Another Chance To Cast an Ignorant Vote

The New Jersey Senate budget committee today approved a plan to ask voters in 2016 to decide a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the annual contributions  to public workers’ pension funds (as ludicrously understated by compromised actuaries and further arbitrarily sliced by the legislature) will somehow be made and Senate president Steve Sweeney took to the microphone:

.

.
Among the other inanities reported on by the Asbury Park Press and nj.com:

Christie said that the Illinois state government is gridlocked and has no budget because its constitution requires pension payments. The state’s economy is suffering as a result. But Sweeney said a constitutional amendment is needed because Christie didn’t make the contributions to the pensions seemingly required under pension reforms adopted in 2010 and 2011.

“You didn’t live up to your first commitment,” Sweeney said. “… How many people said, ‘I promise you I’ll do it’? We did it in ’11 and trumpeted $121 billion in savings. And with that, where are we at now? The only way to do it is to put it in the constitution and mandate that it does get funded.”

Union officials who testified at the Senate committee hearing said the constitutional amendment is the only option left.

Actuaries say the state’s pension funds have a deficit exceeding $40 billion. Under a separate accounting standard the state follows for bond disclosures, not for calculating its pension payments, the unfunded liability is $83 billion.

After the vote, Christie’s office said the governor’s plan comes from independent experts “not in the pocket of the public sector unions” and “does not rely on the massive tax increases and fairy dust that are central to the Senate president’s plan.”

There are two routes for the Legislature to use to put a constitutional amendment before voters. Because Republicans appear likely to oppose the pension funding proposal, the ballot question would have to be approved by a simple majority of both the full Senate and full Assembly by Jan. 12, then again before early August, in order to be on the November 2016 ballot.

Constitutional amendments are put on the ballot without the involvement of a governor, so Christie would have no formal role.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Democrats who control both houses don’t need Republican support to put the question on the ballot. Gov. Chris Christie also has no say in referendums.

“If the bill before you today is passed and approved by the voters of the state, the pension mess that we are in today will slowly but surely be healed,” Eric Richard, legislative affairs coordinator for the New Jersey AFL-CIO told the Senate panel. “This constitutional amendment is in essence a do-over, an opportunity to go back to the 2011 reform law and say we are now going to uphold our end of the bargain.”

Sweeney said he was confident that New Jersey’s economic expansion will give the state the money it needs.

 

58 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by skip3house on December 11, 2015 at 1:38 am

    Just needs the stipulation ‘NJ income taxes will be automatically raised as needed’ to be sure it fails

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:50 am

      Property taxes?

      Reply

      • Posted by skip3house on December 11, 2015 at 10:43 am

        Hi, Where you been? We should first switch the school property tax to income tax, also. Regards

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 11:50 am

          Oh so it is income tax, I’m confused by your first post?

          Reply

          • Posted by skip3house on December 11, 2015 at 3:05 pm

            Per NJSpotlight 12/7……. So Bottom Line No. 1 is that it is not enough to simply consider the taxation of retirement benefits in isolation. Bottom Line No. 2 is that while we are not and will never be Florida or Texas, in the end it is not the level of state income tax that is driving retirees (and working people) out of New Jersey. It is the insane amount of property taxes that are levied here for “public services.” Again, by way of example: my 2014 New Jersey income tax was less than $700; my property taxes on the home I have lived in for 42 years were more than $11,000 and have climbed further since then. This is the issue that should be receiving attention in Trenton, not the amount of retirement income that can be excluded.
            Posted by krashnj on December 7 at 10:32 AM

            Thanks krashnj for sharing a real example of tax laws’ impacts. I wonder if our legislators have done the math as you have done in order to really understand the issue. I’d guess not.
            Posted by ACClark on December 7 at 11:10 AM

            I just retired 2 months ago and I am seriously thinking about moving to Florida,I cannot live in New jersey on a fixed income any longer,please help the seniors to stay in New Jersey with our Children and GrandChildren,The realestate tax is to much to live here and state tax,please lower the taxes for seniors in this state,Thank you.
            Posted by doniseglad on December 7 at 2:27 PM

            Our legislators are too frightened to attempt even a slight glance in the direction of restructuring state taxes to lesson the burden of residential property taxes on the middle class and seniors. These are not big-picture thinkers, for sure. As krash notes above, even for relatively well-heeled retirees, these proposals are small potatoes next to the oft-times crushing burden of property taxes.
            Posted by kallikaknj on December 7 at 7:13 PM

            KrashNJ, …have practical ideas. Seems the burden for all would be lessened by eliminating that cruel school property tax, substituting a ‘based on ability to pay’ NJ income tax increase……Regards
            Posted by skip3house on December 11 at 12:45 P.

          • Posted by dentss dunnigan on December 11, 2015 at 3:11 pm

            Income taxes are constitutionally dedicated o school funding ,taxpayers voted for that in 1972-73 …can’t be changed without being voted on and that would never happen in NJ

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 12, 2015 at 10:08 am

            What’s there to think about?

      • Posted by Vote it Down on December 11, 2015 at 3:11 pm

        Quite possibly. If the State cuts funding to municipalities to fund the pension municipalities will have to cut services or raise taxes.

        Reply

  2. Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 3:10 am

    hold on to your shirt TL!!!!!

    Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Sweeney’s not as dumb as most think. By pushing this forward he’s in a win win situation. IF passed he’ll be (should he choose to run and if elected) responsible for figuring out how to pay for it. IF not then he’s got a “free pass” with the Unions and membership to reform P&B.

    Reply

  4. Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:33 am

    Include the necessary P&B reforms and it’s a slam dunk!

    Reply

    • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 11, 2015 at 8:41 am

      This is the necessary reforms….. Duh!!!
      And I’m afraid it is a slam dunk.
      It’s already been vested through the voting due diligence process. They know it will pass.
      TL and her minions haven’t slept in days!! Lol

      Reply

  5. Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 11, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Next… They then need to separate the local municipal pensions from the herd. Put those pensions in the hands of municipalities and the members….. Ya know…. The ones who are, always have, and will pay for them.

    It will be nice these people get some form of protection. Even the courts won’t stand by them.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:57 am

      IF you believe in what you’ve said about the local plans then you should know this wouldn’t impact them? Only TPAF and State funded first responders, etc. As far as separating them out, not going to happen but nice try.

      Reply

      • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 11, 2015 at 10:09 am

        “Not going to happen but nice try”
        So, let’s take the worst funded pensions… The ones who’s employees pay the least, and change the constitution to favor them. But let’s not only, not allow the better funded local plans to benefit from the amendment but let’s not at least allow them to now control their funds independently…..
        Because that makes any sense????
        And if you, or anyone says it does…. You’re a clueless dolt who shouldn’t have an opinion anyway.
        I want to be so done with this blog…. But some of the comments border lunacy that I just can’t.

        Reply

      • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 11, 2015 at 12:32 pm

        And it does include all the pensions!

        Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:58 am

      Maybe they should undo the requirement on Locals to make their payments then we’ll see how the discussion shifts in a few years?

      Reply

      • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 11, 2015 at 9:55 am

        That’s really not a smart comment. More of a jab, I’d say. But I digress. The employees will continue to make the required payments, as they’ve always done. You don’t get it!! They don’t have a problem making their payments. It’s the state that has the problem. Do you follow?

        Reply

        • Posted by skip3house on December 11, 2015 at 10:48 am

          Employee deduction shows on your pay stub because it exists – not just a promise. Wonder why the NJ portion is not shown?

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 11, 2015 at 11:39 am

          Indeed …”they don’t have a problem making their payments” …… because as a % of the TRUE total cost to fully fund their ludicrously generous pensions over their working career (typically requiring a level annual 25-40% of pay for non-Safety, and 50% of pay for Safety workers), the employEE contributions are a PITTANCE.

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm

          Oh I follow. The State required Locals to pay but pulled a do as I say not as I do! Hence, as you’ve pointed out, the Local funds are better funded then the State. Because they made their payments, as required, funded by cap exempt property taxes.

          Reply

  6. Posted by George on December 11, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    Scranton Should Take Heed of Bayonne’s Water Woes
    As one town in New Jersey suffers unexpected water rate increases, its experience should be a warning to other cities considering privatization.

    https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/scranton-should-take-heed-bayonne%E2%80%99s-water-woes

    Bonus water article, Flint MI under emergency financial manager pumps lead tainted water into drinking water supply.

    Is emergency manager law to blame for Flint water crisis
    http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/24/emergency-manager-law-blame-flint-water-crisis/74048854/

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 11, 2015 at 3:28 pm

      Public Sector assets are essentially no different than cash. They belong to ALL of the Citiy’s residents, NOT just the insatiably greedy Public Sector workers.

      Selling something such as a sewer authority is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Buyer (via the sales contract) will demand a significant return on his investment, and that will come by way of increased sewer fees to the City’s residents.

      It’s simply a back door way of getting the SAME amount (or likely MORE because of the added Private Sector “profit” element) of revenue but from fees instead of Taxes. If Taxpayers cannot afford the increased taxes, they can’t afford the increased fees.

      The are NO SOLUTIONS that (AT A MINIMUM) do not include (just as the FIRST STEP) FREEZE ALL Public Sector DB pensions (ZERO future growth).

      Then, once we have STOPPED digging the hole deeper EVERY DAY, we can see if it is even POSSIBLE to fund (the now vastly underfunded) PAST Service accruals.
      ————————–

      Insatiable greed HAS consequences, and the SH** has now hit the fan.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 11, 2015 at 11:24 pm

        Here’s a MUCH better way to put my last sentence above ……

        Insatiable greed (on the part of Public Sector Unions/workers/retirees) and incredible stupidity, incompetence, arrogance, and self-interest (on the part of our Elected Officials) HAS consequences, and the SH** has now hit the fan.

        Reply

  7. Posted by Vote it Down on December 11, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Does anyone think that Sweeney doesn’t expect the public to vote this down? Sweeney needs to prove to the Unions he’s done everything he can to secure their pensions so that he can seek their support for the Gubernatorial race.

    The public vote is how he proves it. It’s a sham ploy, and par for the Sweeney course.

    Reply

    • It would surprise me if the public did not vote the proposal down. If it is approved, then it is certainly evidence that the citizens of a once great state, the centroid of the American Revolution, have gone full blown libtarded.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 11, 2015 at 6:05 pm

        If they vote it down, those of us who UNDERSTAND the grossly excessive generosity (and hence the HUGE cost) of current Public Sector pension & benefits have failed miserably in educating NON-Public-Sector-worker-families* as to magnitude of the financial “mugging” being perpetrated upon THEM.

        * It’s a given that near 100% of PUBLIC-Sector-worker-families will vote FOR it because of greed and self-interest.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 7:08 pm

          W/O the required P&B reforms the only thing it’ll pass is GAS!

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 11, 2015 at 8:55 pm

          Understanding the GOP don’t have the majority necessary to get this on the ballot. Why do you think the Governor isn’t pushing his party to put forth a constitutional amendment option outlining the P&B Commission reforms with funding? This would give voters a choice and would ensure no further delay in moving forward with this issue.

          I know I’m being to logical, naive, and plain silly but……..

          Reply

  8. Posted by Theodore Konshak on December 13, 2015 at 6:12 am

    If you appreciated the discussion about pension plan actuaries understating costs in the video of Jeremy God, see my research report on the what the actuaries did with the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund. Google “Theodore Konshak scribd”. Actuary Larry Sher is unfavorably mentioned in the piece. He is a member of the New Jersey Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission and advocate for a cash balance pension plan for NJ.

    Reply

  9. Posted by Javagold on December 13, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Ha ha. You people think Criminals and Liars are going to do the right thing. Never.
    So simple to fix. No more health benefits. Pay your own. And
    End school property taxes. Go to income tax with no limits.
    But doesn’t matter as financial tsunami coming this way in 2016 makes this all a mute point. And they know it !!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 13, 2015 at 11:45 am

      Yea….you’ve been sounding that alarm for years now Java. Go back to the bunker. As I’ve said before, all of you gold hoarders will need to invest another precious metal. Lead. As in ammunition. That is what you will need to survive if this “financial tsunami” as you say came to pass. Gold will be worthless if true anarchy resulted from everybody but the super rich losing their proverbial shirts. Probably will not happen in our lifetime.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 13, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      Come on Tis the Season, what’s wrong with subsidized (by taxpayers) healthcare?

      Reply

  10. Posted by Anonymous on December 13, 2015 at 11:41 am

    What economic expansion is Sweeney referring to??

    Reply

  11. Posted by Anonymous on December 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Can anyone explain the logic of voting for an amendment to our constitution that will mandate that full pension payments be made every year when the state of NJ can not afford even minimum payments at this time? Aren’t those constitutional amendments the reason that so many other places such as IL are going down the toilet faster that NJ? We don’t need droughts or viral outbeaks to take out our cities and towns, we have public sector pensions. You know, promised 30 year retirements without a care in the world while there are less and less private and public workers to pay for it all. Just doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

    Reply

  12. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 13, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Unless you have actual data indicating otherwise, “30 year retirements” are the (extreme) exception, not the norm. Like the $100,000 pensions. They do exist, but are 2% of the retirees, or less.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 13, 2015 at 7:27 pm

      STILL trying the deceive the readers SMD ?

      EVERY (yes EVERY) PUBLIC Sector DB pension REGARDLESS of the wage level is 3x-4x (4x-6x for safety workers) greater in value at retirement than that of an EQUALLY paid Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age and with the SAME years of service.

      Reply

  13. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 13, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    De number in question was not the pension amount, but the length of retirement. IF the average age of retirement is 60 and the average lifespan is 82, then the average length of retirement is 22 years, not 30. Add 5 years for the average safety worker. While 30 year pensions (and longer) do exist, they are certainly not the norm.

    Why exaggerate? It’s like “public workers retire 10 to 15 years younger!” or “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.”

    On average, public workers don’t retire 10 to 15 years early, they don’t retire for 30 years, and they don’t earn as much in cash wages as equivalent private sector workers.

    If I told you once, I told you a billion times, don’t exaggerate.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 13, 2015 at 10:19 pm

      Living 5 years past your “life expectancy” point is hardly “extreme”, and with life expectancy increasing by about 2 years per decade (for over 5 decades now) the duration in retirement continuously get longer.

      Oh, and YES, Public Sector workers …..”don’t earn as much in cash wages as equivalent private sector workers.” ….. in WAGES alone, but you and I both know that when PENSION and BENEFITS are added to WAGES in that comparison, that for all Public Sector workers taken together, they have a VERY material ADVANTAGE over their Private Sector counterparts ….. specifically 23% in NJ (the focus of this Blog), and with that 23% considerably higher if NJ’s Safety workers had been included in the Study showing the 23% PUBLIC Sector “Total Compensation” (wages + pensions + benefits) “ADVANTAGE.
      ————————————-
      If I told you once, I told you a billion times, and stop misleading and stop omitting material facts. ….. like highlighting a PUBLIC Sector DISADVANTAGE in “wages” but omitting the fact that it swings to a VERY material ADVANTAGE on a “Total Compensation” basis.

      Reply

    • Douglas, I am speaking in total retirees across the board in terms of length of retirement including cops teachers state workers etc. most retire in their 50s and CAN live well into late 80s and beyond. Exaggeration or not simply not sustainable.

      Reply

  14. Posted by skip3house on December 13, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Thought I learned here Defined Contribution, both NJ and worker, would solve these Defined Benefit troubles?
    All NJ would have to do is contribute to each paycheck, rather than “..tell them anything but sound sincere”
    Whatever amount is saved becomes the retirement fund for that worker, and eliminates abuses of appointments/OT so higher retirement than actually saved.
    Retiree medical can be the common Medicare, plus pay own Rx and ‘Gap’ as desired?.

    Reply

    • Posted by skip3house on December 13, 2015 at 10:35 pm

      Retirees and current workers ‘deep’ into the present broken system would be sure to be credited all their own contributions, plus a ‘humane’ proportional piece of the NJ Pension Funds still existing…if I correctly recall the gist of Mr. Bury’s proposal a few years back addressing the issue of switching over.
      Perhaps, the current $3Billion, being bantered about as already existing, could smooth away any rough patches?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm

        You incredibly underestimate the insatiable greed, arrogance, and to-hell-with-the-Taxpayers mindset of NJ’s Public Sector Unions/workers

        Reply

  15. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 14, 2015 at 12:35 am

    Perdóneme señor.

    That is some kind of circular logic. You say public workers don’t deserve better benefits because they now earn as much or more in cash wages; but now, OK, they don’t ‘actually’ make as much, but……what?

    “Living 5 years past your “life expectancy” point is hardly “extreme”, …agreed, living 5 years less ain’t extreme, either, but a 30 year retirement, today, is higher than average. So you’re saying that in another 50 years, public workers actually will (maybe) have 30 year average retirements, ???

    Speaking of which, on a somewhat related subject, you know how I am fascinated by ‘averages’; it seems that in the game of life expectancy, as in many other things, some are more equal than others. Life expectancy for those in the highest income quintile has increased. Not so much for those in the lower quintiles (our janitors and clerks, again. They can’t seem to catch a break.)

    Average life expectancy today is about 82. For those in the two lowest income quintiles, for a 50 year old, life expectancy is 77 (that’s anyone under $38,000 a year) for the highest quintile (over $103,000 in California), it’s 87. I wonder if Biggs included that in his pension calculations. He did a paper on it when he worked for Social Security, about the progressive feature of Social Security being partly counterbalanced by the fact that low income workers collect a larger percentage of lifetime average earnings, but for a much shorter number of years.

    Do you think Andrew Biggs is “misleading and omitting material facts”? Ten years difference in the length of retirement seems fairly significant.

    Still, in spite of all your verbal gymnastics.

    Public workers do not on average retire 10 to 15 years younger.

    Public workers do not retire for 30 years on average.

    Public workers on average do not earn as much in wages as equivalent private sector workers.

    I have never denied that public workers have better benefits. In some cases, the benefits are not enough to compensate for the lower wages. In some cases, wages plus benefits for public workers are much more than similar private sector workers. In many cases, the difference in total compensation is negligible, or, as Goldilocks said “This one is just right.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 14, 2015 at 1:55 am

      No SMD,

      NJ’s Public Sector workers earn (as a group) 4% LESS in cash “wages” but 23% MORE in “Total Compensation” (cash wages + pensions + Benefits)…. per the AEI Study.

      Therefore, the net change (for all workers taken together) needs to amount to a 23% reduction in WAGES for Public Sector workers’ Total Compensation” to EQUAL that of their NJ counterparts.

      And since I’m sure you will cycle back to it ….. NO, I don’t care if most of that has to come from the lower and middle paid. The FINANCIAL IMPACT upon taxpayers is the SAME regardless of WHICH groups are more overpaid (or not overpaid at all). A 23% OVERALL reduction in Public Sector Wages is necessary to reach EQUALITY with NJ’s Private Sector workers.
      ———————————-

      Quoting ….” Life expectancy for those in the highest income quintile has increased”.

      Since when ….1850 ?, 50 years ago ?, 10 years ago ?, last week ?
      ———————————–

      Quoting ….. “Average life expectancy today is about 82. ”

      For whom, ….. males ?, females ?, blacks?, whites ?

      Measured from what age ….. birth?, age 40?, retirement ?

      My point ?……. incomplete statements show your lack of knowledgeable of the subject.
      —————————————–

      Quoting …. “I have never denied that public workers have better benefits. In some cases, the benefits are not enough to compensate for the lower wages. ”

      “Some” = (per the AEI Study) PHDs and Professionals ….. two groups that represent 10% of Public Sector workers and 3% of Private Sector workers…… big WOOP !

      And I consider you omission of noting the very small % that are included in your “SOME” ….. as but ANOTHER attempt to mislead the readers.

      Reply

  16. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 14, 2015 at 2:12 am

    “incomplete statements show your lack of knowledgeable of the subject.”

    Good point. LOL!!!

    Incorrect statements show your lack of knowledgeable of the subject.

    A man retiring today at age 60 in the lowest quintile has a life expectancy of 77.
    A man retiring today at age 60 in the highest quintile has a life expectancy of 87.

    WHY YOU BRING ING RACE INTO THIS, YOU RACE BAITING SEXIST !!!

    Look it up. It’s a real factor.

    ELL OH ELL!!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 14, 2015 at 3:02 am

      Putz,

      There is a direct correlation between between life expectancy and income …. well known (just about forever), (a) because the higher your income the better your access to quality medical care, and (b) because Blacks have lower incomes than whites and whites have longer life expectancies than Blacks.

      That’s not race-baiting …… you ASS ….. they are simply a well-know statistical facts.

      Reply

  17. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 14, 2015 at 3:33 am

    Cool your jets. Just a little cosmic karma there. A while back I posted some sourced quotes about part of the difference between public and private pay being due to the greater ratio of women and blacks in public service, and the “well-know statistical facts” that these cohorts are paid much less in the “free market” private sector than males and whites.
    For that I was called a race baiter. Particularly ironic, me being in a mixed race marriage myself.

    Quoting TL:

    “For whom, ….. males ?, females ?, blacks?, whites ?

    Measured from what age ….. birth?, age 40?, retirement ?

    My point ?……. incomplete statements show your lack of knowledgeable of the subject.”

    Moderation is not just a name, its a way of life. It is perfectly acceptable to use ‘incomplete statements’ , particularly if, as you say, they are ‘well-know statistical facts’ anyway.

    I could cite precise figures, but there are several studies with slightly different data and conclusions. Kinda like your infamous 23% obsession.

    Moderation. A name. A mission. A way of life.

    Say good night, Gracie.

    Reply

  18. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 14, 2015 at 5:52 am

    LOL!!!

    Close enough, considering the source.

    Good night, Love.

    Reply

  19. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 14, 2015 at 7:51 am

    Now that you’ve brought it up, perhaps I can finish my point without being accused of bigotry. As you stated, “(b) because Blacks have lower incomes than whites”….not just lower incomes, but in the private sector, Blacks and women, both black and white, have significantly lower pay than white men with equivalent age, experience, education, marital status, etc. In the public sector, that difference in pay disappears. (Almost, there is still some measurable difference, but not as much as in the private sector.)

    Therefore, if you take a representative sample of each group, there will be a lower average pay in the private sector based solely on race and gender. In that case, is the public sector “overpaid”, or is the private sector “underpaid”? I say, if anything, it is the latter. More correctly, though, the terms themselves are invalid. Two people, or two groups of people, can have different pay for similar jobs. They are just “different “; “over” or “under” is a value judgement.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 14, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      Quoting … “Two people, or two groups of people, can have different pay for similar jobs.”

      Yes they (Public and Private Sector) “can” and now often “do” …… but Public Sector workers “shouldn’t” have greater Total Compensation:(at Taxpayer expense) because their Union has BOUGHT (with campaign contributions and election support) those who vote on their pay, pensions, and benefits.

      An, to the extent they they have been successful in doing so, the Taxpayer should refuse to pay for it.

      Reply

      • Posted by skip3house on December 14, 2015 at 5:39 pm

        TL…..”….., to the extent they they have been successful in doing so, the Taxpayer should refuse to pay for it…..”
        Well put. Regards

        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: