Comments on: Governor Supporting Pension Reform

By: PRI

PRI — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:32:51 +0000

Once again, Arnold is too late. He could have put a pension reform on the ballot in November. Instead, in February, along with Meg “No Controversies” Whitman, he backed out of supporting a pension reform for the Nov. ballot that was sponsored by the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. (See Steven Greenhut article here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-236563-whitman-state.html)

Arnold also dropped out of reform efforts in 2005.

Some “action” governor. He’s really the NO Action governor.

— John Seiler

By: EastBayLarry

EastBayLarry — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:14:54 +0000

Great ideas Ron!
I volunteer for the pension and teachers boards. I’m willing to serve on these boards for free!

By: Ron Kilmartin

Ron Kilmartin — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 04:44:50 +0000

Here is a thought. The pols cannot resist the unions. Instead, set up boards of average taxpayers who are paying income tax and property tax. Let them sit down with the unions who want 25% more (or whatever) than the private sector and let the union explain to these average folks why they should pay the union folks 25% more than they make.

If the unions want bigger pensions, let the board consist of private sector average folks on private pensions who are paying income taxes on their pensions and SSI, and property taxes, all supporting the union folks; and let the union folks explain to the average folks on the board why their pensions should be greater than that of the board members, who have to pay for the union pensions. The union explanations will undoubtedly evoke a loud “tough s__t!” from the board; “if we can get by on SSI + $2000, so can you!”

Teachers? The board should be tax-paying parents from the district. Let them explain why they should get 25% more (or whatever) with California schools rated lowest in the nation.

As long as the politicians are the ones determining salaries and pensions, we will never bring local government budgets under control. They look to these same unions to finance their re-elections! Of course they will give the greedy unions what they want. Taxpayers are eternally screwed under this scheme, It can only lead to total societal chaos and downfall of local governments, agencies and districts that fail to control their budgets. Vallejo is example number 1. There will be more.

By: EastBayLarry

EastBayLarry — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:23:40 +0000

I noticed there was no mention of reducing the amount of the pensions. Shouldn’t that also be included in any “reform”?

By: James Hawn

James Hawn — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:11:21 +0000

Do not even begin to act as if these empty suits really did something worth while.

For the average person who does have any information concerning the state pension program, they do have a clue what this article really means.

When in all reality, what was done, was not worth the time and energy it took to draft the article vaguely explaining nothing of any real value. This is just another HA-HA-HA-HA-HA by dear old Arnold Schwartzkennedy.