In "The Devil's Dictionary" Ambrose Bierce defined "democracy" as "four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." He nailed it.

The Founding Fathers had two great concerns about the future of the country --- they feared the influence of religion and that the country might slide into democracy. They had seen both in the French Revolution, with Cromwell's Roundheads, and in the early colonies. They well knew that in a democracy, the majority will spend all its effort in stripping rights and priviledges from the minorities. This is why they gave up separation of church and state. But more importantly, it is why they made every important in the country appointed rather than elected. In fact, the only directly elected office was the House of Representatives and they were given the shortest possible term of office. (The House was actually made elected so that slave owners could be given a disproportionate vote so that slavery could be perpetuated forever.)

What you are seeing is classic democracy --- the majority stripping rights and priviledges from minorities.

I am all for "austerity" if the "austerity" would reach everybody. It is very obvious that the austerity measures always directly affect the middle class. The people WORKED for those pensions. They depend on them for a fixed living. Why not cut the salaries of the Government instead? or cut from so many other places where money is wasted?

California has some of the richest people in the world, yet schools and pensions are being slashed. Always targeting the ones that can't defend themsleves: the very old, the disabled and the children.

We can see by example that money is always available for the GOP when one of them is in serious need to win an election -like Walker- Austerity? What Austerity? No such word for politicians running for office.

It is about time. In the past, city councils have passed one generous pension increase after another in order to secure the votes of the city employees and to boost their own retirement incomes. Public employee pensions are far out of line with anything seen in the private sector. And the BS about them sacrificing going for higher paying jobs in the private sector is also a load of crap. Most of these city workers would not last two weeks in the private sector where they would actually be expected to work for their paychecks. They would also be subject to being fired for poor performance instead of having their jobs protected by the union and getting automatic raises virtually ever year. In addition, there is not this huge pay disparity between public employees and the private sector that the public employees like to claim. This disparity may have existed at one point about 20 years ago, but certainly has not been there in recent history. The problem is that they compare inflated job titles in the public sector with the same job titles in the private sector when a simple comparison by job title alone does not hold water. When you look at actual job duties and responsibilities, these pay differentials quickly disappear. Also, in the private sector there is no such thing as a cost of living increase to your salary. You either earn a raise through your performance or you do not get one.

For a decade my property taxes soared in WI. My taxes are so high now that upon retirement we will need to leave or just keep working. How is that fair? I own a farm. I am being taxed to death on my FARM BUILDINGS. That is utter nonsense.

CA started with many more resources than most states. They blew it with pie in the sky expectations and steep regulations meant to protect the environment. So basically CA is more interested in environmental issues, which are absolutely important, than securing a future for the younger generations of those born in CA. The old folks will just keep leaving as their incomes shrink. The youth is now leaving because they can't find a job, and can't afford housing.

IL is run by thugs. It is just that simple. I lived there for many years and my family is from Chicago. For decades the crime and corruption was manageable, but no longer. As Wright as said so often, "the chickens have come home to roost". It is time to clean house there and knock back the unions that own CA and Il.

If California government retirees could sell their homes they could move to Florida, buy an above average home and live like kings and queens.

Bruce - Beautifully stated...thank you.

I am glad they took this to the voters, as they are the ones who have not been represented at the bargaining table in the past. It is their money that are paying these pensions, they should have a say in the matter.

Opponents, led by public employee unions, say the measures deprive workers of benefits they were counting on when they got hired. Some workers decided against potentially more lucrative jobs with private companies, figuring their retirement was relatively safe.

"This is part of a broader effort to attack workers and to make their lives miserable," San Diego Councilman Todd Gloria said during a debate on the San Diego measure.

As opposed to those in the private sector, who are paying for these pensions, yet have no way of reaping the same high level of pension the Union workers do? This is already tasking the majority who are paying for this, measures like this will level the playing field, and help middle and lower class families. And NO there are not "more potentially" lucrative jobs in the private sector. More smoke and mirrors from the unions.

@ Bruce - well said, now, if only the Unions would get that through their heads!

After several discussions with people that work for the state who believe they are entitled to receive their fantastic retirement benefits and health benefits because they signed up for it when they started their job, I responded that my husband signed up for the same thing in the public sector but yet had his benefits slashed after working for his company for 34 years. Their comment is usually "Sorry, he wasn't smart enough to choose the right profession." The arrogance is beyond belief. To me this mentality is just as bad as anyone hating the one percenters. To me these government workers are also in this one percenter category. They don't care that they are bankrupting the state with all these unrealistic benefits.

what the general public does not know and is not told was that for many years city councils offered increased retirement benefits instead of cost of living raises, as a 28 year firefighter I recieved about 8 actual raises. so now they want to cut the benefit they gave us , are they going to go back and increase the salaries they didnt increase prior ? Police and Fire get a black eye from this however it was the city councils idea not ours. typical government putting the blame on the back of the employee.

You will now see the quality employees joining the private sector, next time you dial 911 you better hope they have enough people to answer the bell and show up with same day service.

Sorry, I meant 34 years in the private sector.

Time to do away with all public employee pensions, give them a 401k option with a 3% match.

Public pensions are sinking states and the states are picking the pockets of everybody else to cover them.

Take the current funds have an actuary divvy them up fairly and be done with them already.

I wonder if any of the individuals who proposed these cuts lead by example. Did they also take a cut in their own pensions, or are they above this too?

Why should the taxpayers and the young people pay for these people's pension plans. Do away with these pension plans and make the people retire at the retirement age and then collect SS.

It sickens me to see the young people in the work place stuck paying these people's pension plans for life, and then they can barely survive on what little of a paycheck they have left over.

People shouldn't be allowed to retire on a pension plan or SS at the young age of 37 or 45. Work until you are 67 like the rest of the people have to, and don't just look at the public to cut, cut all pension plans including government ones as well.

From the article:

Shrinking tax revenues during the recession are also responsible for service cuts,

The recession was caused by failed Republican policies.

Yet, the voters of Wisconsin and these 2 California cities are running to return to these failed financial approaches.

Some workers decided against potentially more lucrative jobs with private companies, figuring their retirement was relatively safe.

Historically, workers became city and state employees because Civil Service jobs offer great protections.

City and state employees had the "peace of mind" knowing that once they retired or became elderly, they would have a solid pension that they could rely on.

For the folks cheering on the what they believe will be the collapse of unions, when Wall Street gambles away your 401K and IRA's, do not be surprised. You will not be able to say that Wall Street never "rolled the dice" on the American people before. The party of "NO" must be "snickering" and rejoicing at the naivety of the American voter!

Hey, it's about time -- YES.

We can't keep using Greece as an economic role model.

Notice the headline and the story ... the writer tries now to make the reader sympathize with "public employees". The writer barely mentions is one sentence the word "union".

Where I work they did away with the pension plan instituted a 401k plan with a 3% safe harbor and a 2% match, not a bad deal considering I contribute 2% of my gross pay and the company contributes 5%

All contributions are 100% vested.

When the actuary determined what amount everybody was entitled to, they had the option to roll it over into the new 401K or take a lump sum.

California makes some TERRIBLE political choices (Boxer, Waxman, Waters, Pelosi, Feinstein, Brown)

But these are TWO that finally make some SENSE.

Walker, naivety of the American voter? Are you the informed "ingtelligent" Voter? HA!

My only question would be, how can one "agree" to something and then change it? I can no longer afford my mortgage, I will now decide to pay less. Wonder how that's gonna work out?

The gig is up. The cat is out of the bag. The genie is out of the bottle. You can call it what you may. The bottom line is the people paying the bills which is always the middle class and yes the rich are getting fed up with the politicans taking from them and wasting the money on one stupid program after another. Then turning around and claiming we don't pay enough. This victory is only the first of many victories which are to come by we who demand accountability. Enough is enough!!

Herman Cain, So you're saying you still have a mortage and you're retired? I call that bad planning. Did you cry for all the stock holders of GM that got screwed when the government took over GM? Workers are laid off every day that planned on having a job and paying their bills. Give me a break anyway. You're not losing your pention it is only being reduced by a small amount. I'm sorry but you guys sound very selfish. It ain't all about you guy!

The (R) mayor who is forced out due to term limits. What does that tell you?

These public workers deserve the pensions they were promised instead of fair pay..They are paid less in trade for a secure future...THese states need to go back and pay them all the back wages they are due then..

John Bayner

Time to do away with all public employee pensions, give them a 401k option with a 3% match.

Public pensions are sinking states and the states are picking the pockets of everybody else to cover them.

Take the current funds have an actuary divvy them up fairly and be done with them already.

...and you can pick up a rifle and defend yourself.

By the way; profits and bonuses have never been greater for banks and Wall Street while the rest of us struggle. In the mean time, the oil companies are still being subsidized. Who's picking our pockets?

Basically people are celebrating some sort of victory here. You just bailed out the politicians, just like banks and Wall St. were. You will feel an equal effect, none. As long as you're looking at the middle class, you can't see what is happening to 99% of the money in this country. That's fact. You will find no relief from this.

Mark-you don't see the forrest for the trees. It was an example, I'm not retired or currently in a union.

They did away with our pension doc, why should the taxpayers continue to foot the bill for the rising costs of everything associated with these plans.

I know that wall street and oil companies are greedy and sticking it to us, but they are private companies. My state income taxes went from 3% to 5% last year, mainly to keep the state pension funds solvent. Dole the money out and institute a 401k like most private companies have done in the past few decades.

Unbelievable the posts here.

All of us are middle class we need to stick together.

The rich corporate owners are the one that want a peasant class in this country.

and this attack on the middle class is just the beginning

Excellent posts and it makes me fill great to see the majority expressing the same beliefs as me. I think the article referenced by Bruce is spot on. Most importantly in an election where turnout was extremely high in Wisconsin the people who protested in the Statehouse and acted like they could never be defeated got whipped at the ballot box.

The problems, with city pension plans, are from those "at the top". These "good ol' boys" have set themselves up with hundreds of thousands in monthly retirement benefits. That should have never happened in the first place!

We can't keep using Greece as an economic role model.

One of the biggest problems with Greece is that everybody tries to get out of paying their tax obligations.

the pension reform voted for, is for future retiree's, not those already retired; across the nation, as tax revenue falls, the State and city's can no longer fund the promised pensions; the pensions are all invested with brokerage houses, who play the market with the money; the market earnings are in the tank, the 12-14% returns of the 2000-2007 are now 1-3%

, if the market starts a downward spiral, then the problem will get very serious for the already retired.

A small step, San Jose and San Diego, in the correct direction.

Our public servants get an F, yet they expect to be paid better than the private sector.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic of lower taxes = more jobs created. That scenario doesn't seem to be working to well these days. I think we ought to take a page or two out of a couple of Republican Presidential play books. Eisenhower stimulated the growth or our economy in the 50's with the Road Act, creating highways and jobs across the Nation. Even Reagan knew that coming out of the recession of the late 70's we needed to increase taxes so that jobs could be created. Okay, let's go back to a Democrat, FDR, he implemented the Civil Conservation Corp as a way to put people to work and grow the economy out of the Great Depression. Worked pretty well. It must be a balance. The private sector will not grow on it's own. They are fearful of spending their capital. Public employees on average have pensions of less than $30K a year (after 30 years). Sure they should pay their fair share, maybe work a few years longer, but they are not the problem. The problem is a divided Congress who have forgotten they are there to do the best for ALL the people, not just a few of the people.

A UNBALANCED apple cart requires occasional clean-outs..it's a Dirty Job, somebody has to grab the bull by the horns & CHANGE things..government Greed & Lavish benefits to selected individuals can be a BIT Overwhelming..for Christ's Sake, think about the unfortunate, for Vanity is Worldly & NOT of the written PLAN........

More than of precincts reported.

MORE THAN WHAT MSNBC?????

San Deezy and SJ have a lot of intelligent people, I'd say. LA is just too superficial and SF are filled with hippies who don't pay much attention to news. Regulations and tax increases are a plague to retirees and lower income families, which I understand, but these are necessary to boost revenue and keep CA air and water pollutant free. Its not about caring more about the environment than people, as theboys so implied. How is having smog filled air and crappy water, but lavish irresponsible lifestyles, leaving a legacy for future generations?? You want all of CA to be a dump? The CA smog checks, the higher standards that CA implement will keep CA beautiful and successful for a very long time. If you can't afford it, or if you don't want to live up to these standards, then get the $^&* out! Its a free country! Move to Texas or Nevada!

Bruce 308 said it well. The zogby comment is exactly correct. This is all part of the race to the bottom. All this thrashing around and beating each other up is caused by the wreck that was the middle class. The Feds don't get it as evidenced by the Secret service prostitute parties, the GSA Los Vegas Parties, the 9th District Appeals court party in Hawaii and the Obama Administration still trying to expand welfare programs and carry on hellashious wars and the Pentagon trying to maintain 910 bases overseas so they can keep feeding cash to the military industrial complex corporations they all hope to go to work for. It is coming apart folks. The Wisconsin voters, Sand Diego voters have taken the first steps. There will be more. If you want an American job you have to start supporting Americans. That means buy stuff made by Americans. Stop cannabalizing each other by buying all that cheap Chinese and Korean crap and vacation in the US instead of Europe or Asia.

Miss Copper's Mom,

How much deficit spending do you need to stimulate the economy? We are already running deficits of more than $1 Trillion/year.

@Chris-749391... Actually the "Wolves" quote is Benjamin Franklins:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Unbelievable the posts here.

All of us are middle class we need to stick together.

The rich corporate owners are the one that want a peasant class in this country.

and this attack on the middle class is just the beginning

Your mistake is that you equate middle class with union. Most people in the middle class are NOT union, and feel like many of those who are unionized only care about themselves, their jobs, and their benefits (and the rest can be damned). The middle class DID vote here, and it record numbers. And their voice was pretty loud and clear: We support the efforts of this governor and what he is doing.

Agree with Bruce 308 again ! Many folks do equate things with middle class that do not belong. People who make $250k a year think they are "middle" when they are in the 95th percentile of income. They think because they carry a cell pohone and have someone to report to they are "middle". Nope. They are rich ! they are in the upper class.

When will Congress, Senate, et al. give up their gravy train and who's gonna make them do it?

I understand that aprox. 30% of union members in Wis. voted against the recall. That does give me some hope that we can eventually get moving into the right direction.

In the private sector, company paid retirements are pretty much a thing of the past. Private sector employees contribute heavily to their own retirements (most at 100% now). Private sector employees pay a larger and larger percentage of their healthcare premiums. Private sector employees can be easily fired if they don't meet expectations. And on top of that, private sector employees now are paid less than their public sector counterparts. This election was a referrendum on the new haves vs have nots. The haves are the public employees who enjoy all the benefits that the rest of the people don't, and the have-nots are the taxpayers who foot the bill for it all.

The problem with this idea is that people in the public sector are paid considerably less than those in the private sector. This is made up for by having better benefits and retirement. As has already been mentioned, often times public sector employees have foregone promised pay raises in preference of better retirement pay. As one firefighter on this very board asked, "are you now going back and going to give me back that pay cut you took from me?"

This is similar to what happened in Wisconsin. The unions accepted every single financial cut that Walker wanted, pay cuts, retirement cuts, benefit cuts. I really don't understand how anyone in Wisconsin can talk about 'greedy unions' and 'haves vs have-nots' when there isn't a single thing that the unions weren't willing to give up, when asked.

Walker wanted more - he wanted the unions to not exists at all. And that's what he got.

Basically, what's going to eventually happen is that as these changes sweep the country, newer public service employees are going to start demanding up-front pay, as the voters cannot be trusted to keep their bargains. And if the voters aren't going to be willing to pay the salary that this person can get in the private sector, the position is going to go unfulfilled.

For a short while, you can take advantage of people who are already public union employees; since they have so much invested in being teachers or firefighters, or the like, they aren't going to be able to quit even if you cut their salary and benefits in half. But what are you going to do when they retire?

This is typical of the Romney tactics. Thinking of short term gains without ever bothering to consider the big picture.

Essentially, in any large company, you can save a lot of money by firing the research and development groups and pleading bankruptcy and raiding the pension fund. This is what Bain Capital does - raid a company, sell off all the parts, drain the pension fund and then force the company into bankruptcy. Once you have done that, you will certainly have extra money, but you have made the economy smaller by putting productive people out of work, and you have stolen from people who earned their pension.

There's only so many times you can do this before you have wrecked the economy; but that's fine, since you yourself are a mega-millionaire. And for some reason, people consider this parasite to be respectable. But the schoolteacher who has put 30 years into teaching other people's brats and now thinks she deserves a comfortable retirement is considered to be greedy and disreputable.

Many of you commenting have no idea what you are talking about. California has screwed the taxpayer for about 20 years now. They bumped the pension by 50%, making it possible for these folks to retire far earlier than 65, with up to 90% of their salary as pension. It also allows increasing their retirement pay by loading up their last year with accrued vacation pay, making their income look higher, so that they retire with a fatter check.

So a couple of examples of these poor government workers - the Elementary School Principal in Coarsegold, a small CA town with a very low cost of living receives a salary of approx $100k. We have multiple police "chiefs" earning more than $150k each in a city of approx 400k. We have more than 1,000 education employees in Fresno County (far from the LA / SF cost of living - nice homes start at around $180k) earning more than $100k. This is just in education. And our schools are producing a sub-par product, graduation rates are a joke.

These ARE the 1%, and they do think that they deserve to retire on $100k annual pensions.

Sorry folks, when the average US citizen earns $29k, and the average Californian earns $43k, this is not only outrageous, it is criminal. These employees are producing a sub-par result and being paid like top performers. It has to stop.

Good post Byron.

As the millionaires convince the little people that they too can become like them. Just use your voting power to take it out of the mouths of your little brothers and sisters, so there is more money in the pot for me, err, you.

For proof, look no further than who got left holding the empty bag and who was left holding the money bag.

Look no further than the conived scam Wall Street pulled on the majority of Americans, the little people.

The problem with this idea is that people in the public sector are paid considerably less than those in the private sector.

Study after study are showing that while this USED to be the case, it is no longer true. Public sector employees used to trade lower pay for decent benefits, but private sector salaries have stagnated over the last decade or two and public employees now earn more than their private sector counterparts. It's easy information to find if you just google it. The sad thing is that public employees still like to say it (maybe they still think they are paid less) and many people who hear it believe it.

Mister Wonderful, can you back up any of these figures and numbers? You have given extreme examples which may or may not be true.

More specifically, how much does the average public employee earn, and what is the average length of their careers and what is the average pension they receive?

Mister wonderful: I've seen this kind of info before from many sources. Agree with you. These retirement packages in public sector were exposed when the tide went out on the middle class. Because half of Americans do not pay income tax to the fed- this is a recent phenom - you can see the ability of what used to be the middle class to pay the bills is gone. Gubmint employees spent the 70's on planning and arranghing these packages thinking of course that the gravey train from the middle class would charge on forever. They could piggyback their plans on it and ride baby ride. So those same gubmint employees also decided to buy all that Korean and Chinese stuff, cars from overseas and most of all, they let contracts to foreigners like the Cal-Trans idiot that gave China the Bridge contract. So they helped kill off the middle class and now listen to them squeal. Like a pig stuck in the gate ! Sorry gubmint employees. We asked you all not to do to us what you did. You got defiant and in our faces about it and continue doing your damage to what's left of us. I am surprised the voters lashed back like they did because Ididn't think I'd see it in my lifetime. But it is deserved in a way. Join with the middle class and try to build America instead of just claiming your rights and priviledges. We have to all stop cannabalizing each other. You want an American paycheck ? You better start supporting Americans !

I am often perplexed by retirement issues. I am a public employee and I know the voters can change my retirement plan anytime they see fit. I do not like it, but it is the reality of things. As such I am preparing my own Roth IRA and 403b. I do not trust the voting public to care about my retirement. We as voters will always vote in our self-interest.

But overall we have a retirement problem in this country. Whether in the private, public, or SS. We have a massive body of people retiring (baby boomers) who where the engine of the economy for the last 40 years and racked up good retirement benefits as the economy prospered for most of their working lives. Their ability to generate profits allowed the generation before them to have hansom retirement packages as the was a huge work force supporting a smaller retirement population. As those retirement packages seemed to be the norm, everyone planned on these excellent retirements. However we have seen that as the retirement population grows and the workforce shrinks (with their ability to earn better wages) we have made commitments that neither a private company wants to live up to or the public. Their retirements have driven companies to drop the pension plans for 401k(s) or all together abandon their pensioners to the government dole. In the public sector these 30+ year employees also have retirement plans that were agreed too when economic times were better. Economic times have changed and public sector employees will bear some of the brunt of that change. We as a country have a problem, the companies who hired them, the voting public they served, social security that taxed them do not have the money or desire to live up to their commitment. Today's retirees have been and will continue to be short changed, they were sold a promise that was unrealistic. What suck for those close or already retires is they do not have the time to adjust to the new reality. The questions are...When you make a commitment how accountable are you to that promise? Should any person have their retirement changed just before or after they leave the work force? What will we do as a country with the millions of retirees leaving the workforce to ever decreasing retirement benefits? How much will we let the fixed income elderly suffer?

As a younger public employee I saw this coming and began to prepare from day one of my career, I would have done the same thing no matter what sector of the economy I worked in. I would not have trusted my boss/company/voter to care about my retirement, they have other obligations/needs/greed.

All around it sucks and we the middle class sit back and let the whine of hard times wash over us and we say:

Yeah it is hard times, I understand you need to cut back.

No, No...I am not going to stand up in court and demand you live up to your commitment or contract, I am glad to just have a job.

Yes, I understand in order to keep top talent we need to pay our executive well and we the working grunts....well maybe next time.

We the middle class need to demand some retirement security...I am just not sure how?

Study after study are showing that while this USED to be the case, it is no longer true. Public sector employees used to trade lower pay for decent benefits, but private sector salaries have stagnated over the last decade or two and public employees now earn more than their private sector counterparts. It's easy information to find if you just google it. The sad thing is that public employees still like to say it (maybe they still think they are paid less) and many people who hear it believe it.

Can you provide us with such a link, or such a case study? If it is such easy information that it can be so googled, can you do it for us?

Because I have looked at public sector work. Employees there in my line of work get paid 1/3 to 1/2 of what I can make in the private sector. Even with a generous pension, it's not worth it for me.

Someone with 20 years of experience is a mid-level to high-level manager in a large company. Such people can easily make more than 200K. And yet you have people complaining when school principals make more than 100K.

In addition, it would appear that economics itself argues against you. I can assure you, that if the starting salaries were higher in the public sector, you would find graduates entering that workforce in droves. Private companies would have to raise their salaries to match. Then how is it possible that the salaries in the private sector have stagnated? Obviously, the only way they could have done so is if the public sector had also stagnated.

Bryon,

How do you address the fact that the pension costs were not sustainable? NO pension should provide 80-90% of your salary for the remainder of your life after 20-30 years of service. The math does not work when people can retire in their 50's and live another 30-40 years. That's why private industry is doing away with defined benefit pensions and going to defined contribution plans like 401(k)'s. How much more of YOUR income are YOU willing to contribute for the rest of YOUR life to maintain these absurd pension/ponzi schemes? It's easy to spend someone else's money. Will YOU contribute 10-15% more of your income, including your retirement income for the rest of your life? I doubt it.

Another point - in all likelihood, the voters never really had the chance to provide direct input on pay and benefits for public service employees. Over the years, things slowly got out of whack. It's just not sustainable.

Finally, I can tell you from long-time first hand experience, while there are many fine, very competent, well-meaning public sector employees, there are many (very many) that could not get an equivalent job in the private sector. That, frankly, is why many of them land in the public sector. Pay and benefits are (and should be) market driven. The best demand the hightest pay and it flows down from there.

Try finding a job in the private sector when you have 20 years experience. Private sector won't hire someone as accomplished as that; they would rather hire the 20 year old and pay them minimum wage. Remember, private sector has their shareholders and especially those CEO's to keep fat and happy.

Debi - my experience is that 20 somethings have no work ethic. In my business, we prefer 20 years of experience because too many under 30 have a sense of entitlement with no work ethic. Bottom line - the best and brightest almost always have jobs and opportunities regardless of the economy. Sometimes they even create their own opportunities.

And what's wrong with a company maximizing it's profit? That's what it's there for in the first place.

They cut pensions! Next step should be to cut the paycheck of all those "public SERVANTS" that make more than $75,000 per year. Probably save 10 million dollars! public servants should NOT BE RICH!!!!

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson

WakeUpAmerica: Profitizing is certainly fine when it's done on your own dime, but wrong when it's done on the backs of the taxpayer.

Look no further than the bailout by taxpayers of the banks and even bigger taxpayer funded muscle to protect the interest of the private oil and resource companies, otherwise known as the "Iraq War".

How much more of YOUR income are YOU willing to contribute for the rest of YOUR life to maintain these absurd pension/ponzi schemes? It's easy to spend someone else's money. Will YOU contribute 10-15% more of your income, including your retirement income for the rest of your life? I doubt it.

Perhaps you should wait till I have had a chance to answer before speaking up for me. I am willing to contribute a sufficient amount of my income so that the schoolteachers who educated my kids and all of the various other public servants who make our country and government function are going to have a reasonably comfortable retirement. This is fair.

As for the rest, the onus is on you to prove unfairness. As I already pointed out - the public unions agreed to every SINGLE one of Governor Walker's financial demands. Every single one. Do you understand why this is important?

It shows that at least in Wisconsin, public unions are very painfully aware of the shortcomings of the economy and are more than willing to work with the voters to make sure that they don't take more than their fair share.

Instead, what voters have said is that public unions may not exist at all. That workers have no collective bargaining and must accept whatever salary they are given.

As I said, what this basically means is that Wisconsin voters have chosen to dismantle Wisconsin. For now, they have a lock on current Wisconsin public sector employees - teachers and firefighters who have 20 years invested in their jobs aren't going to quit even if you slash their salaries into half. They will just suffer through.

But you are not going to get a lot of good fresh talent going into the Wisconsin public sector. Why would anyone starting out be willing to work under these job conditions? Make less pay, have no retirement benefits and a few years from now, your employer can cut your salary again.

The eventual result is that Wisconsin is headed to a place where there is no Wisconsin government; it's all private sector. And so is the US. The problem with this idea is that it means that Wisconsin will be owned by a few very rich people. We have already been through this once before, in the Middle Ages, where land was owned by a few rich barons, and pretty much everyone else was a serf.

Government exists to prevent that. That is the whole point of government; to say that all men are equal, no matter how much money you have. You eliminate government, and all that is left is the money, and money has no conscience. Americans seem to be forgetting this. Only in this country will you find a political party so hellbent of destruction of the country.

They cut pensions! Next step should be to cut the paycheck of all those "public SERVANTS" that make more than $75,000 per year. Probably save 10 million dollars! public servants should NOT BE RICH!!!!

So you think George Bush, whose pension is more than $75,000 for the 8 years of work that he did for us, is being paid too much? Should we also ask him to return the part of his salary where he made more than $75,000?

Software and various other types of engineers, research scientists, school principals, various managers, people who run huge departments have talents that are full the equivalent of anything you will find in the private industry. Should they be paid considerably less simply because they are public servant employees?

The bottom line is, America runs as a country because of these people. Should we fire them because you think they make too much money?

Much of the success we enjoyed as an economy between the 50's and 70's was based on one simple fact: The vast majority of the world's manufacturing bases and infrastructure were destroyed during WWII with one big exception: The United States. After the war ended, Europe and Asia were in shambles and had to rebuild, and no one had a manufacturing base to do it. As the sole supplier to the world, we could sell virtually anything we could make, at pretty much any quality, and at pretty much any price. So we prospered. Companies prospered. Unions prospered. And people prospered. Once the other nations got themselves put back together and started actually competing with us (Japan most notably in the 70's and 80's) we struggled because we realized (a) our cost structures were bloated and (b) our quality wasn't as good as what our new competitors were turning out.

Whether we recognize it or not, our "great winning streak" (all by default) was primarily our luck at surviving the great war pretty much intact. Now there are different rules and we no longer enjoy this advantage, and in fact many of the decisions we made during that streak (pensions, etc) are now millstones around our necks.

Whether we recognize it or not, our "great winning streak" (all by default) was primarily our luck at surviving the great war pretty much intact. Now there are different rules and we no longer enjoy this advantage, and in fact many of the decisions we made during that streak (pensions, etc) are now millstones around our necks

Would be a great argument and sounds very convincing, except for the simple fact that Germany was the country we destroyed in the war. Germany now has extremely strong unions and is extremely prosperous, so prosperous, in fact, that it is now looked to support the rest of Europe. Which they don't want to, of course, but that is another argument.

Let me offer you an alternate explanation: Germany is extremely prosperous because it has strong unions. As such, it is like the US in the 70s and 80s was, when we also had strong unions. We might not have been able to compete in certain areas, but we were still doing pretty well.

As it is, the entire economy runs on the buying capacity of the American consumer. As American unions have been crushed, the ability of the American worker to demand decent wages has been destroyed.

The American consumer IS the American worker. Because the wages of the American worker have stagnated, the American consumer has been unable to do his share in keeping the economy going, and as a consequence the entire economy is suffering. It is a vicious cycle that keeps on feeding on itself.

Is there a way out of this? You betcha. But it is now against the political ideology of so many so-called 'Conservatives.'

Well Byron, here's one and it took me all of about 10 seconds to find it:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/private-vs-public-sector-pay/

You site your own case as if it's true across the board. Sure there are going to be exceptions to any axiom, but overall government workers are now paid better, not worse.

Here's another:

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

And another:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

They are easy to find and this was just with one simple good search on "public pay vs private salaries"

Both sides have responsibility in this mess we face, but if you can look past the forest and see the trees, I have to agree with Byron on the direction we are heading.

When our highest court allows corporations to choose the law and policy makers of the country (money usually buys elections), and large corporations team up with the elite decision makers in government (crony capitalism), it is a recipe for disaster.

The sheep are being lulled and slowly led to the slaughter and history will repeat itself. Prepare yourselves for the days of the land barons (the 1% and government elite) and the serfs (the rest of us). We've relinquished our power to our overlords.

Do any of you know anything about labor contracts. I am a CA state worker who will retire with 30 years of service at age 65. I have two degrees, in economics and accounting. I have not had a cost of living raise in more than 7 years. I contribute 8% of my pay to my pension. My job pays 30 to 35% less than the same job in the private sector. The reason CA state pensions were enhanced were so as not to have to give employees cola's, which is the case. Since my pension is part of what is considered a contract between myself and the state, the only way my benefits can be cut is for the state to go into bankruptcy and states can't go into bankruptcy, against federal law. If the state wants to cut my future pension then under both federal and state contract law I would have to be compensated equally in another way. That means the state would have to pony up 30 years of wages I did not get because my "contract" with the state cannot be altered legally. The state can do whatever they want for future hires but yes no matter what, I will get my 75% of my highest 12 months of pay and no, state workers in CA cannot spike their pay with overtime or vacation unless they are public safety workers (police, fire fighters etc.). All the commotion about state workers now is simply pension envy. Most of my friends who are as educated as myself thought I was crazy to work for the state at the low wage I get. Now because of my "contract" that will still give me the benefits promised when I was hired they want to take it away. Will not happen. The federal govt. will not change the law to allow states to file for bankruptcy. That is particularly true of CA. The feds would not let the 8th largest economy in the world go into bankruptcy. And by the way the average pension of state workers is about $23,000, not the six figure pensions as the right claims and this is for 20 to 35 years of service. I have no problem if CA changes future hires other than they will not get the qualified employees they need in positions like mine that by the way brings in millions in tax dollars. There has never, ever been a case in federal or state courts that have upheld the cutting of benefits for represented state workers unless as I said the employee receives something in return of equal value. Sorry if this pisses off so many people, but where were they when it came time to choose a profession. Most did not take the state route.

@ Amber, your 8% contribution to your pension means the taxpayer is paying 92% of your pension, while most of them have no pension plan. These plans have mostly been eliminated since they cannot be sustained through the investment funds, nor can the company make up the difference as there are not the profits available to fund it. Yet, you believe you should have this benefit, even though the State never generates a profit, and the only way they can pay your pension is to take it from the Taxpayer. The only thing I will say in your defense is I can understand you believe you should receive the terms of your contract, no matter what. But the reality check is, all those folks in the private sector had contracts too, but as the saying goes, you can't get blood out of a turnip. We have people retiring so early they spend more years on a pension than they did in service to the company, that was not how the original pension plans were envisioned or structured. They were not capable of funding a retiree for 20-30 years. Hence, why they have been phased out. Obviously, the Unions have been the holdout, insisting that the pensions remain. However, the Unions don't care how the company/govt. gets the money to pay for the pension, they only want it paid. This mentality has put companies out of business. As you said, a State can't go bankrupt, but that doesn't mean the Taxpayer should make it up. The govt. pensions need to be changed, just like they were in the real world. The changes like those in the article and the fight in WI is a result of the Taxpayer fighting back for fiscal responsibility, not run away spending to cater to power groups. I wish you well, at least you will get to retire, I can't even think about it until at least 67 and even then probabaly will not be able to retire, unless Obamacare kills me first.

Agree with Willowbrook. Very well stated comments. Also, Amber says she is a CA employee who is paid well under private sector for the same work. I've heard this for 35 years from my gubmint friends. I have never seen it in real life. I have a job that is titled exactly like people I know in gubmint. They get every single weekend off. I used to work half of all weekends after putting in a 47 hour week by Friday ! Some holidays too! I've taken training courses on other weekends, paying for them myself. So I built up skillsets and experience that makes my employer appreciate me to a point where I received raises and now my salary makes them jealous and those like Amber make their claim. No one was jealous when I was putting in 2,300 to 2,500 hours per year for over 20 years. Last year I did 2,200 hours. Gubmint employees declare a weather emergency if frost even thinks about coming in the state, if a storm is visible on radar, and every low level holiday that a printer can list on a calendar causes them to have anothger day off. Many barely clock 1,800 hrs a year. they retire in their 50's, I'll be working till almost 70 if my plans and health work out. I must fund my own retirement. So compare 48 years of work at 2,300 hours to a gubmint carreer of 25 to 30 years at 1,800 to 1,900 hrs and see who is shorted. The math may reveal the gubmint employees are actually better paid ! Yet comparing title to title they always claim they are shorted on their salary. When I see it actually happening, I'll admit it. So far I haven't seen it.

Well, Bruce, the problem with each and every of your statistics, in each of the articles that you cite, is that you are comparing the average of all government employees to the average of all private sector employees. Does the government hire teenagers? People who work at McDonald's? Farm workers? Construction workers? Each of these will bring the private sector average down. Your comparison only holds meaning if it is for equivalent work.

As it is, each and every one of the articles you cite are nothing more than an attempt at false statistics.

You did not address my point - which is that economics itself argues against you. If someone entering the work force could get better pay from the public sector, that's where they would go and public sector employers would be forced to raise pay to match. The simple fact that private sector wages have been stagnant indicates that public sector wages have been as well. The only way that this could not be valid is if the employees come from different pools. Are you willing to try to argue that somehow?

@ Amber, your 8% contribution to your pension means the taxpayer is paying 92% of your pension, while most of them have no pension plan

By no means is this true. She is paying 8% of her SALARY towards her own pension. This does not mean that the taxpayer is paying 92% of her pension, because unless you know how far away she contributed towards her own pension, and what the growth rate is, you have no idea how much she really contributed towards her own pension. It is quite possible that not only is she covering her own pension, but also that of fellow employees, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for nothing.

In any case, that is her employment contract. If she agreed to it when she was hired, then she has a right to it. Simply because you have no pension does not automatically make it unfair that she does. Maybe she has special skills and talents that you don't. Or maybe not.

This is a Communist argument; it basically reduces down to that no one has a right to make more money than you. If you really feel this way, why don't you go complain to Wall Street?

Yet, you believe you should have this benefit, even though the State never generates a profit, and the only way they can pay your pension is to take it from the Taxpayer.

The purpose of the government is not to generate a profit. The purpose of the government is to create an environment in which people have jobs and corporations make profit. Are California corporations doing well? Are Californians making money? Last I knew, someone on this board had cited statistics that the average Californian makes almost 50% more in income than the average American.

If Amber is one of these enablers, through the state of California, then she deserves a part of this.

Byron, for all practical purposes, the State IS the company. I'm showing how stupid the notion is when companies, WHO GENERATE PROFIT, cannot support a pension plan, while a State Govt, THAT HAS NO PROFIT is able to?!?!?!? That is the basic problem, they can't support the plan without increased taxes to all taxpayers. This is class warfare, creating upper class Union workers on the backs of Middle and Lower class taxpayers. No one appreciates it, except those with the artificially inflated wages. And yes, the vast majority of govt. workers make 1/3 more in pay and bennies than equal jobs in the private sector.

Oh and Californians pay 50% more for everything than the rest of us do too. Just like NYC.

In reality, the Taxpayer is paying 100% of Amber's pay. End of story.

Pensions have become too expensive. This is why virtually all public companies have dropped them. The government (taxpayers) can not afford them either. The sooner they act the better off we will all be.

Byron, for all practical purposes, the State IS the company. I'm showing how stupid the notion is when companies, WHO GENERATE PROFIT, cannot support a pension plan, while a State Govt, THAT HAS NO PROFIT is able to?!?!?!?

If the state is the company, then do all the profits the company makes belong to the State? Your notion makes no sense whatsoever.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that corporations and companies do not exist in a vacuum and their profit is made by using public resources. Take Fedex, for example. It makes a profit because it is able to use public roads and public airways in order to make deliveries. These roads do not come free. The security you get to keep from al-Qaeda from taking over the US comes from the use of the army and law enforcement. The government services that companies and people use are many. None of these are free.

The problem is that so many people are simply not willing to take personal responsibility. Essentially, they want people like Amber to work for free or near-free because they think that these services are free. They are not.

In fact, the hypocrisy is amazing. People have no problem with corporations raising taxes. In fact, during the Obamacare debate, people fought tooth and nail to be charged whatever health insurance want to charge them. Similarly, people fight for the rights of banks to charge whatever they want, and reject any idea that regulation might be a good idea.

And they also criticize the government for not behaving like a corporation. Yet, when a government behaves like a corporation and increases the prices it charges for the services it provides, we are told about how horribly inefficient government is and how immoral it is to have any taxes whatsoever.

That is the basic problem, they can't support the plan without increased taxes to all taxpayers. This is class warfare, creating upper class Union workers on the backs of Middle and Lower class taxpayers. No one appreciates it, except those with the artificially inflated wages. And yes, the vast majority of govt. workers make 1/3 more in pay and bennies than equal jobs in the private sector.

If this is true, then why does anyone ever work for the private sector?

Oh and Californians pay 50% more for everything than the rest of us do too. Just like NYC.

Having lived in California, Texas, New England, and other places, I can tell you that this is simply not true.

In reality, the Taxpayer is paying 100% of Amber's pay. End of story.

And she is providing value in return the taxpayer. The price of a commodity is what the market will bear. The taxpayer does not have the right that she works for free, all the taxpayer can reasonably expect is that she be paid a market wage. Voting her salary down and telling her 'take it or leave it' is exploitation, pure and simple.

I'm sorry but willowbrook could not be more wrong, about practically everything. I contribute about 10% of my own pay to my 401-K, which will provide a comfortable retirement for me on it's own. Just because I "ONLY" contribute 10% of my gross pay doesn't mean anyone else will ever have to pay anything FOR me. The CA pension system works much the same way. Money is paid in, money is invested. There is no way in HELL an intelligent person can then claim that the "rest" of a CA state employee's pension is paid for out of tax dollars. It simply isn't true and that kind of ignorance of what happens in the real world should be illegal. The specifics of her retirement pay are obviously guaranteed in a contract, and should there be a shortfall, then tax dollars will be used to fulfill the difference based on the requirements contractually specified; that much is true. But the implication that 92% of Amber's pension will thus be paid out of taxpayer dollars is just so much conservative hyperbole. It is simply and utterly absurd.

If pensions need to be cut, they need to start with the top down. Start with Congress and their lifetime healthcare benefit for only a single term.

that statement is just plain silly

(to Maga, not it's simple)

A silly statement like that only adds to the gridlock and class warfare that the administration employs to keep us bickering and deflects the light from The Presidnet's inability or unwillingness to do anything to solve our financial crisis.

@Its Simple,

I guess you are the one who is simple. Members of Congress receive their health insurance through the Federal Health Insurance Plans just like any other federal worker. They pay the same share as a janitor in a federal building. Most choose Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. When they leave Congress, their federal health care stops unless they qualify for Medicare which a surprising number do.

The only special benefit that Congressmen get is that there is a Congressional Office of the Attending Physician which provides a small on-site clinic that gives very limited medical care --- no surgery, no dental, no vision care, and no prescriptions, etc for an annual fee. Most Congressmen do not choose to use this service.

There is NO free lifetime health care for Congressmen. That is a Fox lie! Here is a link to the factcheck.org article on the subject:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

It would be good if the Tea Party started actually looking at the facts before spewing their hateful anarchist venom. The liberal use of lies in their statements is only an indication that they have no real arguments, so they have to make crap up.

mcwsunshine

A silly statement like that only adds to the gridlock and class warfare that the administration employs to keep us bickering and deflects the light from The Presidnet's inability or unwillingness to do anything to solve our financial crisis.

We end up with a government that gives more tax breaks to the wealthy on the backs of the middle class...you ain't seen class warfare baby!

maga - "And it seems that reform always (according to the GOP) needs to come on the backs of the middle and lower class."

How utterly clueless.

Who do you think is paying for all of the public union benifits? Heres a hint, its "on the backs of the middle and lower class"... the same ones who need government money(taxes) to be spent on services provided to them instead of paying for benifits for someone else.

Collective bargaining by public sector unions is a recipe for disaster because they can and do intimidate the very officials that would vote for or against increased benefits by threatening their elected positions.

There was a very good reason why FDR denied public sector workers collective bargaining rights, and these days, we're seeing the wisdom of his position.

Maga is apparently adept at regurgitating the usual socialist/lib/progressive mantra about "on the backs of the middle and lower class" completely ignoring the fact that it is the top 5% that pays more in taxes than the other 95% combined, a fact all the more astounding when one considers that half of society pays nothing.

I'm from SD and I voted no on B because of the news coverage and ads on opposition groups. Besides, as a working citizen in the private sector, if they switched my pension to 401k, then the same should be done to city workers! Fair is fair, people.

When my father-in-law retired after 35 years of excellent service to his company, his "pension" amounted to about $500 per month plus COLA. The company was bought out by a larger company which "froze" pensions at current levels. Three years after that, the new company began to cut back "pension" payouts until, when he passed, his "pension" was less than $200 per month and NO medical benefits at all. The new company provided an annual stipend to help him pay for his Medicare tie-in plan.

Public employees have no need to complain about the giveaways they have received. Most of the lower level public employees we see in this area are caught napping on the job, coming back to base with a truck cab full of personal errand items, etc, all done while supposedly "working hard" on city projects. All of this has been documented on tape by our local television stations. Were these employees terminated? NO!!!!! They were allowed to continue "working," drawing their paychecks, and retiring at pension levels far above what private sector employees can count on, if the private sector employees have pensions at all.

All of my retirement is privately funded (by me and my wife). We have no pensions, only what we have managed to set aside, plus our Social Security benefits.

No "agreement" is permanent! Just look at what Congress does every year: "laws" are revised by the party in power (Democrats don't even start down that road), new presidents set new precedents, government agencies write new regulations, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Governments at all levels need to cut out pensions, provide 401-k opportunities, and generally increase levels of service for the taxpayers (or cut taxes; our property taxes have decreased each year for the last 3 years).

@Bob... "No "agreement" is permanent!"

What a ignorant statement. Try telling your bank that the 'agreement/contract' you signed with them isn't permanent and you now want a new lower interest rate or a lower price on the house. Or maybe they can say oh, we're raising your rate, well because no agreement is permanent and we want an additional percentage point or two... get real.

Those damn voters in California. I think the unions should get together and recall every one of the voters that cut those pensions. Like President Obama says, put on your marching shoes!

mcsunshine,

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/galbraith-social-security-middle-class

So: Most of the nation's remaining jobs are in services, where pay depends largely on acts of Congress. Houses are no longer valuable commodities. Private pensions are largely kaput, and many 401(k)s were also wiped out in the crash. What's left to protect economic security for ordinary Americans?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/galbraith-social-security-middle-class?page=2

Are you surprised that these programs (Medicare and Social Security) are under attack? The same forces that went after the unions in the 1980s, that relentlessly pushed free-trade agreements while manufacturing jobs evaporated, and that destroyed housing values in the 2000s— they're on the prowl again. If Social Security and Medicare are cut, finance and insurance companies will skim the cream—the wealthier, healthier participants—while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.

It's a little more complicated than that. During about two centuries of civil service, states and local governments actually put themselves in a hard place by trying to walk a fine line between keeping taxes down and attracting the people it needed to do the jobs. For two centuries, this resulted in civil service wages that were 15-20% lower than the same wages in private industry. This was especially bad since so many jobs in state and local government requires specific skillsets --- such as policemen and firemen --- or college degrees --- such as teachers and accountants and legal services. How do you keep pay down while attracting people who can do a great deal better in private industry?

The "solution" was to seek out people who valued future security over cash in hand. The low pay was justified by good retirement plans and good benefits such as healthcare. This sounded good to everyone (including the voters, administrators and politicians) and as long as the pension funds were adequate there was no problem. But it was actually kicking the can down the road for the next set of politicians, administrators and voters to deal with.

But the rub is that it is a very false and un-American way of dealing with people. You tell a teacher or a firefighter that the low pay is offset by good benefits and retirement, but even more so by SECURITY. Then, after the people are retired, the politicians and voters decide to screw then, not once, but twice. They got that third-grade to accept low wages for teaching --- ka-ching for the taxpayer --- and then after they are retired they characterize ALL retirees as "abusers" and cut their retirement --- ka-ching for the taxpayer.

The Founding Fathers were exactly right --- in a democracy, the voters can NEVER be trusted to do anything ethically or honestly or morally. In a democracy, a majority ONLY seeks to destroy minorities as efficiently as possible.

Chris,

Your argument would be more persuasive if the government employees didn't have pay/benefit packages and retirement plans that are better than their private sector counterparts.

In my part of the country, teachers, firemen, and police officers make more money that I do. I have no problems with what they make in salary. I believe they earn it. However, I pay into my own retirement account, and I have equal if not more education. My family is lucky in that my husband has a job that pays a lot of our health insurance. I like my job, it has fit my lifestyle. But it does not seem fair that the government employees can pay in small sums to a retirement account, then reap great benefits when they retire. How long can the state or federal government continue to pay out more than it takes in? I guess as long as we are willing to fund it by paying higher and higher taxes at the local, state and federal levels.

It has only been the last several years that the pay of civil servants has exceeded that of private business. High end job specialties in the private sector still pay more. It is only when you lump all of the degreed civil servants against the mcdonalds and like jobs that the public sector averages higher wages.

In the case of taking pension benefits from someone already retired, that should not be up for a public vote, that should have been made by the chicken chit politicians in office. They showed they didn't have the gonads to make hard decisions and proved that they don't deserve to remain in office.

Taking money from existing retirees is akin to theft of services. For new hires a lower pension plan yes, existing retirees no. That is the same as telling someone already on SS that they are going to lose all or part of their pension. That would lead to loud screams of protest from the majority posting here if that happened to them, if not outright revolt. Would you willingly give up or payback 50-75% of last years paychecks because the boss told you that was what he demanded? Taking from those who have already earned anything is wrong no matter how you cut it.

Saying that the public is tired of the high wage and benefit packages of the public servants, while saying little of the CEO's making millions yearly in pay or bonuses which are also paid for by the consuming public is total BS and a straw man. Where is the same amount of outrage for this rip off of the public? You can't say the private one is okay but the public one is wrong because they are both being paid by the consumer.

Time to end the hatred and jealousy of what someone else is getting paid and demand that greed of the CEOs stop. That is the true cause of the public sector now getting higher wages in some cases, not because of the civil servant but because the greed of the CEOs in public companies has taken the private wages ever lower. Racing to the bottom should be condemned by all, not hating on the public worker who in most cases, doesn't have as greedy of a boss.

The comparisons are done apples to apples Roadhead. For a "fill in the blank" the salary/bennies are higher in public sector... And we won't even go into being able to be fired for lack of performance... or productivity in general... or attitude compared to public sector employees (see DMV everywhere)

denver bill 2

Chris,

Your argument would be more persuasive if the government employees didn't have pay/benefit packages and retirement plans that are better than their private sector counterparts.

And they wouldn't if corporate executive's greed hadn't stagnated worker's wages for the last 40 years, while theirs continued to increase astronomically. This is the true redistribution of wealth.

@Denver Bill,

When the people who are retired started working their pay AND benefits were actually still lower than that in the private sector. This is because most companies of any size offered pensions and health care and other retirement benefits. Unions played some part, but union membership never accounted for more than around 8% of the people with pensions at ay time. Civil service pay plus benefits were arounf 5% lower than private industry, but the state and local HR people played it up a great deal that state and local pensions were much more secure. This attracted a great deal of people who were interested more in security than money. And a key component of this was the guarantee that came from state and local governments.

Yeah, there are a tiny handful --- less than 1/2 of 1% who gamed the system by adding in massive amounts of overtime and even more elaborate cheating. But mostly it was just school teachers and accountants and janitors who had no idea about anything except that if they worked hard and kept their noses clean that the state and local governments would stand by their guarantees. Most of government work is boring and repititious or is in basic infrastructure such as teachers and firemen and policemen and button-pushers. The .5% that got those out-of-line retirement benefits, I have no issue with reducing them back to what they should have gotten. But to point to them and then cut a teacher's retirement pay is more than a little immoral.

We have seen the large corporations transfer their pensions to the American taxpayer --- Delta did it twice as an example. Pilots who had worked for them for 40 years and thought they were going to receive over 6 digits in retirement ended up capped at $34,000 with the taxpayer paying every dime of it and no one complained.

Mostly the people in this country are falling for the biggest shift in money --- from the middle class to the top 3% --- in the history of the world. They actually believe that it is a good thing that the American worker and civil servant and small businessman is getting royally screwed and that people like Romney would benefit by over $5 million a year from the policies he proposes.

The civil service retirees didn't do anything wrong. What has happened is that the corporations have lowered wages and benefits dramatically for other working people while civil servants were protected, not by unions, but by the very civil service reforms started by Teddy Roosevelt.

These votes will certainly be found unconstitutional. The courts have rules thousands of time that voters cannot attack non-represented minorities.

But your comment displays a complete lack of factual information. The average civil service worker today received about 5% less than the same job in the private sector including both pay and benefits. The Fox computation, compares civil service workers to factory workers. Civil service jobs have a hugely greater proportion of jobs that require degrees --- schoolteachers, accountants, criminal justice, legal, medical, etc. So if idiots want to compare apples to oranges thay will always decide that oranges are much bigger if they arre smaller. I would suggest that you look up the numbers before you run your mouth.

What the state need to do with these pensions is to ensure that the pension payout amount is truly inline with what the person did for there job. There has been abuse of this system, and some people take advantage of it. From my understading is that the pensions are based on the pay of the person over the highest 5 years, it should be changed to what the pension i will get is based on the highest 5 years of the last 10years worked so one High Year doesnt effect the outcome very much, and create the rules so one cant double-dip .

Perhaps if gubmint employees were responsive, and maybe when people ask for service instead of being told, "you can't fdo that" then stared at, they were told how to get it done, perhaps if gubmint employees worked the years private sector folks worked instead of retiring at 48 to 56, Perhaps if gubmint employees got their jobs because they are the best candidate and not because of who they knew, not because they have a hiring preference over others, perhaps the lashing given out yesterday by voters would not have happened. If you are a gubmint employee you can decide to turn up the "meanness" or you can start to render customer service as it is taught in the community college.

Ol_Doc,

Wages stagnated for 40 years? Please tell me you aren't that ignorant. As anecdotal evidence, 40 years ago a carpenter made $4/hr. Or just look up the minimum wage.

"It's not the things you don't know that make you ignorant. It's the things you do know that just ain't so." ---Mark Twain

Maybe the tone deaf conservatives in Washington will also realize that this includes "Corporate and Military Welfare" as well. If we are going to cut government spending, then nothing is immune.

I defy you to prove that military service members are compensated lavishly... especially considering what they risk... most enlisted service members' families qualify for food stamps

No one is talking about service member wages and benefits. We're talking about defense contractors, cost overruns, no bid contracts, weapons systems that are stuffed down the military's throat because they are produced in some Congressman's district. That's where the fat is!

Ol_Doc

Agree. Military cuts do not happen in those areas, because to many republican/democrat districts would be impacted by a JOB LOSS, and then cry foul over it. This is part of the reason why America is in trouble.

Sadly, you are most probably correct.

What gives the current residents of San Diego and San Jose the right to vote on the pensions of people who've worked for those cities for 25, 30, or more years. The employees earned their pensions, which were part of the inducement to work for thosde cities. You can not come back many years later and change the rules of the ballgame. I certainly hope these votes do get overturned.

What makes the person a jerk? That you void a contract I signed with you years after i had done my part of the deal. Even a freshman lawyer can void this proposition. It's tyranny of the majority.

@imwhitewolf

Hmmm, lets see, maybe its their tax dollars? The lack of services, the lack of good roads?

Funny how the liberals attack the GOP with the mantra, "I have mine, the hell with you", yet they turn around and thats mine, you cant take it from me. The people are getting sick and tired of people sucking off the government teat, and not getting their moneys worth.

Going to see more and more of this across the country.

Unions are just small fraction of the middle class, it is the unions and pensions that are stripping away the middle class.

Hot-Dog

Proposition 8 is illegal to begin with. We do NOT vote on who gets civil rights and who doesn't. If we do, then I want to limit your civil rights.

imwhitewolf

What gives the current residents of San Diego and San Jose the right to vote on the pensions of people who've worked for those cities for 25, 30, or more years.

I seem to remember learning in history classes that "Taxation without representation is tyranny." was one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution. Since government pensions are paid through taxes, and no vote means no representation, it looks like a no-brainer to me.

Since government pensions are paid through taxes, and no vote means no representation, it looks like a no-brainer to me.

Because you don't like the pensions of the public sector, doesn't mean that it is taxation without representation. You voted for an elected body to represent you, who made that pension available to the workers. You may not like it, may not agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that you had representation. Whether you are pissed off about what your representatives did or didn't do to agree with your opinion is a totally different argument.

ItsAboutTime

Show me in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned and I'll be right there marching next to you. If anything, marriage, having started as a religious institution, should be entirely free from Government regulation, and only be allowed by the church. At least, that's the argument I hear from atheists in regards to crosses and public prayers and the like.

@denver - you idiot you have representation. They are called members of the State House of Representatives and Senate....

Hot-Dog

I can't. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the US Consitution. However, if you read Amendment #14, thats more than enough proof that you cannot deny someone civil rights based on their sexual orientation.

Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment

Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

1. State and federal citizenshipfor all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Marriage is NOT a religious institution and is not only allowed by the church. That would be a violation of Amendment #1 of the US Constitution.

We do not vote on civil rights in this country, this will go to the US Supreme Court, and the decision will support that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

imwhitewolf is an idiot.... Plain and simple. Clearly, this person does not live in San Diego OR San Jose, since people who live in these areas have 2 neurons, or more, to rub together.

If city workers want me to pay into their pension plans, then they should start paying into pension plans of the private sector! Oh wait, most private companies offer 401k....

@roadhead, OH-rhino,

Of course we have representation. And yes, I'm mad at some of the things they have done. But the article was not about overturning existing pensions, as imwhitewolf seems to suggest. It is about limiting future liabilities. In that context, what imwhitewolf says about not wanting citizens to vote is not what our system provides for.

Go and suck Sonny Bono's old wife's clitoris!

It sounds nice except this government has no means to honor those "entitlements" in the public sector just like they have no means to honor them in the private sector ( ie: social security, medicare etc etc). Everyone who held a job paid into the social security and medicare funds. The union extortionists paid nothing and we the tax payers should pay again???

Private sector pensions have been cut for many as well. I agree that it is terrible to believe you are getting a pension and then have it cut in half ,for example, like the Kodak retirees. That said, some of these public sector salaries, benefits and pensions are way too much. And why should they be able to retire at such young ages? My public sector friends are starting to retire , have healthcare paid for and their pension is pretty near their full salary. That rarely happens in the private sector.

I am a Government Worker. To Get Full retirement you have to work to retirement age...Which is 67. To retire before then reduces the amount of money you get.

I put in 15% to my retirement plan, which gets put on the gambling table just like everyone else's 401K. I know that social security is not going to be there for me. When I found my current job, the money offered was less than I made as a STUDENT working in my future field. I could/would have made more money in the private sector. I choose the Government for the security against what is happening in the private sector. People with experience being fired for newer lessor paid people.

I feel that what people do not take into account is that people are also LIVING LONGER! I know of someone who has been retired longer than he has worked and he gave at least 35 years!

So you can have someone who started in public service at age 20 to get full retirement they would have to work 47 years. Whooo! Since they didn't make much cleaning floors they have work to retirement age, they like many don't have a choice to retire early. They are not living cushy. My uncle died recently. He was a Government worker still working and was in his 40th year. He is never going to see his full retirement. He didn't make that much damn money if he was still working after retirement age. A lot of my co-workers that have retired at full retirement age have died within 1 year of retiring.

All I ask is that you don't group every government/public sector worker as being rich, lazy, rude, and overpaid. I work for people who enlisted into the military did their tour with the military. Left the Military to work in the private sector/public sector and they" retired" (Can't work anymore) and now some have little to no money or health insurance or savings. Whether they worked public or private they still got nothing. Their lives depends on people who say @!$%# em them cut their retirement. How much of Nothing do you want to cut? Who is going take care of those living, to 98 years old. Where are you going to take care of those people, your house?

You know who gets taken care of, gets health care, food, and somewhere to sleep? Prisoners. Like the growing retired people, the prison population is growing also. You are paying for them too, what....you going to stop, cut their monies?

We are basically @!$%#ed. I don't care where you work. In order to get out of the situation that was passed down to us, what has to be done is hard and unfair to everyone. We are paying for other peoples past mistakes and our current mistakes, and what will be 0ur future mistakes.

I think I have some of the answers but people won't go for it. Everyone wants change a long as it does not discomfort them. I am will to a hit for my country, I am planning for me to take care of myself without any retirement benefits because evidently people are willing to take it away with a vote.

wheres you your rpoof on this Stephanie?

Do a archival search in the San Diego Union Tribune. It was well documented in the media.

Stephanie,

The city council can't vote to not pay into social security for new hires. They would be in violation of federal law.

The San Diego workers do not get social security currently. Neither do I for that matter. In fact, that't the $hitty thing about working in local government in So Cal - often your so called big lucrative pension is in lieu of social security.
Tea1959 - check out Mayor Susan Golding in Wikipedia - she's the honey who underfunded the pension fund to pay for the convention. So, republicans in fact, do sometimes make $hitty decisions and are not so smart at seeing trouble down the road.

Stephanie -

If the pension system is changed to a defined contribution instead of the current defined benefit the city will no longer be able to opt out of Social Security.

I agree Kevin, Police and Fire should pay for their own pension and 401k as well...

While I agree with the overarching idea that public employees should be switched off the defined benefit pension plan, I completely agree that Fire and Public Protection are different animals than other public employees. Your job is much more dangerous and you are risking your life to serve other people.

It's how I feel about Military pay and benefits as well, and it's why I feel like we should never shortchange those kinds of jobs. Teachers and other public employees do great things for our society, but I don't believe that their lives are put in danger by the service that they do (unless they work in the Chicago Public School District).

Wichasha, what do you say to those in the private sector that were given the same promises and worked for 34 years and then had their pensions slashed. What do you say to them. "We changed our minds and you're not getting it after all"? That's a screw job in MY opinion as well.

So how do the current employees pensions get funded later on in say, 15 or 20 years when new hires are not paying in as much? That's the problem with this tampering, some 80 year old in 2035 will get a letter saying "oopsie, sorry no pension for you"! With 401ks you have the option of moving your money around and withdrawing as you wish. Not so with pensions. These people will retire and have to keep their fingers crossed.

Sheryl

Yes, that would be a screwjob as well. My post made no reference to public sector as opposed to private sector.

wicasha wrote "I believe cutting pensions should start with new hires or cut contributions from the date of the reform forward. "

The problem with the pension fund is that contributions are inadequate. Did you mean to write "increase contributions?"

The pension reform measures did not mention pension padding (fluffing up the last few years of income with fake promotions e.g last 2 yrs as Police Sergeant ) , double pensions or pensions overlapping with work that is comparable in income.

Because rewarding people for the work they do and the lives they risk to keep their communities safe by battling crime or risking life and limb entering blazing buildings to save lives is some kind of Communist plot. Right?

See my comment above - no, they get raided by local politicians to fund their pet projects, if you are talking about San Diego....those same local politicians who escape their bad decisions after a few years leaving city employees in the $hit. I will be interested to see who will want to work for San Diego now. It's an expensive city to live in and good candidates for a job will not apply when they see a benefit package that's crappy.

No one , especially me, is trying to degrade the work done by police, fire, and teachers. My mother is a teacher, and she works damn hard for the little money she makes. The point I make is that at no point in time should taxpayer dollars be used to pay for the cushy pensions and 401k's of an unelected group. I know local firefighters that are retiring at the age of 40, with 80-90% pensions. That HAS to stop. If this ticks off the 15% of workers that are in Unions and benefit from these pensions, then so be it. The 50% of Americans that DO pay taxes are tired of paying for things for everyone else.

First off everybody pays taxes, and the poorest among us pay the greatest share of their income in taxes. What you are referring to are income taxes. Secondly, nobody has a cushy pension. The deal was always this... in exchange for low salaries and spartan working conditions, you get a pension that is some fraction of you meager salary provided you supply 30 or so years of service. Nobody, and I mean nobody is getting rich off it. There is no profit sharing. And even 401Ks are not available to public workers by law.

Hmmm, public sector workers pay taxes too. So are all these comments referring to "at the taxpayer's expense" make no sense to me. Unless are the public sector workers voting republican and against their own best interest.

I live in Milwaukee, WI. Walker's surplus is a lie. Walker’s pushed off state debt payment. It means the state will pay more in interest and principal payments in the next budget cycle and beyond. According to jsonline.com

Refinancing these debt payments to simply avoid making the payments has added
$714,398,748 additional principal and interest to the debt load in coming years. This new
debt is not expected to be paid off until 2030-31….

Same old story across the country. Boomers pushing out the debt to be paid by their grandchildren, thinking their grandchildren would still want to live in Wisconsin.

Falstaff,

Your comments about income taxes are incredibly false. The lower 48% of Americans pay 0 income taxes according to the IRS. On top of that, the top 10% of wage earners pay something close to 40% of ALL income tax, so what you are trying to say is a lie.

Secondly, Wis is one of 41 states where public employees earn more on average than private sector employees. So again your statement about union workers working for lower wages is a lie. They earn MORE than the private sector people PAYING for their pensions.

The truth seems to escape many of your comments.

topaz,

Than lets make it fair. Since the 85% of Non Union workers are paying for pensions for the 15% of Union workers, let the 15% Union force pay pensions for the 85% private sector workers. You can't have it both ways. Your argument is for one group of people to benefit from another's tax dollars. It doesn't work that way.

I would just prefer them to be nicer to the people who pay their salaries.

You didn't read my post. I know people who make little money don't pay income taxes. What I said is they end up paying more of their meager incomes in taxes than everyone else. For them payroll and sales taxes eat up a great portion of their take home. As for this idea that non-union workers are 'paying' the pensions of union workers... that is entirely BS. If I buy dixie cups, some percentage of what I pay goes toward the dixie cup employees benefits (whatever they may be). You consume government services that you pay taxes for. The fact that your taxes fund public sector employee benefits is absolutely no different.

As for Public Sector employees earning more than the private sector. Are you comparing job to job or just averaging?

topaz girl wrote "Hmmm, public sector workers pay taxes too. So are all these comments referring to "at the taxpayer's expense" make no sense to me."

Only the public workers receive the benefit, so "at taxpayer expense" should be understood as "disproportionately at the private sector tax payer expense"

I believe that after working for 20 + years for a city to have your life removed at the end of a carreer is breaking a contract. This will go to court, regardless of no money to pay there are obligations to be met.

This whole mess is the result of politicians that shouldn't legislate what they do not know, maybe it should never have been able to happen, bu tnow screw the ones that worked the jobs at a point where thay can do nothing about it. What this will bring is homeless for the cities to pay for as well as some revenge. Toss someone on thier ass with nothing and some will payback the favor, this I am afraid will happen.

Bill,

You are acting like they are going to take all the pension money back and leave the current workers with nothing. That is a lie. They are forcing state employees to contribute only 12% to their own pensions and 401k's. How exactly is paying for your own pension and 401k unfair. Quote frankly state workers should pay 100% of their pension and 401k, just like 100% of private sector workers.

They voted themselves the treasury, in a way, and now there are repercussions.

I don't have much pity. I'm in the private sector where pay and benefits are lower than the public.

Looks like the people in CA are waking up.

Non socialist.
They are not state workers. They are local government. They do not currently have 401ks.However, they do rely on their pension fund being adequately funded, so if the solution involves taking new hires out of the pension system, the problem for current employees will be in future years after they retire. And in many So Cal local governments, the pension replaces social security, so the current employees ONLY have their pension. I think the lack of social security for these workers was overlooked by many who voted to adjust the pension system.

I always thought Logan's Run was a far-fetched dystopian story. Now it's beginning to look inevitable.

Thank you for posting this. I am sick and tired of hearing the lazy public employee stereotype being aired out there. The community seems to ignore all the things city employees do to keep things running. Safe parks, clean recreational facilities, correct building inspections, traffic lights working, educated library staff, street lights fully operational, sidewalks repaired....I could go on and on. People in the private sector repeat the "wouldn't last a day in the private sector" like they are reading from the bible. Guess what? Probably every day you use something that is constructed or maintained by a city/local government worker.

Our entire economy runs upon an infrastructure provided by public employees. You can't buy a carton of milk without potentially involving a myriad different public services.

1. roads and highways.

2. currency.

3. FDA.

4. Courts to protect your rights should you get sick or cheated.

5. Centers for disease control to monitor for disease.

6. Police to prevent someone from robbing you along the way.

7. Fire/EMS to respond if you are injured or sickened.

8. USDA

Without our various Government institutions, people would hiking overland to the guy that has the cow and bartering for milk. And they would have absolutely no recourse if the milk is poisonous. A vibrant private sector requires a vibrant public sector.

Falstasmind , people hate unions look at the comments. People think that unions are just greedy thugs thanks to corporate sponsored Think tanks! I think unions collapsed our economy in 2008.

See, the biggest problem I have is that services are just not there anymore from cities. I live in a city in the Central Valley of CA and hear constantly about how budgets are funding just pensions to an exorbitant tune while I have to tell my clients, (I work for an insurance agent), that if you are not injured in an accident, the police won't come. If your home is burglarized and the perp isn't there anymore, you have to file a complaint online and no cop will come. My teeth rattle out of my head when I drive down the crappy roads full of potholes and cracks, there's homeless people everywhere cause the city has no money to build shelters for them, there's gang signs everywhere (you can't even go into some parts of town at night without having to watch your back), and when you have to speak to a public sector employee, a lot of them are huffy, slow, and rude. (Not all of them, I was pleasantly surprised at the service of a woman at my local DMV the last time I was there.) So, a huge chunk of the budget goes to paying pensions and benefits and whatnot and they want to keep that while tax dollars the private sector pays to repair roads, police work, firemen, ect. just aren't there. How is that fair? We can stop paying for children's educations, road work, and public safety, but we can't stop paying for pensions to people? Granted, they put in the time, so they should get what they put the time in for, but changing the contract for NEW hires shouldn't be allowed? Adjusting pensions to compensate for the lack of funding shouldn't be allowed? If my IRA takes a tank cause of the stock market, I have to adjust for that now don't I? There's no magic fund there with the money, even though my IRA doesn't have the money to pay for what I thought I would be at. People on SSI have to adjust with their income when Medicare has to go through a rate hike. (My grandmother bitches about this constantly.) How is that fair to have a retiree who is on SSI have to take a hit when a public sector retiree doesn't have to? (I may not totally understand it all, I'm going off information my mother gave me as she's a public sector worker for a library.) I can't even PAY into my IRA cause I dole out so much in taxes, bills, rent, ect. How is that fair? It isn't, but that's life. Just means I have to work a little harder at saving, a little harder at schooling to find a better job, and just not buy a beer or a new pair of shoes. The same should go for any worker, public or private.

What goes around comes around. Hope I live to see it.

Nzak,

The will of the many is not a dictatorship... Frankly a dictatorship is the EXACT opposite of what you are describing.

Wow, the pensioners just don't get it. The services of the public sector are being cut because they are taking the bulk of the tax dollars. Without police, fire and infrastructure, a city cannot exist. What if everyone left your municipality and no one lived there to pay for your pension? How would you like that?

Hey Joe-police, fire, education, and prison workers get the highest pensions in CA and yes they also pay taxes. What happened in CA--Jerry Brown at the end of his first tenure as governor, in a vindictive move, spent the surplus, when he was accused of doing zip about the med-fly criises. Prop 13--good news-benefitted older citizens/bad news-mainly benefitted commercial property owners, then we got 3 strikes law, lock every body up which gave immense power to correctional officer labor union.

@ NON -- I believe what Nzak is saying is that the vote that just gave all power to the Gov for 'dictating' wages and benefits

They are finally pulling their heads out of where the sun does not shine.

The city can file for bankruptcy. They could re-negotiate those contracts.

Guess what? The Jerry Brown and house and senate just got a pay decrease. That doesn't affect any union member in the state though. They're special.

Pension plans were expecting unrealistic returns! State and local governments are broke. Pension plans are unfunded. Unemployment is as high as ever. Sovereign debt is a problem. The total debt in the world economy is too high. Entire western world has borrowed excessive amounts in the last few decades. This is not just the money owed by governments, but it is the money people and companies borrowed from the banks. Perfect storm is coming. Austerity and spending cuts will be deflationary. Google for "DEFLATIONARY CRASH".