Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.
Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.
Fault lies with both parties.
|
"Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated"
(1) John Roland is not anyone's idea of a conservative
(2) the governor doesn't write the contract language. That is done by the legislature.
Forget about party, let's use the terms liberal and conservative. It is a liberal notion (regardless of party affiliation) to give unions a blank check and to think that's good policy. It's a conservative notion (regardless of party affiliation) to believe in fiscal responsibility.
"Fault lies with both parties"
The fault does not lie with conservatives, who have never had even a whisper of a voice in Hartford.
"Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees"
Is that true? The contracts are in place for that long? Wow...well, if the government doesn't want to limit those pensions, then the laws of arithmetic will be happy to oblige. because regardless of which party is in control, you still cannot have more than there is. A check with insufficient funds to back it up, will bounce regardless of the party membership of the idiot who signed said check.
"Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg"
But a budget surplus only consider expenses that need to be paid in that year. Even when there were budget surpluses, the actuaries were warning that the pensions could not be funded. Same thing with Social Security, which always generated massive surpluses - the actuaries knew that regardless of any current year surpluses, the plan could not bear the weight of the Baby Boomer effect. A one-year surplus doesn't matter, this is long term debt.
"Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits"
Sure, he spent a ton of my money to delay bankruptcy by a month.
Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?