REPORTER: “The head of the police, PBA union in New Jersey has been pretty vocal, as I’m sure you’ve heard in the past couple of weeks…”
CHRISTIE: “Yeah, well listen, Matt…”
REPORTER: “Well let’s just ask why.”
CHRISTIE: “It’s because he’s a pension pig, that’s why. That’s all it’s about and you know that. That’s exactly what it’s all about. He’s a pension pig. That’s what it’s always been about. It’s about feeding at the trough as much as he possibly can. That’s what they’ve always been about. Rank-and-file law enforcement men and women have voted for me in overwhelming numbers in both my elections in New Jersey. And they’ll vote for me again as Governor because they know that in the things that matter the most to them—the things that matter the most to them—that I stand up with them. The fact is, I’ve also been the person who’s tried to repair their pension system for them, as well after years of neglect and mismanagement and broken promises. Right now, the police and fire system in New Jersey, since we made the reforms, are now approaching over 70 percent fully-funded, which would allow them to return to giving themselves cost-of-living adjustments, if that’s what they choose to do. That would not have happened if not for the reforms that we made in 2011. Listen, never be fooled by that union leaders necessarily represent the points of view of their members, and that’s particularly true in New Jersey, when those guys spend more time in Trenton and in the Statehouse than most legislators. The last time that guy strapped on a gun and tried to defend somebody was quite a long time ago. If he wants to be a politician, that’s fine, he’ll be treated like a politician.”
A couple of points:
When I first saw the story I assumed Christie was lashing out at one of those villainized double-dippers (a policy most prevalent in political circles and that I do not see as a main reason for the pension crisis in NJ) but Patrick Colligan is an active police officer making a base salary of $121,066 which makes him not much different from any of those state troopers guarding Christie at taxpayer expense who Christie, by extension, then also called pigs since I doubt that any of those troopers would agree with the arbitrary across-the-board reduction of their pensions especially if they understood how much that reduction would eventually need to be.
Colligan responded:
“The Chris Christie the people in New Hampshire saw today is the same one our members have been dealing with for the past six years. This is a man who has proven time and again he will say and do whatever it takes to claw his way to the next political position. Six years ago, in his first campaign for governor, he sent a letter to rank and file officers throughout New Jersey promising that he would never harm their pensions. That was a lie.
“The sad fact is that Chris Christie has been representing himself as a qualified lawman to the people of New Hampshire when the reality is that he was simply one of the biggest money bundlers for George W. Bush before he was appointed to be U.S. Attorney. Now he thinks that putting together a press event, attacking me and lying again about his broken promises on our pensions will somehow convince police officers across the country that he has their best interests at heart. He does not. Over the past six years, the policies implemented in Trenton have driven thousands of officers to retire, led to hundreds of officers being laid off and left thousands of officers in danger in understaffed and underfunded departments throughout New Jersey.
“Unlike the governor, I was on duty today in New Jersey and, like most days, I was wearing a badge and a gun. Also unlike the governor, I will work a full career, never miss a pension payment, and never fail in my oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and the public. Through his name-calling and lies, Chris Christie showed once again today that he can’t make that same statement.”
The Manchester Union-Leader endorsed Christie based primarily on his experience as a prosecutor (as if you can end terrorism with subpoenas and depositions) and their editorial board’s ignorance of his record in the New Jersey. Hopefully (for the country) this pig’s comment will pique their curiosity.
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Wow! I really can’t believe the “rank-and-file” troopers would agree with him. And about the 70% funded? is that correct?
Posted by burypensions on December 1, 2015 at 1:27 pm
If the NJ Supreme Court sides with Christie COLAs are never coming back since the state does not have the money to fund benefits (even without COLAs) and the mechanism to restore COLAs is nowhere in sight.
70% is possible if you use ludicrous actuarial assumptions (as the state is actually doing) but when it comes to real money going out of the plan they will ‘adjust’ as necessary.
I was looking for video to see how those state troopers reacted to being called pigs, even by extension. For police officers that used to be a pretty hot-button word.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 1, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Gov. Chris Christie got into a verbal sparring match with a retired New Jersey police officer over pensions on NJ 101.5’s Ask the Governor program
“You’re a guy that retired at 58 years old, with a full pension and free medical benefits for life, and you’re coming on the air to complain,” Christie said on the show. “Those benefits are being paid for by the taxpayers of New Jersey. That pension is being paid for by the taxpayers of New Jersey. And you have the gall, the audacity to complain about me doing something that I didn’t do. I haven’t touched your pension, I haven’t touched your benefits.”
Yet.
the gall, the audacity
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 2:45 pm
I sure that retired officer has convinced himself that the taxpayer-funded share of his retirement package “entitles” him to one that’s EASILY 5 TIMES greater in value upon retirement than that of the typical Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.
While there are indeed a “moral” (as well as legal) issues that would come into play if trying to reduce that (already-accrued pension for PAST service) to the MUCH lower level that would be justifiable, there is ZERO (yes ZERO) justification why such reductions are not IMMEDIATELY put in place for the FUTURE Service of all of NJ’s CURRENT (Local and State) workers …… as proposed by the NJ pension Commission.
Posted by Soon to retire Pat on December 1, 2015 at 8:28 pm
I have 19 working days left until I start sucking off the public tit. As a matter of survival, I don’t give a s*it if the taxpayers are stuck for my pension during the (I hope) 40 years or so I may have left. I’ll be just 3 months shy of 54 on December 31, 2015. After working 32 years and banking on the “promises” along the way, damn skippy I am counting on it – every penny.
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 8:34 pm
I wish you a long, healthy, happy retirement ….. but beyond the first 5 years or so, there’s a big question looming about the sustainability of your (definitely grossly excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair, and unaffordable) promised pension & benefits.
Posted by PSDrone on December 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm
You’re just a bit confused if you think there will enough assets for you to glom onto for 40 years. Try about 10, and that is only if you and NJ are lucky which I doubt.
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 10:40 pm
Moron
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 2:36 pm
It’s wrong to call Police officers (or other honest, productive Public Sector workers) anything derogatory, but if you fully understand the true cost of NJ’s rich DB pension Plan promises, and believe that it’s the PRIVATE Sector (NOT the Public Sector) with 85% of the total workforce (where employers freely compete for talent WITHOUT the distorting/corrupting influences rampant in the setting of PUBLIC Sector compensation) that sets “market rate” compensation ………. it’s VERY difficult NOT TO conclude that a total Police Officer compensation package (pay + pensions + benefits) of $200K annually for the typical patrolman (with just the 5-7 years of experience to reach full scale) ….. is patently ludicrous and “grossly excessive”.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 7:20 am
TL where is the outrage when private sector employees outsource to foreign countries to avoid taxes and employee cost? What are your chances of being killed in the line of duty from your desk at your private sector employer. What about dying from smoke inhalation? Your argument is filled with holes.
Posted by denss dunigan on December 2, 2015 at 10:56 am
A police officer is not even on the top 10 most dangerous jobs …..try being a commercial fisherman or roofer ….
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Until you walk in those shoes….. Refrain from dumb comments like this!
Easy to say from your computer.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 3:26 pm
THAT’s amusing ….. YOU asking someone ELSE to refrain from posting “dumb” comments.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Being a cop is really not as dangerous as being a roofer, fisherman, lumberjack, etc….so stuff it
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Anon,
There are many injustices in the world, but we can’t explain-away or justify one, by referring to others. That’s not a solution but a distraction by those (likely you) who want the injustice that they THEY benefit from to continue.
Yes, many of these problems need to be addressed …….. as does VERY materially reducing the grossly excessive future service pension accruals of all CURRENT Public Sector workers.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 1, 2015 at 2:38 pm
“The Federal Government’s Little-Known Pension Heist”
Mary Sanchez Nov. 27, 2015
“Too big to fail” means one thing for banks and another thing for union pension funds.
When banks are on the verge of collapse, Congress bails them out. When union pension funds are in mortal danger, Congress changes the law to let them shaft retirees.”
————————————
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio have introduced companion bills, the Keep Our Pension Promises Act. They would prop up the vulnerable pension funds. Apparently Mary Sanchez, among others, agrees. If they succeed, even partially, in softening the blow to MEP pensioners, can Illinois, New Jersey, et al., be far behind?
“Too big to fail.” ?
_____________________
Mary Sanchez again:
” But when they (union pension funds) do get into trouble, it’s fashionable for some politicians and opinion-page blowhards to blast the misfortune as just deserts. We need to remember that all benefits are compensation. Workers take them in lieu of wages, and to take them back once they have been earned is, well, theft.
Why is it that no one but the retired workers — the only people who have held up their side of the bargain through their years of labor — are being made to suffer the consequences?”
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 3:01 pm
The MEP reductions (given the very REASONABLENESS of the benefit levels) are very disturbing. It’s difficult to justify the still-productive companies participating in such Plans to walk away from there REASONABLE pension obligations.
SMD …..
I would have no problem with Taxpayers guaranteeing PUBLIC Sector pensions UP TO a pension (in BOTH formula AND provisions ….. i.e., no COLAs) no greater than the typical MEP pension……. and I’m quite such that wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime with the TYPICAL PUBLIC Sector pension ASSUREDLY 3x-4x (4x-6x for safety workers) greater in value at retirement than those granted participants in MEP Plans.
Bottom line ……….. the typical MEP plan has about as much in common with the typical Public Sector Plan Plan as a Yugo has to a Rolls-Royce. …. and your attempt to CREATE simpathy with such an absurd analogy is obvious.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 7:47 pm
Failed banks affect more people than your failed pension
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 2:48 pm
If the shoe fits wear it. Look in the mirror Gov, OINK, OINK!
Posted by MJ on December 1, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Not that Christie ever had any, but as soon as the name calling begins he loses all credibility. Cut the double dippers, disability cheats and your own staff as an example of integrity instead of calling police officers “pigs” disgraceful
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm
I agree with your suggestions…….. but given your past comments and seeming understanding of the “big picture” ….. I find it hard to believe that YOU believe that Christie regaining “credibility” would make NJ’s Police Union/Officers move more than insignificantly from their current position of no pension/benefit reductions.
While calling them “pigs” was a very poor choice of words, calling them “insatiably greedy” would not be inaccurate.
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 10:42 pm
calling you moron is always spot on!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 1:28 am
Captain of your high school’s Debating Team ?
Posted by MJ on December 4, 2015 at 11:24 am
TL I meant Christie’s credibility in talking about the pension mess and the significant reforms needed to have a chance at salvaging what’s left. I don’t know where you come up with some of your comments as to what others are trying to say in thier posts.
Posted by Pauline Walnuts on December 1, 2015 at 7:41 pm
2% cap on all raises for public employees. His staff ( the largest staff by far that any governor in NJ ever had) saw an average increase of 23.1% in 2014. The pig phrase will stick. Wait.
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 8:19 pm
2% “raise” ?
How about a 5% annual “reduction” in cash pay until their total annual compensation (cash pay + the incremental “value” of pension & benefit accruals) especially for Safety workers, is no greater than those of Private Sector workers in jobs with reasonably comparable risks and requiring comparable education, experience, knowledge, and skills.
———————————————————
EQUAL ….. but NOT better.
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 9:52 pm
Which version of equal not better, yours or SND’s? Guess it’s a matter of opinion and sociopolitical position of data sources you both reference.
Posted by Anonymous on December 1, 2015 at 10:02 pm
How about you put the uniform on and do the job. Put in the hours, maybe you’ll make it home to your family and friends. Maybe because you have that target on you, you won’t. The pension for Police is because they pay now 10% of their salary for it. Work in the stress daily and see if you survive. The average age of death for a NJ Law Enforcement Officer is 57. Far younger then that of someone in the private sector.
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Quoting Anonymous ………. “The pension for Police is because they pay now 10% of their salary for it. ”
The contributions towards Police Officer pensions in NJ (and just about everywhere else) that come directly from the Police Officer rarely accumulate (WITH anticipated investment earnings) to a sum upon retirement sufficient to buy more than more 10-20% of the ludicrously generous pension that they are promised. I’m sure John can confirm that if he chooses to do so.
The 80-90% balance is the “responsibility” assigned to taxpayers …..even if, so far (in NJ), the taxpayers have (thankfully) been funding only a small share of the incredibly unjust allocation.
——————-
Extremely generous pensions require HUGE contributions to fully fund over the working career of the Officer (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions) ….. often more than a level annual 50%-of-pay. The 10%-of-pay contribution from the Officer is chump change, and the 40%-of-pay balance needed from Taxpayers, when THEY typically get (from their employers) no more than 10% of pay (3%-4% into a 401K Plan plus their employer’s 6.2%-of-pay Social Security contribution on their behalf) amount to an outrageous THEFT of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth.
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 11:32 pm
Quoting Anonymous …… ” The average age of death for a NJ Law Enforcement Officer is 57. Far younger then that of someone in the private sector.”
Glad you posted that stupid thing again ……. it’s be proven so false that even your lying Unions have stopped repeating that BS.
The average life expectancy of retired Safety workers is IDENTICAL (in the early 80s for males) to all other non-safety Public Sector retirees …. per CalPERS former chief actuary Ron Seeling.
One “source” among others ……
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/weblogs/americas-finest/2009/sep/03/if-only-the-rest-of-calpers-were-as-honest-as-its-/
Posted by dentss dunnigan on December 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm
WOW …right to his lying ‘ face !
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 10:54 pm
DD, finally acknowledging TL’s lies?
Posted by M.A.D on December 1, 2015 at 9:51 pm
So true..I am a state worker,dealing with the lies of Christie..
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 11:37 pm
I’m a NJ Taxpayer, dealing with the lies of the politicians, the lies of the Public Sector Unions, and the insatiable greed of all those employed in NJ’s Public Sector.
Posted by Soon to retire Pat on December 1, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Here is the real deal from a real PW. Absolutely, yes! We took the job for the bennies and pensions….absolutely! Duh. Coulda/woulda/shoulda worked on wall street…(long hours, not conducive to family life). I chose public…(low pay…but family, security, etc..). BTW…when I say “low pay” I mean it.. starting salary (i was offered a job) was $50K….state job was $41K). I chose the lesser to ensure my family had a way of life (think of this as an insurance policy).
I spent the last 30+ years working with the idea (promise) I would be contractually compensated. Can the “State” afford it because of “unjust, unequal, unreasonable…etc (TL) promises? Too late!!! I made my bones…Time to man-up and pay the price. The State of New Jersey will not implode if taxes are raised…or corporate welfare is reduced (think… mcoving 100 employees from Marlton to Camedn for $100M over 20 years…big deal)!
Bottom line…Is NJ Better now or before Cristie?
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 11:48 pm
Low pay ?
Yes, perhaps for the first 12 years of your 32 year career, but in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.
But you pension, being based on FINAL (or final-average) salary ignores those lower early year wages in the calculation. There is ZERO justification for Public Sector workers to get ANY greater pensions (or better benefits …. e.g., retiree healthcare) let alone the current structure in which Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 3x-4x (4x-6x for safety workers) greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated Private Sector workers who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.
————————————————————————————
P.S. The only thing that’s “too late”, is salvaging NJ’s Public Sector pensions & benefits.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 12:02 am
“Yes, perhaps for the first 12 years of your 32 year career, but in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”
Deja pooh. That’s like the cops dying at 57 story.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mnpera.org/vertical/Sites/%257BCB6D4845-437C-4F52-969E-51305385F40B%257D/uploads/%257BDBA0E14A-9DD0-49C3-8B6B-B1C3F756F1A2%257D.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwjEmf3ZlrzJAhWXXIgKHfPlB3cQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHycsZdgJ4r_NWi0ezbL_SpfdWSIw&sig2=BzUox42dQLyin7XCNde8fg
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 12:39 am
SMD, Did you miss it from his first comment ? He retiring at age 53/54 with 32 years of service …. sounds like a Safety worker.
He is certainly NOT one of the PHD/”Professional” group emoplyess, SOME of whom are make lower wages than their Private Sector counterparts. If safety, he was likely overpaid in wages alone ……. making his grossly excessive pension & benefits even MORE egregious.
————————–
But …..”nice try”.
Score one for honesty catching some more BS.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 9:09 am
Or for that matter, listening to these moronic protesters yelling and screaming that they want you dead mere inches from your face while you stand fast unable to respond. I have been a police officer for 20+ years. Public opinion has NEVER been worse. I truly believe that much of this hatred (by middle of the road people, certain groups will never like police, both left and right) began in earnest once christie came into office and made us seem like welfare queens after lying to us. Take a true look at the camden county pd(which no other town wants to join) it has the highest attrition rate by far in the state.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 1:21 pm
A good first step would be for the vast majority who are good Officers to report and weed out those that THEY know should not be Police Officers …. instead of looking the other way.
Example ………. that Officer in Chicago that killed that 17 year-old with 16 bullets while he was walking AWAY FROM the Officers, had quite a history of excessive force. He should have been fired years ago.
And what message did it send when that incredible guilty-suggesting video was not released by police until FORCED to do so over a year after the incident ? Does that help promote good community relations and trust ?
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm
I am an accountant, if that makes a difference.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 3:14 pm
If you are a truly knowledgeable one, than you realize that my figures presented and comments about NJ’s pensions are correct (as well as the DIRE need for immediate reform)……….. but I can understand that at this late date, you don’t care, and want “all that you were promised” …. whether fair & reasonable (or not).
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Being an accountant (with a CPA) would make a difference (especially vs NJ’s VASTLY overcompensated Police Officers), many indeed being paid less in “wages” than equally talented Private Sector accountants.
But when factoring your extraordinarily generous pension and benefits, it’s hard to fathom that those FAR FAR greater (than Private Sector) pensions/benefits don’t swing your “Total Compensation” to ABOVE that of the equally talented Private Sector accountant.
P.S. ………… Employment titles (e.g., “Accountant”) are fungible. While I don’t know if you are a CPA, in the Private Sector, without your CPA, most don’t rise to management-level accounting positions.
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 11:57 am
Dear Friend, As an “accountant/CPA”, I knew early on (a) what I was sacrifycing(i.e. wages) by not going into the public domain vs. (b) what I could make on the back end (i.e. via government pensions). It was a no brainer.. I calculated the benefits of both and chose the position I am in today and most certainly, I want those promises kept! Otherwise, my life and those of my family would be entirely different (better or worse, whose to say). And BTW, being a CPA is not as special as you like to infer. It’s a TEST and nobody remembers that stuff years later. lol
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 7:56 pm
Anon,
High Level Professional credentials open doors (otherwise not open). We both know that to be the case.
Backing into your final pay from your $50K annual pension with 32 years of service suggests that your final pay was under $90K. Assuming you were competent and productive, as a CPA you indeed appear to have been underpaid in wages vs CPAs (with 32 years of experience) in the Private Sector, but of course you most definitely worked a LOT fewer hours than they typically do.
What your choice did was essentially force a large share of your annual compensation from “wages” to “pension”. Important for those not inclined to save on their own. While I’m not sure you made the best financial choice by working in the Public Sector, if that’s what made you happy, that the important thing.
—————————————————-
And to SMD, before you say “That’s been my point all along”, Public Sector workers in the “Professional” and PHD categories (per the AEI Study) represent a very small percentage of the total Public Sector workforce. While some members of these 2 groups will be under-compensated, the most (and ESPECIALLY NJ’s Safety workers) are materially OVERCOMPENSATED ….. in fact, by 23%-of-pay in NJ (in total for all non-safety workers combined) vs their Private Sector counterparts.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 4, 2015 at 12:36 am
“That’s been my point all along”
That, and, “Don’t put to much credence in only one study.”
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 12:36 am
In all fairness TL has not purported to reduce the accrued pension benefit earned only future service credit as well as a reduction in health care coverage and increased premium share for all active and retired.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 12:56 am
That’s correct …………
Anyone who thinks that taxpayers should be stuck paying for ADDITIONAL “future” service accruals under such undeniably outrageous pensions and benefits is, as I have mentioned so often ………. “insatiably greedy”.
————————–
And I don’t give a hoot what “they were promised”. Private Sector workers were promised a Rose Garden. They got weeds, and Public Sector workers are not “special” and deserving of a better deal on the Taxpayers’ dime.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 12:50 am
The Wage Structure and the Sorting of Workers into the Public Sector
George J. Borjas
Summary
“This paper documents that the wage distributions in the public and private sectors evolved in different ways in the past four decades. In general terms, the public-private sector pay gap between the typical public sector worker and a comparable private sector worker was relatively constant for men between 1960 and 2000,………….”
” Put differently, as the wage structure in the public sector became relatively more compressed, the public sector found it harder to attract and retain high-skill workers. In short, the substantial widening of wage inequality in the private sector and the relatively more stable wage distribution in the public sector created “magnetic effects” that altered the sorting of workers across sectors, with high-skill workers becoming more likely to end up in the private sector. ”
—————————————————-
Generally speaking it is still true that:
1) Most public workers earn wages below their private sector peers.
2) At the lowest educated/skill levels, total compensation is higher in the public sector.
3) At the highest educated/professional level, public sector workers earn much less than their private sector peers, and the pensions and benefits do not compensate for that difference.
4) This pattern has changed only marginally in the last three decades.
5) Oddly enough, the pattern seems to hold true in most OECD countries. Perhaps it’s just a fluke?
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 1:23 am
More of your distortions, misstatements, and omissions of material facts ….
Yes (per the AEI study quoted here before), for all Private Sector workers vs all “State”/”Non-Safety” Public Sector workers combined, there exists in New Jersey a 4% Private Sector “wage” advantage.
Big woop when :
(a) That 4% NJ PRIVATE Sector wage advantage swings to a 23% PUBLIC Sector “Total Compensation” advantage once not just “wages”, but also the value of Pensions and benefits are included in the comparison.
(b) Had NJ’s MUCH higher-that-average-paid Safety workers been included in the comparison, there likely would have been NO Private Sector “wage” advantage, and the 23% PUBLIC Sector “Total Compensation” advantage would have been considerably higher.
—————————–
Score two for honesty catching some more of your BS.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Yeah? And gues what….. So what??? 4%…23%!!! Should have worked in the public sector to understand TL!! Lower wages now for compensation later!!!
You can teach a monkey to understand this crap!!!
Dozens of years not paying into something and losing the compounded interest along with the principal tends to catch up with ya!!! Time to pay the piper! Not their fault the state neglected to pay. Not their fault they chose to begin a career in the public sector. But they did!!! So, pay these people their money!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 8:05 pm
Still with the reading comprehension problems ?
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 8:08 pm
Not gonna happen–nutcase
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 3:45 am
“Yes, perhaps for the first 12 years of your 32 year career, but in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”
Demonstrably untrue. Wages have not caught up with the private sector.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 4:03 am
Quoting SMD …. “Wages have not caught up with the private sector.”
They sure have in NJ if you don’t distort the comparison by omitting (as does the AEI Study) the HIGHEST paid (by far) group of Public Sector workers …. Police Officers.
————————————–
Score three for honesty catching some more of your BS.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 3:57 am
And public workers do not actually retire 10 to 15 years sooner than their private sector counterparts.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 4:04 am
Police sure do.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 11:12 am
Do you think it’s practical, safe or prudent to have a public sector safety workforce tasked with the protection of life and property, working into their 60’s??……70’s???
You do realize that it is a young mans job that requires physical fitness and stamina?
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 12:47 pm
“Everyone in the State Police must retire by age 55 except the Superintendent.”
State police website.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Correct.
All other public sector safety workers must retire by 65. Which is old, considering the demands of the job. So, while they can retire a bit younger, they are usually ready to go, after years of physical and emotional stress.
I know that many idiots here post articles about how they are/are not on some friggin top 10 list of dangerous jobs, probably authored by some couch potato themselves. The facts are-
The job is demanding, stressful and damaging to the human body. While people on here talk sh*t about it…. Few have done it. So their opinion means nothing. It all stems from jealousy and simply not knowing what they are talking about.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Actually The Resident Nutcase, the “author” of the lists of the Country’s most dangerous occupations is more often than not the US Government Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Doesn’t fit with your agenda ?
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Decisions as to retirement age cannot be divorced from the TRUE cost of providing a pension, the FULL (unreduced) amount of which can be collected starting at a MUCH younger-than-typical retirement age.
All other things (pension formulas and all other provisions …. such as the existence, or not, of COLA increases) being held equal, the COST of allowing someone to begin collecting a pension at age 55 (vs 65) just about DOUBLES the cost of the pension. When we add to that DOUBLING, Police pension formula-factors that are TYPICALLY 50% to 100% (as they are in CA) greater than those lucky few still getting DB pension in the Private Sector, and then COLA-increase the pension (a provision extraordinarily rare in Private Sector pensions), it’s not hard to see how Public Sector safety pensions have a “value at retirement” over 5 TIMES that of the Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service …. as I have demonstrated on this Blog before.
Such extremely generous pensions are simply unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers (called upon to pay for all but the VERY small share actually paid for by the Officer’s own contributions …. even when they are 10%-of-pay), and clearly unaffordable.
———————————————————-
Most Officers over age 50 have been promoted to higher positions (and many that haven’t likely should have been terminated as non-effective, or having “issues”) with a far lower likelihood ..”chasing the 20-year-old criminal” and function in training and supervisory rolls.
I believe this purported NEED to retire at 55 is way overblown and just one more element of the REAL goal of extracting the richest possible pension out of the Taxpayers at the youngest possible age.
I call that “insatiable greed”.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm
And at the very end of the day….. What do you care??? If they are so definitely on their way to a pension collapse…. And it will all be gone!,… What do you care?? Why spend countless hours posting on this and many, many other forums when it’s going to collapse anyway??? Let the greedy suffer no??
I KNOW why!! Lol. It’s because deep inside you know these people will get paid their pensions and you KNOW it’s unavoidable. Taxes going up. Pay these people their money!!!!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 3:10 pm
I care because until (not IF) the collapse comes, more of each current (grossly excessive) worker’s potential pension moves from the FUTURE Service column to the PAST service column, which “may” be harder to disavow.
Or worse …. where we (the Taxpayers) are somehow force to pay for these grossly excessive promises on a pay-as-you-go basis after the Plans’ collapse.
The promised pensions (and benefits) are absurd and unaffordable and must end for the future service of all CURRENT workers.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 11:42 am
And rightfully so. Usually the ones who stay a long time have advanced through the ranks and are no longer responding to domestic violence calls, arresting dui suspects, bar fights, etc. Many, but not all, of the ones still “working the road” i.e. responding to calls, usually do pack it in after 25 to 30 years. Is a 65 yr old really who you want rolling up on 3 or 4 gang bangers and in a position where he has to arrest a man 40 yrs his junior who is in peak physical condition and does not want to cooperate? I see nothing wrong with encouraging these guys to retire. They would have been promoted already if it was going tk happen and the are for the most part set in there ways and in most cases should be put out to pasture.
The thing that is always missing from TL and her equal but not better mantra is what is her version of equal. The average salary in nj? Average cop salary in US? The hard numbers. Never come out in her posts. Because she feels the number should be way lower, but can’t quantify a response other than, taxpayers, blah blah blah that objectively justifies this.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 12:17 pm
That’s because it’s so clearly evident that her and the minions who follow her logic are nothing more than a bunch of lazy, jealous losers! Instead of bringing themselves and others up…..they’d rather bring everyone down. That’s not fair and equal…… That’s everybody wins and gets a trophy “mentality”. They are the true reason for the demise of this country as we slide deeper and deeper into the laughing stock of the world. We are systematically breeding out competition and the desire to excel!! We now breed people who instead of achieving, they lazily cry moan and protest…. Thus getting their way. Spoiled babies!!!!
Until these idiots can show me what private sector career is equal to a the public sector safety workers….their equal and fair mantra is nothing more than THEIR jealous greed!!!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:04 pm
You are entitled to your opinion ….. even if it makes little sense.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 2:20 pm
You and I both know…..you agree with much of what I say. You’ve just traveled so far down the rabbit hole, at the cost of your sanity and pride, that you can’t return. You know you’re numbers are skewed, you know deep inside you’re jealous, you know that in a practical sense…. These workers got screwed!!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
——————————–
Upton Sinclair
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Quoting …. ” They would have been promoted already if it was going tk happen and the are for the most part set in there ways and in most cases should be put out to pasture.”
I’m glad you posted that point ……
You see, such workers are (in the Private Sector) generally known to be ineffective or have “issues”, and usually get TERMINATED when the the next round of layoff inevitably comes.
That’s one of the biggest “problems” that contributes to the high cost of supporting Public Services …. we are WAY too willing to keep employed those that rightfully SHOULD BE terminated. Our taxes should NOT be used to employ (or KEEP employed) those who don’t earn their keep.
Posted by PSDrone on December 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm
That’s funny; “Pat” is retiring (and collecting benefits) at the ripe old age of 54. Is that or is that not 12 years before the “full” retirement age of SS?
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 4, 2015 at 12:40 am
According to Gallup, the average retirement age for the last decade has been sixty.
Posted by Tough Love on December 4, 2015 at 12:14 pm
If true for the Private Sector (which I extremely doubt), what percentage of those Private Sector workers are counted as “retirees” (thereby distorting that statistic) because they were let go and want to but cannot find employment in their 50 and 60s …… noting comparable that termination of Public Sector employees, even when rightfully justified due to incompetence, ineffectiveness, or simply being lazy, is near impossible or simply deemed “not worth the aggravation”, such financial “waste” in Gov’t seeming so unconcerning to our elected officials . After, it not THEIR money, it’s only the Taxpayers’ money.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 6, 2015 at 9:51 pm
I wonder? It’s true, statistics and data may be interpreted several ways, but retirement age being consistent (60) for a decade sort of rules out recession and lost jobs being a big factor. In the 90s, it was 59 or less. It is increasing now to about 62.
And who is a public employee? Pat said he isn’t really retiring, just leaving the public sector. When he does retire “x” years from now, he will be retiring from the private sector. “Inactive” employees were brought up in John’s next article. CalPERS has 300,000 members who worked long enough to vest and are now “private” sector workers. (Although some may be in other public non CalPERS positions.)
When these people reach age 50, they are eligible to begin drawing a pension; at 1% times years of service, with no healthcare. Even though they may “retire” from their private sector job at 60 or older. Sometimes it’s hard to tell public from private without a scorecard.
I guess it would be redundant to post my Pogo cartoon again:
“We have met the enemy etc. etc.”
Posted by PSDrone on December 4, 2015 at 8:20 pm
The average must have been brought down by all those cops and firemen retiring at 46, 48, 50, 52, on and on ad nauseum.
Posted by Pat on December 7, 2015 at 12:47 pm
>PSDrone…
Yes, I am “retiring” (from THIS job) at the ripe old age of 54. And yes, full SS benefits can be collected at 67-years-old (But I will take the penalty and collect at 65). In the 11 years between 54 and 65, I will work (and pay taxes) and spend down my savings – All part of the master plan!
Why is that scenarios anathema to you? 32 years at the same job is a long time. Would you prefer I stay here another 13 years and “retire” at 67 with 45 years on the same job? Be reasonable!
Posted by Tough Love on December 7, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Quoting ……. “Why is that scenarios anathema to you? 32 years at the same job is a long time. ”
Because, if you had had the same job in the PRIVATE Sector your pension would have:
(a) a “formula benefit” (dollar monthly payout calculation) assuredly no more than 2/3 of yours
(b) if you retired at 54 your Dollar Monthly pension already lower per (a) above, would be reduced by ANOTHER 50% as the early retirement adjustment
(c) your pension would never have had a COLA provision, so you would not be praying for the Courts to reinstate it.
And …….
It would be EXTREMELY unlikely you would be getting ANY retiree healthcare subsidy (beyond perhaps a VERY small amount contributed into a retiree HSA over the past 5 years or so).
By any and every reasonable metric, Public Sector pensions and benefits are grossly excessive, unnecessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce, unjust, unfair to taxpayers responsible for all but the 10-20% of total Plan cost typically paid for by the worker, are clearly unaffordable ….. and amount to nothing but an outrageous theft of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth.
————————————————-
That said, while you (as a Public Sector worker) should never have been promised a greater pension or better benefits, IF your wages were indeed lower that an identically situated (in education, experience, knowledgeable, skills, work ethic, and hours worker) Private Sector counterpart, then your wages should have been equal to that of that Private Sector worker.
EQUAL, but NOT better.
Posted by Anonymous on December 7, 2015 at 4:20 pm
So then the P&B Commission needs to address any compensation disparity?
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 7, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Oh Em Gee!!!
This ain’t just an echo chamber, this is a whole nother level.
Remember the Vox Wah Wah? (They’re bringing if back.)
What happens if you take a normal internet rant, and run it through the Vox box, then pass it through a reverberator?
The Tough Love squawk box should be patented. (Copy/paste and CAPS LOCK software optional.)
Quoting TL: “IF your wages were indeed lower that an identically situated (in education, experience, knowledgeable, skills, work ethic, and hours worker) Private Sector counterpart, then your wages should have been equal to that of that Private Sector worker.”
IF my grandmother had wheels, I’d be a Ford. You never did really read the AEI study, did you? You locked in on figure 6 and never looked back.
Had you read the study thoroughly you might have a better grasp on the difficulty, or, as Moderation says, the impossibility, of even defining “EQUAL”, let alone “but NOT better.” There is a wide range of salary/benefit protocols for what is referred to as “accountant” in the private sector, even if you could find a rough average there, there is no reason to believe Pat’s compensation should not be higher or lower, depending on his/her level of responsibility and experience in the public sector job.
Who is to say his benefits should have been lower and his wages higher? It’s a matter of choice, like a private sector worker choosing to go with a larger firm for more stability, or a smaller, growing firm for a better chance of advancement and ultimately higher pay.
In general terms, according to Biggs, Pat’s compensation (total) was in the ballpark. His choice. Vive la différence.
Posted by Tough Love on December 7, 2015 at 6:11 pm
SMD ……………… you proved it yet again:
You’re an ass.
Posted by Anonymous on December 7, 2015 at 6:53 pm
TL, now your comments have become rude and meaningless. Fair and equal indeed!!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm
If you say so Anon, BH, The Resident Nutcase …. or whomever you are today.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 7, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Posted by Tough Love on December 1, 2015 at 2:36 pm
It’s wrong to call Police officers (or other honest, productive Public Sector workers) anything derogatory, ….,.
Posted by Tough Love on December 7, 2015 at 10:59 pm
SMD, Yes, In the context of their “work”………..
When commenting outside of “work”, as is done on the this Blog, when you comment like as ass to me … I’ll tell you so.
And YOU …. are an ass, a VERY greedy ass.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 7:32 am
According to Gallup, the average retirement age for the last decade has been sixty. The average retirement age for non safety public workers is sixty. Do police retire routinely at fourty five? On average, do they retire at fifty? Or is it closer to fifty five?
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm
Let’s assume for discussion purposes that the average non-safety Public Sector worker and Private Sector worker retirement age is indeed 60.
Ignoring the VERY BIG deal that few Private Sector workers actually get DB pensions (so the comparison is actually far WORSE for the vast majority of Private Sector workers), the Public Sector worker’s pension is very likely UNREDUCED at age 60 while the Private Sector worker retiring at age 60 will get a (65-60) x 5% = 25% reduction in their pension from retiring earlier than their “Normal Retirement Age” (typically 65).
If the “formula-pension” is say $60K annually, the Public Sector worker gets $60K and the Private Sector workers gets $60K x 0.75 = $45K …… ASSUMING the Private Sector workers’ pension is as rich as the Public Sector worker’s pensions …. more on that towards the end.
But is even BETTER for the PUBLIC Sector worker. Public Sector pensions are almost always COLA-increased* while Private Sector pensions are almost never COLA-increased. Adding a COLA-increase provision (to an otherwise identical Plan w/o COLA) increases it’s value (to someone retiring at age 60) by about 25%. So the $60K COLA-increased Public Sector pension is EQUIVALENT in “value” to an identical non-COLA-increased pension of $60K x 1.25 = $75K annually.
So, putting the 2 pensions on an APPLES-TO-APPLES basis with respect to COLA and the early retirement adjustment (when making the SAME pay, retiring at the SAME age, and having the SAME years of service), the Public Sector works pension is $75K vs the Private Sector worker’s $45k or 1.67 times that of the Private Sector worker.
Now long-time readers might wonder why it’s not even higher, since I have (in earlier demonstrations come up with higher multiples …. about 2-3 times greater for non-safety workers). That’s because in THIS work-up I haven’t factored in that the underlying pension formula-factor (in non-safety Public Sector Plans) is typically about 50% greater than the formula-factor in Private Sector DB Plans.
Adding that in as well, and the above 1.66 times greater becomes 1.66 x 1.5 = 2.49 times, quite consistent with my earlier demonstrations.
Why is this HUGE Public Sector pension ADVANTAGE even remotely justifiable or acceptable ….. when arguably their is (especially in NJ) very little (if any once Safety workers are included) overall (for all occupation combined) Private Sector Cash Pay advantage? And let’s not forget that many of NJ’s full-career career Public Sector workers gets free or heavily subsidized retiree healthcare while employer-sponsored Private Sector retiree healthcare is extremely rare today, a Public Sector worker benefit that for pre-Medicare family coverage often costs taxpayers over $25K annually.
* COLAs are now suspended in NJ
——————————————————–
SMD, you can distract, mislead, and BS a lot of the readers here …. but not me.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 6:34 pm
Please try to cut down on the length of your posts TL….. I literally ignore the long ones because I’ve read it a million times. Short answers go over better.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Given you obvious reading-comprehension problems, I’m surprised that apparently, you learned to read and write.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 7, 2015 at 7:19 pm
LOL!!!
Given you obvious writing problems……..
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 7, 2015 at 10:48 pm
“Let’s assume….”
That Pat retires at 60, and some random private sector accountant/CPA also retires at 60. Pat gets a decent pension and retiree healthcare. The private sector accountant gets a 3% match on his 401(k). Dang, that ain’t fair!!!
Except, for the last 32 years, the private accountant has been making 22% a year more than Pat. (“starting salary (i was offered a job) was $50K….state job was $41K”)
“Roughly equal total compensation” in the middle income groups. Public sector total compensation advantage in the lower educated levels. Public sector disadvantage in the higher educated levels. Everybody who is anybody agrees. Except about where that break even point is where compensation is “roughly equal”.
“and the above 1.66 times greater becomes 1.66 x 1.5 = 2.49 times, quite consistent with my earlier “…….gibberish. Still.
GIGO
If Pat today is making $86k and a “roughly equal” private sector accountant is making $105k (22% more) let’s assume one chose lower pay now in exchange for retirement security and the other chose higher pay now, either so he could consume more now or so he could invest that additional $19k wages for his own secure retirement. It’s not a “HUGE Public Sector pension ADVANTAGE”, it’s a choice.
Why is that scenario anathema to you?
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 8:41 am
Quoted by Christie,” Right now, the police and fire system in New Jersey, since we made the reforms, are now approaching over 70 percent fully-funded, which would allow them to return to giving themselves cost-of-living adjustments, if that’s what they choose to do. That would not have happened if not for the reforms that we made in 2011″.
The guy doesn’t even know his own law….
Chapter 78…..
* Chapter 78 provides for the establishment of Pension Committees which may consider reinstating the COLA when the retirement system reaches a “target funded ratio” established by the law. At that time, the Pension Committees are to give the reactivation of the COLA priority consideration. “Target funded ratio” means a ratio of the value of assets against the accrued liabilities of 75% and increasing annually by equal increments over seven fiscal years to a ratio of 80%.
Friggin liar!! Plane and simple!! And will say and do anything for votes. He’s our governor calling a cop a pig??!! Such a bully and a loser. What a shame.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:46 pm
WOW, thank goodness it’s not that ridiculously LOW 70%, and hopefully, now that the new (more conservative) GASB accounting standards are in place, the funding ratio for this determination must be calculated on THAT basis, and NOT the phony (very liberal basis) that has been in place for decades.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Thank goodness is right. You’re taxes will increase in step
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Reading comprehension problem ?
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 6:35 pm
It’s called sarcasm…….dolt!
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 11:33 am
To hear Christie pretty much defend the local pension funds…. Is another reason why I advocate for a clear separation of the local vs. state pensions. It’s clear when even the governor says the local plans are doing well, some of you people should follow the same mindset.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 12:24 pm
Guess that includes State Police & Judicial pension funds, right?
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 12:25 pm
That’s right Locals stand with your State brothers – LOL!
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 1:12 pm
Why should they???
The people in the state plans have never paid as much as the local members!!!! This is why the local plans are in far better shape.
lets put it out there…..as TL would say…… Fair and square!!!!
And…. They were forced to increase from 8.5 to 10% with the lie that it would go into their pensions!!!!!
Not only do the locals pay the most….. The 1.5% NEVER made it into the pensions!!!!!
And you want everyone to hold hands and sing happy songs???
Lol!!! Sorry to rain on your parade!!
It’s going to ultimately become not only private vs. public. But public vs. state!!! These are the facts…. And the facts are indisputable.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Playing right into his hands, again. Guess we’ll never learn. Clearly the Gov won election the first time with teacher and police support because you all believed him when he said yours was sacred – LOL. Second time around not sure but the Dems put up a sacrafical lamb to run against him. Bottom line if, out of fear, we allow to be divided (for whatever reason, justified or not) defeat is ours for the taking. Strength in numbers, solidarity – yeah right good luck with that based on your comments.
TL’s march to victory at your devise hands, congratulations!
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 2:16 pm
Sorry Anon. I disagree. TL is looking to take a broad stroke and bring everyone down simply because she feels we should all be equal.
I’m not the one dividing and conquering. But I’m also not stupid. We all saw how the NJEA was doing back door deals. They got caught red handed creating a roadmap to pension reform. They had no problem throwing the healthier pensions under the bus. They took the anchor from their sinking ship and threw it into the local plans healthy ship. In order to shore them up. Panic mode!!!!!
I’m all for sticking together….. But I fear the state unions have shown their hand and are noe out there in the breeze……alone. So sorry. Should have thought of that before they stabbed others in the back!!!!
Sounds like you…anon….are a state worker who knows not what your executive board does behind your back. I suggest you get involved. Get informed.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Too late, I’m riding the gravy train eating oranges – and loving it!
And I agree about the NJEA but I’m not sure IRS regs will allow PERS, which is one pension system, to have different guidelines for State and Local. I understand you are speaking to P&FRS but I’m inclined to think the brush stoke will strike the canvas equally in proportion to the current P&B, similar to P.L. 2011, c.78.
We’ll agree to disagree, especially with TL and certainly time will prove to be everyone’s proof of life – as far as our P&B.
Best of luck with your fight, no ill will here!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:49 pm
So much for throwing your “brothers” …Under the Bus.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Quoting The Resident Nutcase ….. “Sorry Anon. I disagree. TL is looking to take a broad stroke and bring everyone down simply because she feels we should all be equal.”
What a distorted view of the reality………
By any and every reasonable metric Public Sector pensions and benefits are grossly excessive, the cost of which is 80-90% the responsibility of Taxpayers who typically get retirement pension/benefits of 1/4-1/3 the “value” (factoring in BOTH the MUCH rich richer Public Sector “formulas” AND the MUCH more generous “provisions”) of those granted Public Sector workers.
Fixing that by ELIMINATING the unjust, unfair, and unaffordable excess is not “bringing you down” in any way other than what is eminently fair and appropriate.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 1:13 pm
The judges pulled themselves out of this mess looooong ago. Guess you’re not up to date. I’m sure someone will educate you about how the judges aren’t affected by this crap. They won a lawsuit “wink wink”
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Please educate me, the only recent lawsuit I’m aware of is the requiring them to actually finally contribute to their pension (PL 2011, c. 78). Case was never heard as a referendum was quickly put to a vote and passed easily!
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 1:33 pm
John,
Is this comment remotely accurate regarding the JRS not being effected by any of the funding issues or P&B reforms?
Posted by burypensions on December 2, 2015 at 1:39 pm
The judges did not want to pay the additional employee contributions so they went to court and the judges agreed with them so a constitutional amendment was passed and they now have to. Some of the story here:
http://njtoday.net/2012/07/26/senate-panel-advances-constitutional-amendment-effort-for-judicial-pension-reform/
That’s about it. JRS is probably the worst funded plan since the state is responsible for contributions and the judges own contributions are very low in comparison to the enhanced benefits they are getting.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 4:46 pm
John not to belabor the JRS situation but you mentioned judges (plural) ruled in their favor did it ever go to the NJSC prior to the constitutional amendment.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm
Sorry just read the article link, question answered – talk about bigotry!
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 4:51 pm
In all honesty shouldn’t the NJSC recuse themselves from any future rulings due to a conflict of interest?
Posted by burypensions on December 2, 2015 at 5:13 pm
You would think but the rationale they used is that there was nobody else to hear it though not sure why they could not have gone to federal court (or even another state).
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Letting the Federal Court decide might not have resulted in their desired outcome …. not paying the higher pension contribution rates.
I’d bet they were surprised out how quickly NJ’s citizenry fixed that problem via constitutional amendment …. forcing the higher contribution rates upon them.
———————————
If NJ’s citizenry ever get a chance to VOTE on ending NJ’s DB Plans for it’s Public Sector workers (including the FUTURE Service of all CURRENT workers), the voter-turnout would be far greater than any other …. and voters would overwhelmingly vote for such termination ….. as they have done OVERWHELMINGLY when they were given that chance in a few California Cities.
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 6:50 pm
Wrong again TL!!!
If we do the math….
Let’s use 20% voter turnout. Seems reasonable.
Nj population of about 9 million.
There’s about 600,000 people on Nj payroll. (Publics)
20% of 9 mill is 1.8 million.
That’s how many will vote!!! Let’s round up TL…..
So 2 million people will show up. Now let’s say you stir up a frenzy. And you and the 3 other dolts who follow your logic get another million people to vote.
That’s a whopping 3 million voters. Probably the most ever in NJ.
If the 600,000 publics get 3 people to vote their way, family, friends,….
That’s 1.8 million alone!!!
Let’s add in the retirees who still reside in nj,……… You honestly think you stand a chance with a ballot questions????
Let’s not forget……. Not everyone agrees with you TL. There is a big chunk of private sector taxpayers who will always support the public workers!!
You’re beat!! No chance!!
Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 2, 2015 at 6:52 pm
And don’t blast me….. Could be wrong with numbers. Going off the top of my head. But the premise is the same. You ain’t getting more than 20-25% of the people to vote!
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 7:19 pm
The Resident Nutcase,
Of course all Public Sector workers and their immediate families would vote in their own self-interest …. but I believe few other would.
Your “friends” will suggest otherwise to avoid confrontation, but in most cases they recognize the very obvious inequity, are fed-up with the Public Sector greed and “advantage”, and would vote to end it in a heart-beat given the chance ……. just as the voters did in Several California Cities.
Posted by Anonymous on December 2, 2015 at 1:52 pm
So are you educated now ANNON – thanks John.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Dang, more math.
“Adding that in as well, and the above 1.66 times greater becomes 1.66 x 1.5 = 2.49 times, quite consistent with my earlier demonstrations.”
Irrelevance to two decimal places. Totally consistent with all prior gibberish.
Would but that I had a nickel for every time I heard or read that public workers retire “10 to 15 years” earlier than the private sector. They don’t, plain and simple.
It is a given that public sector workers have better pensions generally than the private sector. Also widely recognized that public workers at all levels have lower wages. It’s still called deferred compensation.
No need for GIGO to two decimal places.
“10 to 15 years” is just buzzwords designed to arouse hostility.
TL “you can distract, mislead, and BS a lot of the readers here …. but not me.”
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm
SMD,
I’ve put enough details and demonstrations out their for the readers to decide who is the BS-artist you or I.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm
And you’re still committed to the “10 to 15 years”?
Sure, let the readers decide. They will anyway, with or without your permission.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 5:43 pm
I believe I said that for Police. Yes I believe it to be true …. and I certainly do NOT believe that the average Private Sector worker fully retires today at age 60……. not by a long shot.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm
SMD,
I haven’t missed that you’re harping on that single point … likely trying to make the readers give less thought to the myriad of OTHER very valid points that I have brought up in numerous comments above.
Nice try.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 6:29 pm
“10 to 15 years”, Love, you brought it up. I called BS, now you want to talk about “myriad other points”?
The average policeman retires at 55. I have seen various slightly different data for average retirement age, but age 70 (that is 55 plus 15) is not even in the ballpark.
How about “but in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”?
Is that one of your myriad other points?
Cuz, I call BS on that one also.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 7:07 pm
10-15 year …. Hello ? Gee, I always thought that 65-55 =10 is within the 10-15 range.
———————-
STILL trying to shift the readers’ attention to that tiny little item just to distract the readers form the MUCH broader problem:
(1) Public Sector pensions ROUTINELY 3+ (5+ for Safety workers) times greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated Private Sector workers
(2) Actual contributions from the workers that together WITH investment income rarely accumulate to a sum sufficient at retirement to buy more than 10-20% of their ludicrously generous pensions ….. with the 80-90% balance being a responsibility foisted upon the beleaguered and betrayed Taxpayers
(3) Little difference in “wages” in NJ as a basis to even remotely justify either (1) or (2) above
(4) And for full-career workers, Taxpayer-funded FREE or heavily subsidized retiree healthcare (often costing Taxpayers $25+K annually for pre-Medicare Family coverage ….. an extraordinarily rare benefit in the Private Sector today
——————————-
This Blogs readers aren’t fools. They know that you are a charlatan.
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 11:16 am
Again TL. As we saw in the yes terrorist attack in so cal, we don’t want men and women in their 60s being the norm or even the rarity responding to incidents of this nature. Would u feel safer if God forbid you were in that county center knowing you may have saved a few bucks on pensions? Same deal w the military surplus equipment. That couple had vests, ied devices etc. Why would we not want leo responding to have gree surplus military equip at their disposal.
As far as firing cops for becoming unproductive as they get older, who makes that call? The political dick whosee buddy needs a job? Or the one whose cousin got a ticket from a particular officer? Happens every single day in public jobs with no protection. A la david wildstien and his ilk. Lawsuits would abound due to politicians firing cops/teachers when they hit top of the pay scale. I’m all for getting rid of pos that abuse public trust. Badge or not. But I do not trust politicians to have care Blanche w personnel decisions. This is the reason civil service came about. Believe me, I work in a small town and see the turn over after an election in jobs like rec director, code enforcement, etc. Often with pay increase for new job titles like Web site maintrnance (10k a year) just a place to park their buddies asses on the public dime. No thanks I’ll pass on having that extend to police.
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 7:26 pm
Anon, Did you miss the point?
We (the Taxpayers) cannot afford such pensions … 5+ times greater in value at retirement than those of Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.
Such pensions ….. as well as the FREE healthcare which sucks another $250+K out of the Taxpayers’ pockets ….. are not necessary (to attract and retain a qualified workforce), not just, not fair (to Taxpayers, called upon to pay for all but the tiny share of the total cost actually paid for by the workers), and CLEARLY not affordable.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 10:05 pm
I hope you have chiropractic insurance. The way you’re twisting around is bound to leave lasting damage, Love. Now you’re comparing the age at which safety workers actually retire, to the age the private sector “might” retire? Okay, that’s a stretch, and that is on the short side of your claim. Where do the “15 years” come in?
This is very clear, and I believe I saw an ING study confirming this:
“The average age retired Americans report actually retiring has always been lower than nonretirees’ expected age of retirement, and is 60 in this year’s survey, matching the average generally found since 2004. Prior to that, the average reported age of retirement was always below age 60.”
Gallup, April 9, 2015
I will repeat, then no more harping. The average public sector worker retires at about 60. The average private sector worker retires at about 60. The average police officer retires at about about age 55.
“10 to 15 years early” is just a lie.
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 10:51 pm
SMD,
Let me make it VERY clear to you, I don’t really give a crap if the difference in average retirement age (examined separately for non-Safety and for Safety workers) between Public and Private Sector workers is 5, 10, or 15 years.
Any difference between what you & I believe is a MINOR element of extraordinary value of the total retirement package granted NJ’s Public Sector workers …… which, via near-equal “cash pay” but FAR FAR greater pension & benefits is nothing but a financial “mugging” NJ’s Private Sector taxpayers.
—————————
And again, so that you aren’t successful in your efforts to distract the readers with minutia, I’ll repeat the IMPORTANT things that Mr. Bury’s readers need to keep in mind:
(1) Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 3+ (5+ for Safety workers) times greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated Private Sector workers
(2) Actual contributions from Public Sector workers (together WITH investment income thereon) rarely accumulate to a sum sufficient at retirement to buy more than 10-20% of their ludicrously generous pensions ….. with the 80-90% balance being a responsibility foisted upon the beleaguered and betrayed Taxpayers
(3) Little difference in “wages” exists in NJ as a basis to even remotely justify either (1) or (2) above
(4) And for full-career Public Sector workers, Taxpayer-funded FREE or heavily subsidized retiree healthcare (often costing Taxpayers $25+K annually for pre-Medicare Family coverage) ….. an extraordinarily rare benefit in the Private Sector today
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Perhaps… Let’s look at a real case scenario. I have been in public service for about 30+ years. My pension “contributions” are about $70K and I will retire in January with about $4000 per month. After less than 2 years I will have received all of my contributions back. The rest is gravy. Plus free healthcare until I’m lucky enough to receive Medicare. That $50K a year is equivalent to having $1M in the bank at 5% interest (good luck finding that – more like $2M at 2%). So, yes. I would say I am very fortunate to have chosen this career path.
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Anonymous,
Thanks for the details of your retirement package. It proves my point about how small a share of the total cost of your promised pension comes from your own contributions.
If investment earnings were added to the dollar amount of your own contributions, those contribution would likely have grown to between $200K and $250K (via a quick spreadsheet calc) at the time of your retirement …….. very consistent with my claim that Public Sector workers’ own contribution (WITH investment earnings thereon) rarely accumulate to a sum at retirement sufficient to buy more than 10-20% of their extraordinarily generous pension.
Enjoy your retirement ….. seriously, best wishes.
——————————————–
So tell me SMD, is this ‘GIGO’ too, or are you indeed a charlatan ?
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Posted by Tough Love on December 2, 2015 at 12:39 am
“SMD, Did you miss it from his first comment ? He retiring at age 53/54 with 32 years of service …. sounds like a Safety worker. ”
“If safety, he was likely overpaid in wages alone ……. making his grossly excessive pension & benefits even MORE egregious.”
———————————
You know what happens when you “assume”.
_____________________
Nationwide, according to AEI, “Total compensation for bachelor’s degree holders is about even with private sector levels.”
We know this will be somewhat different in states such as NJ, CA, ILL, etc. but Biggs did not break down the education/compensation levels state by state, and the data correlation is not exact anyway. But according to Biggs and Richwine, if “Soon to retire Pat”, AKA “Anonymous at 12:07 pm” has a job requiring a BA or higher, his total compensation will be “about even with private sector levels.”
Given the information : age 54, 32 years service, $4,000 month pension, non safety employee, it is clear Pat is not one of our overpaid janitors, far from it.
Given his income level, he would probably fall into the category of total compensation less than or about equal to a similar private-sector worker.
As he stated (or she?, sorry Pat) Pat earns less in wages but has a much better pension than a similarly qualified private sector employee. And, according to AEI, has total compensation “about even with private sector levels.”
And what do we call that?
Yes, Bueller, deferred compensation.
Ergo, no matter how small or large ….you…. consider Pat’s own contribution (WITH investment earnings thereon), Biggs has calculated that, even with pensions and retiree healthcare discounted at the risk free rate, Pat is roughly equal to a similar private-sector worker.
Short answer, yes, GIGO (to two decimal places)
And on this we can agree: to Pat, Enjoy your retirement, best wishes.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 7:54 pm
If on further investigation, we find that Pat is actually a CPA, it might mean he is seriously UNDER compensated. We may need to yank the healthcare from a couple of overpaid janitors to bring Pat up to par.
Got a problem with EQUAL?
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 8:14 pm
SMD, Ok, “yank” away. Blue collar (i.e., janitors) Public Sector workers are entitled to no more in total compensation than their Private Sector counterparts.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 8:37 pm
You yank. I have no problem with their compensation.
Cops and (now) janitors are your obsession.
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Putting aside Police who are even MORE overcompensated (via the MOST generous, and hence MOST costly pensions), per the AEI Study discussed here many times before, if we take ALL of NJ’s Non-Safety State workers and compare them to all COMPARABLE NJ Private Sector workers, the Public Sector group is OVERCOMPENSATED by 23%-of-pay.
Dear Taxpayers …… think about how much better YOUR retirement would be if YOU had an extra 23%-of-pay (tax deferred) to save and invest every year until YOU retired …… and extra $500K, $1 Million, $1.5 Million ?
————————————–
SMD …. you’re a greedy “ass”.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 10:06 pm
Well, now you’re just getting rude!!!
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 10:08 pm
SMD …. You’re an “ass”.
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 10:16 pm
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 3:21 pm
TL stop your ANNON posts, they’re so obvious!
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Yes “boss” ….. LOL
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 4:37 pm
Appreciate the quick and rarr honest reply!
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 4:39 pm
Turkey, it’s the Accountant commenting for the 3-rd time (same avatar). Don’t know why this comment of his was posted under Anonymous.
You’re always so (incorrectly) convinced there are shenanigans going on.
Posted by PSDrone on December 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Good luck continuing to get those $ when the various pension funds run dry. By that time, which will be a lot sooner than you or your public sector brethren think, the whole country will be in the financial s–ts.
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 7:32 pm
If or when that happens, depending on if you’re a leaning Ron Paul fanatic, say goodbye to the PRIVATE sector as you know today as well. You’re not operating in bubble and if you were it’ll burst!
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 2, 2015 at 11:42 pm
That’s clear enough.
My turn to be clear.
Before, during, and after calling Moderation a charlatan and a liar, and accusing me of trying to distract, mislead, and BS the readers, Tough Love made two (at least) clearly incorrect statements in one post. This is not the first time you’ve made similar claims, nor the first time you have been corrected. Why would you continue to make these claims if not to mislead?
You can’t substantiate your 10 to 15 year claim, and neither can any of the other charlatans (your word) who have echoed this claim across the internet. Your fallback is that it’s not really important anyway? Compared to your other rants, in any case.
You go from a very unequivocal “in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.” to “Yes” ….. There is a Private Sector “wage” advantage, ……..BUT.
There is or there ain’t, Love, you can’t have it both ways, so why lie about it?
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 12:47 am
So you call the following “rants”, not the CRUX of the matter … and what needs to remain the focus of readers attention and call for action:
(1) Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 3+ (5+ for Safety workers) times greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated Private Sector workers
(2) Actual contributions from Public Sector workers (together WITH investment income thereon) rarely accumulate to a sum sufficient at retirement to buy more than 10-20% of their ludicrously generous pensions ….. with the 80-90% balance being a responsibility foisted upon the beleaguered and betrayed Taxpayers
(3) Little difference in “wages” exists in NJ as a basis to even remotely justify either (1) or (2) above
(4) And for full-career Public Sector workers, Taxpayer-funded FREE or heavily subsidized retiree healthcare (often costing Taxpayers $25+K annually for pre-Medicare Family coverage) ….. an extraordinarily rare benefit in the Private Sector today
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 1:37 am
Oh, my gourd.
Focus, Love, tactfully, I was trying to tell you; you lied. Then tried to change the subject, AND accuse me of diversion.
Your rants may be very important to you. So is pro-choice/pro-life, and peace in the Middle East, but all those things are non responsive to the question.
That’s OK, change the damb question again.
(1) Discussion of public sector pensions outside the context of total compensation is worse than useless. Still.
(2) The “actual contributions” includes actual cash withheld from salary plus foregone wages in exchange for pensions “deferred compensation”. (Still) And it’s not 90% taxpayer money. It is 100% taxpayer money, and it is known as quid pro quo. Something for something.
(3) Little difference in “wages” exists in some jobs, not all, and is very difficult to accurately quantify.
(4) “often costing Taxpayers $25+K annually” How often, Love? According to Pew 2014 data, average family coverage is $17,396, of which the average employee pays $4,486, for a taxpayer cost of $12,910
I can’t find retiree preMedicare coverage right now, and I’m not motivated to look further. I have a suspicion you are cherry picking, or picking numbers out of ….the air. If you could find the average cost (not what “many” “might” be paying) give us a link.
And chill. You lied, you know it. Stop changing the subject. Nobody cares anyway.
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 2:38 am
No, Police routinely retire 10 years earlier than the typical Private Sector worker.
And it’s not the retirement “age” that matter as much as as being able to retire an get an unreduced pension. The Police Officer who retire as at 55 (sometimes even 50 or younger) gets a full/unreduced pension . The Private Private Sector workers would most often need to be 65 to get an unreduced pension (and FAR smaller one at that), and even WHEN the Private Sector worker DOES retire at an earlier age (say 60), they are subject to an early retirement reduction of about 25% (5% per year of age below their NRA which is typically 65).
There is ZERO justification for Public Sector workers to get a better deal … on the Taxpayers’ dime.
And because I refuse to let this conversation close with your list that distracts the readers form the IMPORTANT “facts” to contemplate, here’s the PROPER list again:
(1) Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 3+ (5+ for Safety workers) times greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated Private Sector workers
(2) Actual contributions from Public Sector workers (together WITH investment income thereon) rarely accumulate to a sum sufficient at retirement to buy more than 10-20% of their ludicrously generous pensions ….. with the 80-90% balance being a responsibility foisted upon the beleaguered and betrayed Taxpayers
(3) Little difference in “wages” exists in NJ as a basis to even remotely justify either (1) or (2) above
(4) And for full-career Public Sector workers, Taxpayer-funded FREE or heavily subsidized retiree healthcare (often costing Taxpayers $25+K annually for pre-Medicare Family coverage) ….. an extraordinarily rare benefit in the Private Sector today
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 3, 2015 at 2:42 am
Déjà pooh
Posted by Tough Love on December 3, 2015 at 2:45 am
Tell your “handlers” your making zero headway…………..
Posted by Anonymous on December 3, 2015 at 9:30 am
In you and yours wisted minds only
Posted by Anonymous on December 4, 2015 at 9:55 am
I don’t think TRUTH exsists?
IF there’s agreement some public’s salaries are under compensated compared to their private peers. And if that’s the justification for deferred compensation, ie P&B.
Answer seems simple? Governments need to increase salary compensation and decrease P&B accordingly to comparable private sector jobs.
Don’t know if the outcome is a net positive or negative on government’s budgets BUT if done properly should result in a more equitable situation for all.
OK back to reality………….
Posted by Tough Love on December 4, 2015 at 10:41 am
Let’s tidy that up a bit ……………
Reduce the taxpayer subsidy towards funding ALL Public Sector pensions across the Board …. ALL THE WAY down to the level typically granted Private Sector workers today, about 10% of pay (a 3%-4% match into a 401K Plan plus the 6.2%-of-pay employer’s Social Security contribution on their behalf). (see * below)
Provide Taxpayers Healthcare cost subsidies (separately determined for active and retired workers) EQUAL to those typically granted in the Private Sector, noting that in the Private Sector, employer-sponsored retiree healthcare subsidies today are most often ZERO.
Adjust Public Sector “wages”, BOTH up AND down to make them comparable to the wages in Private Sector jobs with comparable risks, and which require similar levels of education, experience, knowledge and skills.
EQUAL, but NOT better.
—————————————————–
* Right now, it requires (just for the “Normal Coast”, and ignoring any amortization of existing unfunded liabilities) a level annual 50+% of pay to fully fund the TYPICAL full career Public Sector Safety pension over the worker’s career when using the SAME assumptions that the US Gov’t REQUIRES of Private Sector Plans for this purpose.
Non-safety worker pensions being less generous than Safety-worker pensions (and being more varied) typically require a level annual 25%-40% of pay.
Posted by Anonymous on December 4, 2015 at 11:06 am
David Bowie said it best, CHANGES!
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 4, 2015 at 2:25 pm
It’s complicated.
“And if that’s the justification for deferred compensation, ie P&B.”
It’s not, actually. That idea grew out of the often repeated statement (misstatement) “Public workers used to be paid less, so they needed better benefits to attract workers, but now they make more in wages than the private sector.”
P&B wasn’t (isn’t) justified by low pay, rather, that misstatement above was meant to be justification for eliminating benefits. (Which came first, the chicken or the egg.)
The original justification for P&B was government following the private sector, usually two steps behind. A day late and a dollar short. Private sector got pensions, gov. followed in order to attract employees. Private sector got time and a half for OT. Government followed. Private sector got unions, government followed. Many of the 99 public “perks” that people complained about were begun in the private sector and copied by government: extra pay for shift differential, per diem, sick leave, etc.
Now things appear to be headed the other way, and government is still following, two steps behind. Some people complain that private sector DB pensions are gone, so public should follow. Be patient. Government is following, two steps behind, like always.
Posted by Anonymous on December 4, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Does that mean public’s can “work from home” like the privates have been doing for? NAH! Fair and equal, nah!
Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 4, 2015 at 3:02 pm
“Governments need to increase salary compensation and decrease P&B accordingly to comparable private sector jobs.”
Improbable. The problem with “Got a problem with EQUAL?” is how it’s measured. Private industry is much more flexible, especially in response to rapidly changing economic cycles. If engineers are scarce, wage offers can be raised instantly to attract employees. Government raises might lag by several years while personnell are leaving for better jobs, studies are done to find market wages, and political obstructions are overcome, etc. Especially ironic when public compensation comes close to equity, and the next recession decimates pay or eliminates jobs in the private sector.
State engineers in California got a three year contract in 2004, 2005 which increased their wages by about 30 percent, plus COLAs, because they had trouble getting and keeping engineers, so DPA did a salary survey and agreed to the raise. Remember what happened at the end of that contract? Hint: 2007-08. Very fortuitous for our friend Charlie the forty year CalTRANS engineer who recently retired with a pension based on the higher salary, after being underpaid for years.
Posted by Anonymous on December 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Guess UPS got it right with their commercial slogan, “It’s Complicated”!
Posted by Anonymous on December 4, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Amazing how one word can elicit some many responses?
Posted by private worker on July 8, 2016 at 6:19 pm
TIME FOR 401K IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Posted by S5 Veto Reaction | Burypensions Blog on May 11, 2018 at 11:24 am
[…] the last governor called him a ‘pension pig‘ Patrick Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent […]