Comments on: CA Declaration of Independence 2011

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:02:11 +0000

Sorry, Ron Kilmartin. The benefits being provided to existing retirees are among the most securely protected under our laws – whether you agree with them or not. If you’re one of the people who truly believes the 8th largest economy in the entire world has failed, you’re simply not paying attention.

This is nothing more than the opening gambit in a contest for political power. There will undoubtedly be numerous counter proposals and, eventually, litigation at every level up to the US Supreme Court to verify the scope of the proposed changes.

If you read Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution, you’ll quickly find that it completely prohibits ex post factor laws, bills of attainder (which would target the property rights of current retirees), and interference with contracts.

If you value the US Constitution, why would you propose doing any of the basic things it prohibits?

By: James McRitchie

James McRitchie — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:05:36 +0000

PERSWatch.net will sponsor a “CalPERS Candidates’ Forum,” moderated by the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County, on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The forum will take place in the CalPERS Auditorium, Lincoln Plaza North, 400 P St., Sacramento, California. Free parking will be available under the building. Enter on the Q Street side between 3rd and 5th Streets. All members of CalPERS and the general public are invited. We all pay into the system; we should all have some input. Come and make your voice heard.

By: Willis

Willis — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:04:51 +0000

Wishful thinking.
The unfunded liability will “Never” be
funded and anyone under age 50 working
for a state pension will be lucky to receive
50 percent of the “promised amount”
Smart labor leaders in some states
(New Jersey) are beginning to see the light
and have taken steps to correct the problem.
But not California. Here some cling to the
notion that all will be better later.
Dreamers, fools.

By: Ron Kilmartin

Ron Kilmartin — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:12:24 +0000

I became bleary eyed attempting to digest the proposed amendment and gave up. It was disconcerting how often the term “defined benefit” is encountered, which would be unexpected from the wording of the preamble. I think this is still a taxpayer ripoff and something far simpler is needed. We should start from square one; public employees should not be entitled to a pension program any greater that the average of non-government pension plans within the jurisdiction in question whether a county, school district, or whatever. Thosewho are currently retired should have excessive benefits denied especially when gotten from various tricks, such as spiking. In addition, people who retired at less than 65 should get a prorated cutback until they are 65. Current retirees cannot continue on this gravy train . They need to understand the Bank of California has failed.

By: Finally, A CA Constitutional Amendment To Rein In Pensions :: Rick Baker Show

Finally, A CA Constitutional Amendment To Rein In Pensions :: Rick Baker Show — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:41:02 +0000

[…] This story was first published on http://www.calwatchdog.com […]

By: LetThemEatCake

LetThemEatCake — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:23:44 +0000

Sounds interesting.

Electeds are setting their own retirement programs & those of their biggest financial supporters – any wonder there’s been gross abuse & obscene pension spiking?

Fix it – cap taxpayer subsidized retirement benefits – at a a Social Security maximum payout per year.

Require anything beyond that SS payout equilavent – a SS Enhancement Program – to be voted on by the electorate & passed with a 2/3 majority to become effective.

Require that the electorate vote to re-ratify any passed SS Enhancement Program – with another 2/3 majority, every 10 years.