Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

Sorry for getting off topic in this thread but it's better than where this thing was going earlier...........

Chesapeake Bill: I agree with you for the most part. But I still think you will get qualified firefighters, teachers, & police without giving a pension (I could be wrong). Up here in Mass we have some very very highly paid police and fire (many of my very close friends are in the profession so I know) Now they work for a (small) city that pays them well so I'm sure they are on the higher end for the state as a whole but you would still not believe what they get paid. Granted, they put their life on the line and you can't take that away from them, but they will even admit (to me atleast) how good they really have it when it comes to compensation (their Union would NEVER say that). The guys on the fire all have sencond businesses on the side as well as much of their work is overnight so they get to sleep on slow nights. Again, they aren't at home in their own bed and you have to give them credit for that (they do say it is nice to be able to sleepo on the job though).

When did the PBGB get started? (shows you how much I don't know). I was always under the impression that the Enron and Polaroid folks literally lost everything. I had a friend who's Dad worked for Polaroid for years and when they went under, he lost his whole pension (maybe it was before PBGB?)

[mosholu]

Jim in CT: I take your point that you draw a line in the sand and go forward but I think you are buying a major lawsuit that the state may well lose if it does not pay the money it was required to do so before the cut off date.
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market.

The current issue of the Economist has a great article on public sector employees and the issues facing both the US and the developed European countries. Well worth reading if you have the time.

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=mosholu;826182]
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market. QUOTE]

The private sector is in business to make as much money and profit as they can. If they can’t even afford pensions then why should the Government (who is not in the business to make money or profit) be expected to provide that to their employees? I'm not saying current employees shouldn't be entitled to them to some degree but it should be grandfathered and ended to new hires. Some (not all) of the state salaries are through the roof and there are pensions associated with those. As these salaries continue to rise, so doesn’t the pensions and it isn’t sustainable. The private sector pretty much ended it and the public sector needs to take a close look at it too (let's face it, the private sector is a hell of a lot smarter than the Government).
Check this link out, it list of salaries for Mass employees. Some of the State Troopers are making north of $150K and some Lieutenant’s well over $180K a year. Those pensions are a huge hit to tax payers money and can't be sustained. The only thing they can do is continue to raise taxes to pay for it. When will it end?

Your tax dollars at work: 2009 State Employee Payroll - Boston Herald.com