Cut public employee pesions, California voters say

[alp227]

From San Francisco to Modesto, California voters Tuesday sent a strong message that they want to cut generous public employee pensions, whose soaring costs are devouring funds for cops, libraries and other services.

The results cheered local officials such as San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, who's seeking a March special election on his own controversial pension reform proposal, as well as advocates for a statewide measure aimed at slashing the costs of public retirement packages.

"It certainly demonstrates solid public support for pension reform," Reed said Wednesday. "Even in a labor-friendly town like San Francisco, 68 percent said yes."

Yet voters Tuesday also signaled that there are limits to how far they're willing to crack down on police, firefighters, teachers, librarians and other public workers. San Francisco voters approved the milder of two pension reform proposals on the ballot, one backed by the mayor and many labor leaders. They rejected a tougher measure by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, author of a similar measure that failed last year.

full: http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_19302567

[aquart]

1. Or they could tax the rich.

[Starry Messenger]

5. +100,000

[XemaSab]

2. I think they should phase in Social Security for public employees

My uncle makes $95,000 a year for life and he retired to Colorado. I'm sure they appreciate getting California's tax money. :eyes:

[JohnnyRingo]

3. It'll be interesting to see octogenarians patching the road in 20 years.

The lines will get longer when great grandmothers celebrate their 55th year of working at the BMV because they can't afford to retire. I can see the police driving 45 mph in the left lane with the flashers on and teachers with nicknames like "Ol' Lady" Thomas.

Alright, that last one was my third grade teacher, but this "cut somebody else's throat" bullshit is getting out of hand. I hear so many people tell me "I pay their salary", that I never want to work for the average voter.

Now I just ask these people "what's in it for you?". I remind them that since the windfall resulting from these pension cuts are promised to the "job creators", they must be the ones paying the salaries of public workers.

Some evil doer must have put something in our water to make us stupid in the most diabolical chemical warfare attack in history.

[sam11111]

4. data

Top 1% have $16 trillion

(link was included as part of daily KOS)

--------------------------
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nxY_tso8jLcJ:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/04/789523/-Citigroups-Shocking-Plutonomy-Reports-h-t-Michael-Moore+plutonomy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&strip=1

-------------------------------
The Wealth Report
Plutonomics ...
By Robert Frank, Wall Street Journal - Jan 8, 2007

... The nation’s top 1% of households own .... more than $16 trillion in wealth ...
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
The top 10% have $33 trillion

Note that in the bar graph you add the top part to the second part to get the top ten percent's share of the wealth. That is,
34.6% plus

38.5%
-------
73.1%.....is the percent of all US wealth now in the hands of the top ten percent of people.
( 45 trillion being the total wealth...though some estimates put it as high as 155 trillion...see Federal Reserve site)

[onethatcares]

6. instead of demanding pensions of their own,

they want folks that worked for them to lose them.

Our country is full of useful idiots that can't see beyond their eyelashes. :banghead:

[stillwaiting]

9. Playing right into the hands of the elite. So sad. nt

[Bucky]

7. I wonder how they define "generous".

[whistler162]

8. Here is a article. The up to 50% contribution is a little out of wack

But raising the retirement age from 55 to 67 for NON-Public Safety workers makes sense and the fixing of the pumping up your salary just before your retirement by doing alot of overtime isn't a problem nor is the ban on double dipping.

In New York state we contribute 3% to our retirement fund and don't vest until we have 10 years on the job.

"Mr. Brown called for raising the retirement age of new employees who do not work in public safety to 67 from 55. He said employees should pay up to 50 percent of their annual pension costs. To reduce the financial exposure of the state, he said future pensions should be a hybrid of the traditional pension model and a 401(k).

To deal with what have been widely seen as abuses of the retirement system, Mr. Brown said the pensions of all new employees should be based solely on their regular salaries, not taking into account any overtime or bonuses. For existing employees, he said the retirement benefits should be based on an average of the last three years’ salary.

He also said that state employees should be barred from double-dipping: retiring, taking pensions and then taking on another state job.

"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/plan-outlined-to-cut-california-pension-costs.html