http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/08/27/existing-pensions-also-will-be-cut/
It’s obvious that pensions for future government workers are being cut, and will be cut further. But California state and local governments’ unfunded liability for future pensions now is so large, $884 billion, that those already retired will see their pensions cut as well.
It will be very difficult, politically, for politicians in a California town to spend 70% or 80% of their budget on retirees they never met and that often live in other states. Especially when many of those are young enough to continue working.
Is this unjust? I’m not sure that matters. If they don’t have the money, something has to give. But philosophically, I’ve got no problem ditching pensions that were political payoffs. Sure a “contract” is a “contract” but I, as a citizen, am not interested in contracts made between corrupt public unions and corrupt politicians bought by corrupt public unions.
Public money needs to be spent on the public good. That test doesn’t end just because some union boss and the politician he owns signs a “contract”.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Renege on promises to employees, declare inconvenient promises corrupt, and thereby rationalize not taxing any present person to pay for those promises. How convenient for the non-government employee who might have to pay another penny of tax. Where you stand depends on where you sit!
August 31st, 2011 at 8:34 pm
They were corrupt political payoffs. I wanted no part then, and certainly don’t want any part now.
September 1st, 2011 at 6:05 am
In a democracy, political corruption is often in the eye of the beholder. If an elected office holder does what the people who elected him say they wanted, we could call that fair representation. We, however, usually label it corruption when the other party executes such representation.
September 1st, 2011 at 7:45 am
This was done by the political class, of both parties. And your eye of the beholder argument is weak and tired. Sometimes things are actually CORRUPT. And you have to decide and act on that.
Your way isn’t feasible anyway.
September 1st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
isn’t feasible? My way is the US Constitution as amended which has provided the base for the best government to encourage progress and liberty for the last 220 years, a feat previously unknown in human history, with the possible exception of the British government that was the basis for ours.
Any substantial departure from the US Constitution should bear a heavy burden of proof, not a mere theory that things would be better “if only.” And remember that you can never change just one thing.