a little moderation. When I first began reading these blogs, it was because of a SacBee “article” about the “$100,000 club”.

          (Pet peeve:  An “opinion” piece which a paper published in the name of balance is not the same as an article actually researched, written, and verified through secondary sources.)

          As in: …….FORBES SAYS!……..”Hundreds Of California Government Employees Are Paid Over $400,000 A Year”

          Nope, “Forbes” said no such thing. Just another propagandist.

          The $100,000 club was all the rage until, through blogs like these, it became known that these were a very small percentage of pensions. (The new buzzwords are “crowding out” services, we’ll see how that plays out.)

          Likewise the “average pension” of $30,000 a year, plus or minus, is not a real picture of pensions for full career employees. I would prefer that Steve Maviglio, and others, would stop repeating that. And those who still try to say that safety employees have shorter retirements because of shorter life spans should stop claiming that, also.

          As Anonymous says, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

          If public workers CLAIM they are underpaid, they should move to the private sector. If private sector workers CLAIM the public sector makes more, they move to the public sector.

          As Tom West said: “Following that line of reasoning, it’s tautologically impossible to *ever* be ‘screwed on pay’, in either the public or private sector.”

          Reply

          • I don’t necessarily think PS workers are overpaid. For example, I think good teachers are worth a lot of money. My main issues are despite increased longevity PS workers seem to continue to think that they are justified in retiring at 52, 55, 58, 60 AND COLLECTING IMMEDIATELY outrageously generous pensions. I do not even mind them being vested after 30 or 35 years, but YOU DON’T COLLECT UNTIL YOU ARE 65. Also, I would cap the total annual amount that ANYONE could get at somewhere between $60K and $75K. These are reasonable fiscal constraints that a wise Public Sector should consider immediately. Otherwise they lose all private sector sympathy and lose the arithmetic game anyway.

        • Posted by lukeu on September 12, 2015 at 5:27 pm

          Yes, that is why I posted it.

          Reply

      • Posted by lukeu on September 12, 2015 at 5:33 pm

        Yes TL you can call it left wing propaganda if you want to, that is why I posted it. I wanted to show that there are different points of view and that figures provided by AEI should not be taken as definitive because they are deliberately pushing an agenda. The Center for American Progress also has an agenda that is every bit as relevent and worth noting as anything from the AEI. so my point is don’t take the information either provides as completely honest and truthful.

        Reply

  8. Posted by denss dunigan on September 14, 2015 at 5:37 am

    Luken ,you compair pensions to SS is laughable .On the average most people never collect what was put into SS it takes over 18 years to finally collect what was put in by precipitants .We all know public pensioners collect all their 20 plus years worth of contributions within the first two years if not sooner .

    Reply

  9. Posted by lukeu on September 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Denise, no where did I compare social security to anything. My statement was in response to TL basically saying we can’t afford Social security, medicare and medicaid and asking her if she now wanted to end all of those programs.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 14, 2015 at 10:26 pm

      So ….. “we can’t afford Social security, medicare and medicaid” ………… which for at least the first 2, the majority of those that contribute barely get back (on average) their own contributions with VERY modest interest …….but you support Public Sector pensions, where the workers (on average) ROUTINELY get back 5 to 10 times there own contributions (INCLUDING all the investment earnings on those contributions) ?

      Really ?

      Reply

  10. I will retire in January at the age of 53 after working 31 years with the state. I will receive free health benefits and a reasonable pension of $4K per month. After 18 months of pension payments I will have recovered all of my contributions. That sounds reasonable and in line with what private sector employees may expect.

    Reply

    • Posted by lukeu on September 14, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      an obvious fraud. Healthcare is not free to retirees now. and you would have had to have earned an average of $90000 the past three years. there aren’t too many state employees if any retiring with that high an average salary unless you were an Administrator of an agency or school district.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 14, 2015 at 10:34 pm

        Healthcare is indeed “free” to retired police officers with 20 years of service as of 2011.

        $90K annually is WAY low for a long service NJ Police Officer, MOST being around $150K after a few promotions.

        Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 14, 2015 at 10:31 pm

      Actually, for a Police Officer, what you describe is not out of line with reality….. and EXACTLY why (given the insanity/unaffordability of such grossly excessive and hence extremely costly pensions), NJ must freeze the DB pensions of all CURRENT State and Local workers.

      Reply

  11. “an obvious fraud. Healthcare is not free to retirees now.”

    You are an idiot. Yes, it is free for anyone who had 25 years of service as of a certain date. READ (and LEARN)!

    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: