6 Reps sign on to union giveaway

Despite new attention on excessively costly pension giveaways and on disability abuses by state employees, the Assembly is pushing forward an astounding and potentially costly benefit expansion for public safety workers in a bill co-authored by six Republicans. Current law requires the workers comp system to pay an employee for work-related injuries. Unions have secured presumptions — when certain employees get heart attacks, cancer or other common ailments it is presumed to be work related.

According to the bill analysis, AB2253 extends the cancer presumption to firefighters and some peace officers to up to 180 months after termination. So if someone retires at age 55 and gets cancer at age 70, that cancer is presumed to be caused by work and the system pays for all the costs. Given how common it is to get cancer late in life, this is opening the door to enormous costs.

The princi[al coautheors are Jeffries and Solorio. Other coauthors are Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blumenfield, Chesbro, Cook, Fletcher, Fuentes, Hagman, Lieu, Mendoza, Nava, Portantino, Salas and Villines. Senate coauthors are Corbett, DeSaulnier and Price. Consider it a list of union-owned legislators.

–Steven Greenhut

No comments

Write a comment
  1. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 25 February, 2010, 17:11

    And of course our brave firefighters who come down with cancer don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. The insensitivity of the Rabid Right is mind-boggling!

    Reply this comment
  2. lobbyguy41
    lobbyguy41 26 February, 2010, 06:22

    Benefit of the doubt – who are you kidding? Public safety members are eligible for 3% at 50! Who else in the private or public sector get that kind of benefit? I think Mr. Greenhut’s point is that to consider a 15 year presumption on top of very generous benefits that even the State Treasurer are unsustainable is ludicrous. No doubting the bravery of public safety members – but at what point do we say enough?

    Reply this comment
  3. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 27 February, 2010, 10:17

    We say “enough” to the firefighters and police at about the same time that we say “enough” to corporate tax breaks and loopholes and to our being the only state in the union that doesn’t tax oil production.

    Reply this comment
  4. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 27 February, 2010, 10:31

    Almost forgot, Lobbyguy41, here’s a news flash. Most of the firefighters and police who have the “3% at 50” formula are NOT eligible for Social Security. When you consider that, maybe their benefits aren’t so “generous” after all.

    Reply this comment
  5. Withheld
    Withheld 1 March, 2010, 07:16

    One of the biggest problems with this debate is the lack of numerical literacy. Saying someone shouldn’t be criticized for a “3% at 50” benefit being too generous because they don’t also get social security is a perfect example. Social security benefits, in aggregate, deliver about one-twentieth the financial benefit of a “3% at 50” pension. It is irrelevant by comparison.

    StevefromSacto – you really ought to run the numbers before calling people “rabid right.” Greenhut is correct to criticize this. Public safety unions have conned their members into thinking nothing is too much for them. Nearly 50% of former public safety workers claim disability, which makes their pension income non-taxable. What is just about this? They already have a pension twenty times better than social security, and now they don’t have to pay taxes on it? Even if most of these disability claims weren’t fraudulent, and most of them are, why does anyone having a disability make them immune from paying taxes?

    Relying on soundbites to make your arguments, and calling people names, doesn’t advance the discussion. The financial costs of the benefits public employees currently enjoy are sinking our economy. Run the numbers.

    Reply this comment
  6. OCO
    OCO 1 March, 2010, 08:01

    StevetheleechfromSacto with more of his whopper lies.

    Hey trough feeder, when you get a $5 million pension @ 50 that you only paid $150K into, if even that, you are about 1000 times better off than SS, which pays on average $12K per year at age 67.

    Why don’t you stop trying to play the hero card and just admit you’re just a little oinker living at the trough off of other peoples hard work.

    Reply this comment
  7. Generation X
    Generation X 1 March, 2010, 09:32

    Notice policemen and firemen don’t make the top 10 list. Stop being fooled by false information.

    Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in Order (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008)
    1. Fishers and related fishing workers
    2. Logging workers
    3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
    4. Structural iron and steel workers
    5. Farmers and ranchers
    6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
    7. Roofers
    8. Electrical power line installers and repairers
    9. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
    10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs

    Reply this comment
  8. Ugh
    Ugh 1 March, 2010, 10:25

    DiG into their dealings … find some criminal activity and send them to jail … where they belong

    Reply this comment
  9. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 10:33

    Quoting …” stevefromsacto says:
    February 27, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Almost forgot, Lobbyguy41, here’s a news flash. Most of the firefighters and police who have the “3% at 50″ formula are NOT eligible for Social Security. When you consider that, maybe their benefits aren’t so “generous” after all.”

    BS … their (i.e., YOUR) benefits are WAY over the top even w/o Social Security … to be clear, 4-6 TIMES what a Private Sector Taxpayer who make the SAME pay, retires at the SAME age, and has the SAME number of years of service. And,it is THESE Private Sector Taxpayers who just happen to FUND 80-90% of what these Cops/Firemen get.

    NOW do you understand WHY we say YOU are GREEDY ?

    Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on society …. and a far greater concern for America’s future than all the terrorists combines !

    Reply this comment
  10. Pete
    Pete 1 March, 2010, 11:01

    Ban government unions, End of problem.

    Reply this comment
  11. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 1 March, 2010, 12:39

    This is really a riot. Withheld talks about “relying on soundbites and calling people names” and OCO follows with a vast array of right-wing slogans and a host of namecalling. Not surprising.

    Talk about whopper lies, OCO. The firefighter with a “$5 million pension”–remember that’s over a at least a 30-year period–would pay about $650,000 in employee contributions. The state would pay about $600,000. The remaining $3.75 million comes from CalPERS investment revenue. Statistics don’t lie, but…

    By the way, OCO, I’m not a firefighter. I just value their service and am willing to contribute some of my tax money for their benefits. Maybe you and Withheld should address your comments to your local firefighters so they can remember them should your house catch fire.

    And you still ignore the fundamental question: Why are you willing to cut pensions for firefighters and public services for the rest of us while you refuse to tax oil production and reduce corporate tax giveaways? Are the oil companies and the fat-cats more deserving of our support than the people of California?

    Reply this comment
  12. CHPMaster
    CHPMaster 1 March, 2010, 13:24

    All the complaining by the duped public or the posturing of politicians isn’t going to do jack. Nothing will change. I’ll be eating lobster frequently and taking quite nice vacations while you dupes in the private sector eat canned beans an d do the sit-and-spin at home. Just repeat to yourselves: “I should have voted…I should have voted…”

    Reply this comment
  13. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 13:26

    Quoting StevefromSacto says:
    March 1, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    “…The state would pay about $600,000. The remaining $3.75 million comes from CalPERS investment revenue.”

    Steve, I’m not sure if this is just more diversion form the real issue(your excessive pensions & benefits) or you really believe the crap your Union feeds you. There are ONLY 2 payees into the system, the employees (you), and the employer (i.e., the TAXPAYERS). Interest derives FROM these 2 (and ONLY these 2 sources). Had these contributions NOT been made, the interest earning thereon would be in the pocket of the contributors.

    And in the end game its NOT split 50/50. When all the pension increases (usually retroactive … for which ZERO came from the employee) and games-played (spiking, etc.) are factored in, the Taxpayers pay 80-90% of the total.

    Give up with all you BS … the Private Sector is finally catching-on. The end is coming soon. I suggest you save bigtime OUTSIDE your plan. When (not if) it fails, you will need these funds.

    By-the-way, did you see Whitman’s proposal (you’ll like this one) … increase the retirement age for most EXISTING employees from 55 to 65. Finally, someone proposing the very NECESSARY changes !

    Reply this comment
  14. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 1 March, 2010, 13:59

    Talk about crap, toughlove. You completely ignore the $200 billion CalPERS fund. Are you telling me that an individual putting his or her pension contributions in the bank can make anywhere near as much as a fund which has $200 billion to invest? If so, I have a lovely bridge in SF to sell you cheap.

    The statement about taxpayers paying 80-80 percent of the total is bullcrap. 75 cents of every dollar comes from investment income, not the taxpayers.

    And please stop saying that an average pension benefit of little more than $20,000 a year for someone who has worked 20 years is “excessive.” That’s also garbage.

    I have no problem with stopping pension spiking. Nor do I have a problem with OJT Meg (that stands for the on-the-job training she will need as governor) saying that she will raise the retirement age for public employees. But does that include the 40,000 that she wants to throw out of work?

    Reply this comment
  15. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 14:56

    Steve, You are SOOOO financially inept. So what if CalPERS has $200 Billion (or $250B or whatever), when its iou’s TODAY are 50% higher.

    The ASSETS aree WAY below LIABILITIES with little chance of working its way out of this mess.

    CA’s chief actuary, ROn seeling (the guru who does this stuff for a living) has stated that the current pension system is “unsustainable”.

    Educate yourself !

    Reply this comment
  16. Metaphysical
    Metaphysical 1 March, 2010, 15:08

    Steve is so far out of bounds I don’t know where to start. He personifies a crushingly painful entitlement mentality which will sink the rest of us.

    STOP PLAYING THE “HERO” CARD! We’re on to you. This isn’t about the “rabid right”, whatever that is, nor is it about CEOs or corporations. Your lame attempt to excuse raping taxpayers by saying “See? CEOs are worse!” isn’t working. And NO, your “brave firefighters who come down with cancer don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt”. Again, no they don’t. Many people get cancer. Exactly how does police work or fire work expose them to more or less danger than the rest of us? Office workers can get closed building syndrome & ship workers other illnesses. That’s the problem with these damned unions- they are so unimaginably greedy that they’ve lost all sight of reality. They actually think they’re entitled to everything under the sun at OUR expense and justify it because of errant Wall St types. Well, Steve, as my Dad used to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

    To hell with your shameless entitlement mentality and budget busting greed. No, dammit, you are NOT entitled to more and better than the rest of us. Don’t like it and think the private sector is so much better? Fine. Get out and join us in the unemployment line.

    Reply this comment
  17. SEESAW
    SEESAW 1 March, 2010, 16:26

    It is you who needs to get educated Tough Love. When you quote words spoken by anyone, you should not take the quote out of context by chopping off the rest of what was stated. The CalPERS chief actuary said, in so many words, “The system we have now is unsustainable………unless we come up with some ways to make it so”.

    After that statement was made, the chief actuary of CalPERS participated in setting up the smoothing policy for the CalPERS participating entities, which is to be one new element of sustainability.

    Reply this comment
  18. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 16:38

    Well said Metaphysical …….. I was starting to feel lonely arguing with these real (or fake ?) mental midgets.

    Public Sertor Unions are a CANCER on Society …….. and America’s greatest threat.

    Reply this comment
  19. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 1 March, 2010, 17:39

    Wow, when toughlove says that public sector labor unions are a greater threat than Al Queda, I think that shows how off-the-wall he is.

    I will bet a million dollars that Metaphysical is nowhere near the unemploymenbt line, that he/she is living comfortably with a nice nest egg and isn’t willing to spend a dime of tax money to help anyone else.

    The real entitlement mentality is that metaphysical and his right-wing buddies are entitled to live in a cocoon of affluence and don’t have to give a damn about their fellow human beings.

    As to how does police work or fire work expose them to more or less danger than the rest of us: Exposure to chemical and biological hazards, work-related stress, the long-term effects of exposure to smoke are all widely recognized as adverse health effects for firefighters.”

    Of course, Metaphysical probably doesn’t believe in the scientific evidence of global warming, so this these facts won’t change his/her mind.

    Reply this comment
  20. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 18:40

    Steve … your attack on Metaphysical is just more “diversion” .

    Why get off subject. How about DIRECTLY answering something for a change .. try the following:

    (1) Why should Private Sector taxpayers fund 80-90% of pensions for you that are 4-6 times greater in value that an a similarly situated Private sector worker (with respect to pay, age at retirement, and years of service) gets ?

    (3) Why should you get to retire at 45-55 in great comfort (75+% of pay), while those that pay your way get to retire at 65 or 70 with little more than Social Security?

    (3) why should YOU get free or near free healthcare at 55 while just ABOUT NOBODY in the Private Sector gets any until Medicare @ 65 …. and WE get to pay for yours !

    (2) I’m guessing at least 50% of age 70 year olds have some form of cancer (e.g., skin). What your trying to get is ANOTHER freebie at taxpayers’ expense. Is there no end to your GREED ? Why is this fair?

    Public Sector Unions are like locusts … with an endless appetite, devouring everything in sight. They need to be eliminated, with no less determination than the locusts.

    Reply this comment
  21. Metaphysical
    Metaphysical 1 March, 2010, 19:13

    Ah, the lame attempts at diversion, deflection and obfuscation, all mixed in with snide personal insults. Let’s examine Steve’s post, shall we? Steve says:

    “I will bet a million dollars that Metaphysical is nowhere near the unemploymenbt line, that he/she is living comfortably with a nice nest egg and isn’t willing to spend a dime of tax money to help anyone else.”

    Let’s assume this is true: What difference would that make? What would my personal assets or lack thereof have to do with crushing public pension & pay obligations now burying taxpayers everywhere? Hint: This isn’t about ME! Its about what is best for our society. Making public servants wealthy at ever younger ages isn’t in our best interests. My favorite was the erroneous assumption that I wouldn’t spend a dime to help anyone. LOL! My unwillingness to pay enormous taxes so pampered unions can retire early and with BIG retirement packages doesn’t make me greedy. YOUR refusal to live under the same economic realities as those paying you makes YOU the greedy one.

    “The real entitlement mentality is that metaphysical and his right-wing buddies are entitled to live in a cocoon of affluence and don’t have to give a damn about their fellow human beings.”

    This is so ludicrous I don’t know where to start. Right wing? WTH? Hey, Stevie boy–you know NOTHING about me. I live in a “cocoon of affluence”? Really? Well, then, I guess I better stop working, cash out my millions & get the mansion stocked up. I am no right winger at all and in fact don’t care for the far right any more than I do the far left, which you seem to be a rather rabid member of as evidenced by your lame attempts at class warfare and weird diversions into global warming, which has zero to do with the issues at hand. I suspect too much LSD has impaired Steve’s ability to focus.

    “As to how does police work or fire work expose them to more or less danger than the rest of us: Exposure to chemical and biological hazards, work-related stress, the long-term effects of exposure to smoke are all widely recognized as adverse health effects for firefighters.”

    Total bunk. Those with PROVEN OTJ injuries should be compensated. Normal risks of life that we all face should not be, but there’s that entitlement mentality coming out again! Firefighting is still far and away not the most dangerous profession out there. I say paid them fairly–even well– but end the tyranny of public unions. You are NOT entitled to more than the public can afford.

    “Of course, Metaphysical probably doesn’t believe in the scientific evidence of global warming, so this these facts won’t change his/her mind.”

    What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand other than to show Steve’s staggering lack of focus? I’ll humor him and say that although I am no scientist I have concern at the effects thereof and prefer to act cautiously.

    We the public are fighting mad at you oppression of us. You WILL be made to live in the same world as we do. There’s a civil war of sorts brewing between the taxpaying public & unions. THE UAW thought it was invulnerable too. It was wrong. And so are you.

    Reply this comment
  22. out_of_here
    out_of_here 1 March, 2010, 19:52

    Well that about does it for me. Cali is going down and down hard so I guess it’s time to leave all these gravy sucking public union types and move myself and my tax dollars to some place that isn’t completely owned by the unions. Texas anyone?

    Reply this comment
  23. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 20:58

    Metaphysical …nice post (well thought out).

    There is one positive on the horizon. Yesterday, I saw that Meg Whitman (running for Gov in CA) is proposing an increase in the retirement age from 55 to 65 “including most existing employees”. Note the “existing”, and in CA no less. If this plays out well, it will be a heck of a lot easier to bring about similar changes in NJ and elsewhere.

    The thing that bugs me about the often quoted “judicial opinions” and “case law” saying that you cannot reduce the pension formula for current employees, is that these opinions are being made by judges, and in the case of NJ, by staff of the “Office of Legislative Services”. All of these people are Civil Servants, belong to the SAME Plans and would be negatively impacted by such reductions. They are hardly un-conflicted parties whom should be making such decisions. But if not them, who? Even if we could get the Federal courts to take up such a challenge, I’m guessing even they would not want to reduce Pensions at the State level, fearing such action could be a steppingstone to similar reductions in THEIR Plans at the Federal level.

    By hear is an interesting case … An article (yesterday) about a Pittsberg PA legislator hired in 1970 with a defined benefit pension whose formula is based on 7.5% (of final average salary) per year of service. You heard that right … 7.5%. After 40 years his $113K salary will yield a $313k annual pension. The formula was changed in 1974 to 3%, but only for mew employees.

    In my opinion, a legislature granting such outrageous benefits to itself is thievery. But at what level is it SO BRAZEN that it can be reversed AFTER the fact (with the participants denied payment)? Would 10% per year of service cross the line? How about 20% or 30%? I feel the 7.5% crossed the line and the 1974 reduction for new employees does not change that by the non-inclusion of then current employees in the reduction. If a citizen of Pittsburgh (with standing to file such a lawsuit) were to pursue this and win, it could open the floodgates for Federal oversight of the excessive packages still being granted all across the nation ….. what a wonderful outcome that would be (even with the 1000 to 1 odds)!

    Reply this comment
  24. Metaphysical
    Metaphysical 1 March, 2010, 21:36

    I do not know how Whitman can get around the “existing” employees part. There may be legal and/or constitutional prohibitions, or at least “contractual” arguments. In NY, from what I hear, unions claim their benefits are “constitutionally” protected. At least in NJ Gov Christie appears to be taking the unions on. I recall reading how he used actual examples of benefits run amok to show how badly taxpayers were being hurt. Hadn’t heard of that PA case, but wow…..

    Gradual lifting of the public’s veil of ignorance and exposure of the unions’ collective deceit, greed and influence may be one of our best tools for saving taxpayers and budgets alike, since your points about the courts, etc as being influenced have weight. Seems most in public service have a bizarre interpretation of how the world works & economic reality. At this rate we’ll end up like Greece.

    In the end, though, I fear economic meltdown may be the only message these buffoons understand. Well, that and the exodus of employed people to lower tax, less union friendly places……

    And so the battle for fairness continues…..

    Reply this comment
  25. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 March, 2010, 22:26

    Metaphysical, Here’s a ling to the PA case with the Legislator getting 7.5% per year of service … Astounding Greed !

    http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/mellow-s-state-pension-could-be-triple-his-salary-1.646622

    Reply this comment
  26. BrocktonBoxer
    BrocktonBoxer 2 March, 2010, 07:50

    Fire 90% of public workers, and privatize what is needed. Volunteer FD’s work just great, ours is awesome. In most cases it’s a scam job that doesn’t need men sitting around waiting for something that is far and few in between. Wake up people stop being such a useless cry baby population. You are allowing the public sector to steal from you kids and grand kids, you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    Reply this comment
  27. BrocktonBoxer
    BrocktonBoxer 2 March, 2010, 07:56

    Tough love they will never have a good answer to your questions. Most of the unions are nothing but crooks, time to squash them, they are robbing our children and grand kids. We should not make debt and expect them to pay for it. Fire as many gov employees as possible. Get rid of almost all paid firemen, it’s a scam job.

    Reply this comment
  28. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 2 March, 2010, 10:34

    The unabashed hatred for public servants by the above bloggers is truly frightening. To paraphrase JFK, I haven’t seen so much greed and insensitivity since Bernie Madoff blogged alone.

    For the last time, here is one irrefutable FACT: The average pension benefit paid by CalPERS is only about $21,000 a year for someone with 20 years of service. That means that roughly have of all retired public employees receive LESS than $21,000 a year. There is NOTHING obscene or excessive about a person receiving a pension of $21,000 a year or less, no matter how Tough Love, Metaphysical, and the late arriving Brockton Boxer try to spin it.

    We can agree on some needed reforms, like pension spiking and maybe a closer look at six-figure pensions. But morons who brand all public servants as crooks and who say that public servants are worse than Al Queda terrorists are beyond reason and not worthy of any more of my valuable time.

    StevefromSacto out.

    Reply this comment
  29. Tough Love
    Tough Love 2 March, 2010, 11:32

    Steve, I try one more time to clarify it for you. Your “entitlement” mentality, (the taxpayer-be-damned), will make this difficult for you, but try:

    The $21,000 avg you quote (if true) is the average of all current retiree pensions … INCLUDING those who only had short careers, as well as part-timers. As such it is a MEANINGLESS figure. What would be meaningful is what a full time, full 30-year career employee retiring TODAY would get (perhaps shown separately for safety workers VS others).

    My point … indisputable … is that whatever that pension figure is, not the full amount, but the portion NOT paid by you, but that share paid-for by the taxpayers, would be 2-4 times that of a similarly situated (in PAY, years of service, and age at retirement) Private sector worker, and that multiple would rise to 4-6 times for Cops & Firemen.

    When taken TOGETHER with the fact that Public Sector pay alone now EXCEEDS that of comparable Private Sector jobs (per the US Gov’t BLS), there is absolutely no justification for ANY degree of greater pensions & benefits for Civil Servants …. let alone these ridiculous multiples.

    Reply this comment
  30. Metaphysical
    Metaphysical 2 March, 2010, 15:01

    I would say we made some progress with Mr. Steve…

    He says “We can agree on some needed reforms, like pension spiking and maybe a closer look at six-figure pensions. But morons who brand all public servants as crooks and who say that public servants are worse than Al Queda terrorists are beyond reason and not worthy of any more of my valuable time.”

    At least he now sees that spiking & 6 figure pensions are an issue. That alone is progress! I don’t recall anyone comparing public servants to terrorists, but pubic unions are well known for their scorched earth tactics & ruinous effects on budgets & taxpayers. It is NO coincidence that states with the highest amount of public unions are in the deepest trouble. Take note CA, ILL, NY, and NJ…….

    Reply this comment
  31. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 2 March, 2010, 17:08

    ” I don’t recall anyone comparing public servants to terrorists.” Metaphysical

    “Public Sertor Unions are…America’s greatest threat.” Tough Love

    Reply this comment
  32. Tough Love
    Tough Love 2 March, 2010, 18:25

    They are …the UNIONs, not the workers themselves.

    Didn’t anyone ever teach you to read ?

    Reply this comment
  33. Metaphysical
    Metaphysical 3 March, 2010, 05:27

    Well, Steve, if YOU want to extrapolate unions as akin to terrorists based on TL’s comment then you go right ahead. Sounds to me like subconscious agreement by you, though.

    Public unions ARE a significant threat to our long term fiscal health. Just look at Greece for an example of what happens when unions get too powerful. Union greed (yes, greed) is killing taxpayers across the nation & causing muni budgets to implode. Nobody else gets to “retire” in a little as 20 years. Why the hell do you think you are special, more entitled or better than the rest of us? You’re not. We’re finally waking, which has you scared. Good.

    Reply this comment
  34. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 3 March, 2010, 19:47

    You just LOVE public servants, eh, Tough Love. It is only when they band together in a union to try to improve their working conditions, wages and benefits that they become the scum of the earth.

    As to Metaphysical, I finally see what’s bothering you. Plain old jealousy. Now I have no problem with you thinking that public employees have better benefits than you do. But instead of working to improve your benefits, you want to tear theirs down.

    Why shouldn’t all workers–public and private–have decent pensions and health care coverage?

    Incidentally, TL said that “public sector unions are America’s greatest threat.” That’s pretty damn simple and straightforward. Maybe you have to “extrapolate” that. I don’t. I know exactly where he’s coming from. And it scare the hell out of me that he fears his fellow Americans and the organizations to which they belong more than he fears real terrorists. Sounds to me like you agree with him, at least subconsciously, Metaphysical. And that scares the hell out of me even more.

    Reply this comment
  35. Tough Love
    Tough Love 3 March, 2010, 22:43

    No Steve, its only when that Union takes on the characteristics of insatiable locusts that I get my dander up.

    I just love your comment to Metaphysical …”But instead of working to improve your benefits, you want to tear theirs down. ”

    YOUR pension & benefits are unaffordable anywhere/anytime. Private Sector employers know that, and cannot and will not ever provide such unsustainable benefits …. as they’ll go broke in short order.

    YOU, only the other hand are quite happy with personally receiving these excessive benefits …. because your taxes and contributions pay only for a VERY small portion of this pot of gold.

    Time to wash up …. your entitlement mentality is rearing its ugly head.

    As for my earlier comment that public sector unions are America’s greatest threat, of course I meant “financial” (not military). Don’t play so dumb, you know what I meant.

    I stand by that comment. In fact, within the last few weeks I believe Gov. Schwarzenegger said something almost identical to it. What’s the matter, the truth hurts ? Your Union and other very similar greedy Unions are a major cause of the dire financial crisis spreading across cities and towns all across the land. Between the greed and the quid pro quo with city & town councils supposedly “negotiating” at arms length (but really in cahoots with you) you are destroying this great country.

    Reply this comment
  36. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 6 March, 2010, 18:05

    I AM NOT A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE! I JUST DON’T HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT IS BAD.

    WHEN YOU SAY THAT UNIONS ARE AMERICA’S GREATEST THREAT, I TOOK YOU ARE YOUR WORD. GIVEN YOUR HATRED OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, WHY SHOULD I BE SURPRISED?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Related Articles

Lame Jerry ad vs. Meg

By John Seiler: Jerry needs a new campaign team. I was reading this article on LewRockwell.com’s great libertarian Web site.

Push to rebrand GOP undercut by evidence of potent anti-tax focus

A group of moderate California Republicans that wants the party to rebrand itself as both pro-business and pro-environment and show

State workers get pay raise

How’s your pay raise going in the private sector? Woops! Didn’t get one? Well, you should have joined the public