Pork Over Pensions

At the March 31, 2016 Union County freeholder meeting there was an absolutely bizarre misstatement of reality from chairperson Bruce Bergen claiming that while the pensions for state employees in New Jersey may be in trouble the employees and retirees in county and municipal plans have nothing to worry about.  I rebutted such dangerous foolishness in a letter to the Westfield Leader and at tonight’s freeholder meeting went further:



.

The link to Assemblyman Jamel Holley was brought to my attention by a reader who was thoughtful enough to send that Financial Disclosure Statement.

When New Jersey public employees see their pension and health care benefits further eroded (if not eliminated) they may wonder what their elected representatives were doing while all this was going down. At least one was making sure his pork came off the top.

59 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 12:26 am

    John, what I see as the problem (as to why they get away with this) is the accounting/actuarial rule structure in place.

    It’s bad enough that Gov’t entities choose to contribute less money in a given year than the calculated ARC, but understandable because they simply CANNOT afford the full amount required to fund such obscenely generous Plans. The charade is that GASB (a) has no enforcement power, and (b) has caved-in to the vested interests it’s new rules, allowing Public Sector Plans to CONTINUE* computing Plan liabilities and Plan contributions using the investment return assumption of 7.9% in NJ (vs about 4.5% as REQUIRED by the US Gov’t in the valuation of Private Sector Plans).

    If Public Sector Plans were valued using that SAME 4.5%, Plan liabilities would increase by about 1/3, the funding ratios would drop to perhaps 50% for Local Plans and 30% for State Plans, and contribution requirement would increase just for the Plan’s “Normal Cost” by over 20% of pay.

    The taxpayer deserve and should be told the (vert bad) truth …. even if not accompanied any reasonable “solutions”.

    * Plan Liability discount rate have to drop to long-term bond rates ONLY for the duration beyond which Plan projections show that assets will be exhausted.

    Reply

  2. and one more thing, tough love, do you work at a job? how can do all this posting…you are here and on other boards almost constantly…..how do you keep your job?

    Reply

  3. one more thing, tough love, there is nothing more distracting than inappropriate comments on posts, and tough love, you do it all the time….its totally narcissistic, you are not the “perfect commenter”, you say too much and its out of context, usually.

    i bet you are not so attractive, too…..gotta get attention somehow, right?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 10:05 am

      What are you afraid of ….. ?

      Perhaps hearing the truth and knowing that the Pubic sector pension/benefit gravy train’s end is getting closer?

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 10:14 am

      • Posted by dentss dunnigan on April 15, 2016 at 10:28 am

        …TL It seems their last line of defense is to attack the messenger (you) and not the message …..If they look closly .it would mean they must admit the truth …they are almost at the cliff ..

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 10:38 am

          Most of them know that, but accepting the material pension/benefit reductions that assuredly await them (after getting away with this taxpayer-ripoff for so many years) is difficult to accept.

          Reply

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on April 15, 2016 at 11:26 am

            76% funded at the local level.
            You’re screaming fire….when there is none!!!!
            But, by all means….. Go on.

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 1:21 pm

            76% funded using 7.9%.

            50% funded using 4.5% (the rate REQUIRED by the US Gov’t for Private Sector Plan valuations).

        • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 1:06 pm

          “…TL It seems their last line of defense is to attack the messenger (you) and not the message …..If they look closly .it would mean they must admit the truth …they are almost at the cliff ..”

          “Attack the messenger”? Or “Blame the victim.”

          “sponsors of seriously underfunded plans, ….(New Jersey, et al.)… have behaved badly.”

          “First, the notion that all public plans are in trouble is simply not correct. Before the two financial crises of the past decade, most plans were in reasonably good shape. And in the wake of the crisis, plan finances have begun to stabilize. Second, sponsors of seriously underfunded plans, such as those in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have behaved badly. They have either failed to make their required contributions or used inaccurate assumptions so that their contribution requirements are not meaningful.”

          Alicia Munnell

          *”either failed to make their required contributions or used inaccurate assumptions so that their contribution requirements are not meaningful.” ….or both. (SMD)

          “Third, it is impossible to identify a link between the poorly funded plans and the two factors others have highlighted as the source of the problem: (1) discounting obligations by the long-run expected return instead of the riskless rate; or (2) the collective bargaining activities of unions. The poorly funded plans did not come close to surmounting the lower hurdle associated with a high discount rate; raising the hurdle is unlikely to have improved their behavior. And union strength simply did not emerge as a significant factor in any of the empirical analyses. Pension funding is simply a story of fiscal discipline.”

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 1:26 pm

            Just more “smoothing”, which doesn’t I change the death spiral that these Plan are now in.

            We both know that the ROOT CAUSE of the problem is the grossly excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair (to taxpayers) and clearly unaffordable pension & benefit “promises”.

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on April 15, 2016 at 1:55 pm

            “…which doesn’t I change the death spiral that these Plan are now in.”

            True

            “We both know that the ROOT CAUSE of the problem…”

            Untrue. That’s your opinion, not mine. Constant repetition and CAPS LOCK does nothing to validate it.

            “grossly excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair (to taxpayers) and clearly unaffordable pension & benefit “promises”.

            Is just a rant. Again, constant repetition and excess use of superlatives is not evidential. And probably counterproductive.

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on April 15, 2016 at 2:33 pm

            TL quote”….76% funded using 7.9%.

            50% funded using 4.5% (the rate REQUIRED by the US Gov’t for Private Sector Plan valuations)…”

            But this isn’t a private sector plan!!!!!
            Apples to Oranges.

            Wash…Rinse…Repeat!!!!
            Same ol’ crap.

            But by all means…. Go on

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 2:42 pm

            Nutcase,

            Try enrolling in finance/economic 101.

            Public Sector Plans don’t invest their assets in a different world than Private Sector Plans, nor are their investment risks any lower.

            Valuing using the 7.9% is simply done to make Public Sector Plan promises appear FAR FAR cheaper than their real expected cost.

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 12:40 pm

        As Paul Harvey said: “The …rest… of the story.”

        http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/myths_realities_appd.pdf

        Reply

    • Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on April 15, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      “i bet you are not so attractive, too…..”

      Hmmm…. I wonder…..

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203687504576655331418204842

      I have noticed (anecdotally, I can’t find an empirical study) that state and local workers are more attractive, as a rule, than the private sector.

      And taller:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-financial-perks-of-being-tall/393518/

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm

        SMD, Being tall sure must have helped your “career” when changing all those light bulbs …. but gee, they gotta fit into the socket !

        Reply

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 4:15 pm

        Déjà Pooh.

        Reply

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 4:30 pm

        It’s all in the perspective. You’se gots to have the proper perspective.

        And Moderation, of course.

        Moderation is fundamental.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 4:55 pm

          I have perspective …. and (to paraphrase Johnny Cochran), if the bulbs don’t fit fit, you’re gotta a-quit (trying).

          And you “lights” aren’t moderate, but pretty “dim”.

          Reply

        • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 5:04 pm

          The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm

            Yup, I recommend that you try it. I promise, it won’t hurt.

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 4:38 pm

            We all have opinions.

            When you see a post claiming that safety workers deserve better pensions because they usually die five to ten years after retiring, or because their jobs are more dangerous, you are absolutely justified in citing real evidence that those things are untrue.

            When Moderation sees a post claiming public workers retire ten to fifteen years earlier than the private sector, I look for confirming data. There is none. When someone says that, “once” public workers deserved better pensions because they earned less than the private sector, but now they earn as much, or more”, I look up the data.

            And the survey says ……..false.

            That is not diversion. That is not misstatement. That is not omission of material facts. Nor is it “outright lies”.

            As the man says, “It’s a fact, Jack.”

            If you think it ain’t, show us some controverting facts, not “opinion” or vague claims of “diversion”, or baseless attacks on motive or bias. Or puerile ad hominem references to bulb changers.

            “So long as we learn it doesn’t matter who teaches us, does it?”
            ― E.R. Braithwaite

            Facts.

            Truth.

            Show me the data.

            http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/5-ways-to-win-an-argument/

  4. Posted by Javagold on April 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Great video JB. But why you are fighting to wake up the Public Takers who will be left holding the bag , is beyond me. Save your breath. Let them get what all Ponzi end up with. NOTHING.

    Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on April 15, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 10:41 pm

      Thanks for that link. It’s a laugh a minute.

      Chris Christie:

      “What the last credit report said was, if the pension problem were fixed, New Jersey would be in good fiscal condition.”

      The best line I’ve heard since Sirhan Sirhan:

      “If bobby kennedy were alive today he would pardon me..” 

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on April 15, 2016 at 10:51 pm

        SMD,

        Interesting how you are so swayed,amused, and taken-in by an article not written by any recognized journalist or organization, but by none other than …..”heather”.

        That’s it, just “heather”.

        Could have been written by one of your light-bulb-changing associates …. LOL

        Reply

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 15, 2016 at 11:18 pm

        Heather, schmeather. The jokes are direct quotes from your Governor.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 12:30 am

          SMD,

          Gov. Christie said … ” if the pension problem were fixed, New Jersey would be in good fiscal condition.””

          If by “fixed” he meant a Future service pension FREEZE, and for Past service, a reduction in the pensions granted to the (ASSUREDLY) less than 50% that WOULD HAVE been granted in the absence of the Union/politician collusion … NJ would INDEED …” be in good fiscal condition.”

          Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on April 16, 2016 at 2:24 am

          Don’t be ridiculous. Even if unfunded liabilities were cut in half, NJ would still be in a financial morass.

          “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

          “You’ve got third base so screwed up nobody can play it!”

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 3:41 am

            Lol …as you show your lacking of any math talents or thinking capacity.

            If NJ Public Sector Plans were always half as generous, the PAST combined EE and ER contributions would now leave us with little if any unfunded liability.

            Stick to changing light bulbs ………..

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on April 16, 2016 at 8:41 am

            LOL!!! What past contributions?

            http://pension360.org/chart-a-history-of-new-jerseys-pension-payments/

            If, as most agree, the ARCS are too low to begin with, and NJ hasn’t contributed even half the ARC, that still leaves you in the hole.

            New Jersey has always been a bad actor. Robbing from Peter and …not… paying
            Paul.

            It’s OK, folks. Nothing to see here. We can always just blame the unions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 10:48 am

            SMD,

            You have to go far earlier than 1995 as shown in that limited-duration chart. And the ARCs on that chart would be about 1/4 the size had NJ pennons ALWAYS been half as generous ….. because the “Normal Cost” would be half AND there likely would be little to no unfunded liability being carried forward year after year materially contributing to the big ARCs we have seen for years.

            Educate yourself instead of playing Mr. Knowledgeable……worse than your pathetic “smoothing”.

          • Posted by PatB on April 16, 2016 at 11:41 am

            A chart starting 1990, showing Florio’s change in valuations.

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 12:44 pm

            Adds nothing …. what I stated just above still applies.THE only thing … looking back at my response is why we (the Taxpayers) should be “happy” even if current Public Sector pension promises were HALVED.

            Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of ANY greater taxpayer-funded pensions or better benefits than those typically granted by their private Sector employers, and RIGHT NOW, Public Sector pensions are not 2x greater in value at retirement, but ROUTINELY 3X greater for non-safety workers and 5X greater greater Safety works.

            They need to be reduced ALL THE WAY down to the level granted reasonably comparable Private Sector workers.

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 16, 2016 at 1:38 pm

            “And the ARCs on that chart would be about 1/4 the size had NJ pennons ALWAYS been half as generous ….. because the “Normal Cost” would be half AND there likely would be little to no unfunded liability being carried forward year after year 

            In yo dreams.

            Face it. New Jersey plays fast and loose with its finances. If there is a pot of money with no legal or constitutional protection, it is fair game. We can give a tax break to new businesses (or old friends) and catch up on pension contributions next year. Provided of course, tax revenues don’t take a dump.

            Well, mebbe next year?

            Keep yo hands off my pennons!!!

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 16, 2016 at 2:24 pm

            Note:

            “Face it. New Jersey plays fast and loose with its finances. If there is a pot of money with no legal or constitutional protection, it is fair game.”

            Is an attempt to get back on the topic of the article : “Pork Over Pensions”

            On a similar note, further down I make another book recommendation, because all states are equal, but some states are “less equal” than others: “…states with seriously underfunded plans, such as Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have behaved badly.”

            (Alicia Munnell)

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 4:24 pm

            Quoting SMD, (who was repeating my earlier statement) ….

            ““And the ARCs on that chart would be about 1/4 the size had NJ pennons ALWAYS been half as generous ….. because the “Normal Cost” would be half AND there likely would be little to no unfunded liability being carried forward year after year

            In yo dreams. ”
            ———————

            SMD, That statement is accurate. Try some deep thought. I know it’s difficult at your grade-level …. but try
            ————–

            And then SMD provides us with some more of his classic diversion and “smoothing”…..nothing to see here folks (i.e., Taxpayers), we’re not ripping you 0ff TOO MUCH.

          • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 4:29 pm

            SMD,

            NJ’s “behaving badly” is the granting of these grossly excessive Public Sector pension promises in the first instance …. which RESULTS-IN impossible-to-fund ARCs.

            The lack of full funding is not the CAUSE of the pension mess, but the CONSEQUENCE of the real ROOT CAUSE …. grossly excessive pemnsion “generosity”.
            —————-

            You’d see clearer if your GREED/Entitlement-mentality level were not so high.

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 16, 2016 at 4:54 pm

            “grossly excessive Public Sector pension promises”

            According to …one… serious study out of a dozen (conditionally). All of which are plagued by inherent error, and/or intentional bias. All of which are based on data four to ten years old. Ten very volatile years.

            And all of which agree that “excessive” pensions, as they exist, are not across the entire spectrum of public workers. With the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh or Ed Ring, every responsible source agrees that, in total compensation, lower educated public workers earn more than the private sector, higher educated public workers earn much less, and somewhere around the middle, they are “roughly the same.”

            But, yeah, let’s castigate them all and cut them equally, damn the consequences.

      • Posted by Anonymous on April 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm

        The reality is it’s ALL just Fantasy Island. Except instead of saying it’s the plane boss……well we’ve ALL got our own comeback!

        Reply

  6. Posted by George on April 16, 2016 at 9:19 am

    “When New Jersey public employees see their pension and health care benefits further eroded ”

    First cuts will probably be made to bond holders.

    Reply

  7. Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 16, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Just one more book recommendation:

    S Greenhut’s “Plunder! etc…” is a non-starter at $18.95 (plus tax and shipping). It’s just a rabid rant in the first place, and in the second place, most of the book by now has been excerpted in his columns. His opinions are free, and worth every penny.

    A. Munnell’s “State and Local Pensions: What Now?” Is more current, more informative, and more objective. And it’s only $16.17 in downloadable format. No tax. No shipping.

    “Munnell explores this controversy with clarity and fairness, providing a critical resource for citizens who wish to understand public pensions and the policymakers who must manage them.”―Andrew Biggs, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute

    I highly recommend this book. And, no, Love, I do not “support” her and do not agree with everything in her book.

    http://www.amazon.com/State-Local-Pensions-What-Now/dp/0815724128/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=41Og0I4tyDL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL480_SR318%2C480_&refRID=1V357GWJQ2KWHMPGGF8B

    Reply

    • Posted by Smooth Moderation Equal on April 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm

      What’s to agree with?

      “State and local workers in the lowest third of the wage distribution are paid somewhat more than their private sector counterparts, those in the middle roughly comparable amounts, and those in the top third significantly less.”

      (She is talking total compensation here, and there is very little disagreement on this point.)

      What not to agree with?

      Por ejemplo.

      The “stacked option” recommendation. Chapter 7, a combined DB/DC plan where all workers are in a DB plan up to a cap ($50,000, adj for inflation), and any wages above that are in a DC plan.

      Munnell:

      “This overall arrangement offers a reasonable balance by providing adequate and secure benefits targeted to public employees who need them most while limiting the risk to taxpayers of covering large pension shortfalls.”

      Actually, a lot of people agree with this opinion, but TL can see the contradiction. It leaves the “State and local workers in the lowest third of the wage distribution” still overcompensated relative to the private sector.

      Got a problem with EQUAL?

      On the other hand:

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 4:48 pm

      There are certainly “some” professional and PHD gov’t workers who are under-compensated, but as a group, even this highly paid group (the ONLY ones our resident Smoother SMD claims to be under-compensated) works far few hours than their Private Sector counterparts….. and as such SHOULD BE compensated proportionately lower.

      Anecdotal yes, but who here really believes that Public Sector CPAs, lawyers, etc., work as many hours/wk (and are as “productive” during those hours, given that only PRIVATE Sector workers need to justify client-billed-hours via work-accomplished) as Private Sector CPAs and Lawyers?

      And all we hear for the Public Sector IT “professionals” is how much more they could make at companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. That’s a laugh. Such companies seek-out risk-takers with an entrepreneurial mind-set, where putting in 16/hrs a day WITH PASSION for weeks on end to beat the competition to market is looked at as a welcome challenge. Such companies wouldn’t give 5 seconds of consideration to Public Sector workers whose priority is cradle-to-grave security, demands for overtime the as soon as 40 hours hits, and out the door the second the clock strikes 5PM.

      SMD, You’re a laugh-a-minute.

      Reply

  8. Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    “Anecdotal yes,”

    Biased, of course.

    Substantiated? Of course not, It’s opinion.

    No shortage of opinions. High supply, low demand. In other words, pretty much worthless,

    Show me the data!!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      Sometime irrefutable “proof” is hard to find ….. that’s why God gave (most of us) the ability to “think” and “analyze”.

      You should try it periodically.

      Reply

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 5:46 pm

        You mean…

        You mean, maybe…

        Maybe, public sector workers actually are …not… more attractive than the private sector?

        Or taller?

        It’s fine to have an opinion, but you’ll need more than that if you are talking about instigating policy changes.

        If “smoothing” means actually looking up data where possible, I hope to be smooth right up to the day I shuffle off this mortal coil.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 8:57 pm

          Still with the “more attractive” and “taller” stuff……

          You know, when Jacky Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis, many wondered … yikes, he’s not exactly an attractive man …. but then again, he was a LOT more attractive given his job (if you can call owning a huge shipping company a job) and wealth.

          Did your job as a light-bulb-changer make you “more attractive” & “taller” ?

          Reply

          • Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 9:14 pm

            Correlation does not imply causation.

            Sometimes it’s just a happy coincidence.

            Or there may be other contributing factors.

            Ours is not to reason why…

            “Whatever is, is right,”

            (Pope’s An Essay on Man)

  9. Posted by S Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    “God gave (most of us) the ability to “think” and “analyze”.

    You “think” that PRIVATE Sector workers need to justify client-billed-hours via work-accomplished) as Private Sector CPAs and Lawyers??

    Then there’s the one about the 22-year-old attorney who found himself standing before the Pearly Gates and protested that he was too young to die. ‘’Oh, no,’’ St. Peter replied. ‘’We checked your hourly billing records, and you have to be 97 years old.’’

    LOL!!! “But, but, St. Peter…. they were “16/hrs a day WITH PASSION”!!!

    (I “think”.)

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 9:09 pm

      Quoting SMD ….. “You “think” that PRIVATE Sector workers need to justify client-billed-hours via work-accomplished) as Private Sector CPAs and Lawyers??”

      Since I’ve been on both ends of such client-engagements …. yes indeed !

      But YOU, belong to the “protected” species known as “Public Sector workers” who care little about WORKING every hour for which they are paid (not at the coffee machine or on the internet) and for high quality and quantity of PRODUCTIVE/measurable work-output.

      ———————

      Do I recall wrongly from a prior post ……… 4 trucks, 6 men, and 3 hours to change ONE light bulb ? I don’t care if it was it at the North Pole …. you guys are something else.

      Reply

  10. Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    I don’t have the post in front of me, but that sounds about right. Do you also recall “legally required by the Federal Highway Administration / Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices”?

    In other words, were it not done in accordance with federal regulations, and there was an accident involving property damage or serious or fatal injury, I would be culpable. Even if the serious or fatal injury was me. Being a desk jockey, you may not be aware of, or empathize with the concept of death or damage, but you must at least be cognizant of the financial responsibility involved. It could be multiples of …”4 trucks, 6 men, and 3 hours”

    Worse yet, I could conceivably end up much less attractive. Possibly even less tall. As in the case when the drunk rammed my truck’s rear bumper a few seconds after I walked away from that area. (He told the cop he saw the two alternating amber flashers and thought he was supposed to “drive between them”.)

    I realize denigrating public workers is a popular pastime. Childish, but popular. Don’t listen to those who try to silence you. It’s your ignorance. It’s your bias. To do with as you please. If you got it, flaunt it.

    Truth!!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on April 17, 2016 at 7:34 am

      LOL …. “Worse yet, I could conceivably end up much less attractive. . Possibly even less tall.”

      And heavens, being less tall might have impacted your “productivity” as a light-bulb-changer.

      ————————-

      My “beef” isn’t really with what you did (or what any other Public Sector workers do) but the undeniable FACT that Taxpayers are unjustly FORCED to provide you with Total Compensation (via pensions & benefits ROUTINELY 3, 4, 5 even 6 times greater in valise upon retirement than those of comparable and similarly situated Private sector workers) FAR greater than necessary, reasonable, just, fair, or affordable.

      Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of greater taxpayers-funded pensions and better taxpayer-funded benefits (while active OR retired).

      Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on April 19, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    “the undeniable FACT that Taxpayers are unjustly FORCED to provide you with Total Compensation (via pensions & benefits ROUTINELY 3, 4, 5 even 6 times greater in valise upon retirement than those of comparable and similarly situated Private sector workers) FAR greater than necessary, reasonable, just, fair, or affordable.”

    I believe we learned in the case of private sector truckers (average salary $45k – 55k, $4,200 pension @ 60 w/30 years) compared to New Jersey public sector drivers (max salary 48k, $2,556 pension @ 60 w/30 years) ……that “the undeniable FACT”, is in fact, quite deniable after all. Logic would dictate that this is not an isolated example.

    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: