Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95071)	11/10/2010 12:21:33 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

For Obama to be disliked by.... "fill in the blank".... is indeed a badge of honor The Thin Man is well on the way to being the most "honored" President of all time.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95071)	11/10/2010 12:34:45 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

NYC 'Cannot Afford' to Subsidize Public Employee Health Costs: New York Post Published November 09, 2010 \| NewsCore foxbusiness.com New York City's government workers were freeloading off taxpayers to the tune of nearly $1 billion a year by contributing little or nothing toward their health insurance coverage, according to a study quoted Tuesday by the New York Post. The city's health care giveaway -- amid the worst economic downturn in half a century -- does not even conform to New York state government policy, according to analysis by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. State government workers and retirees must pay 10 percent of the cost of individual premiums and 25 percent of premiums for family health coverage. If city workers were required to pay what state workers do, New York taxpayers would realize $923 million in savings annually, the report said. Other local governments around the state, combined, would save $838 million a year if their workers shared in the cost of their health insurance. The researchers said cash-strapped Albany, which must close a projected $9 billion deficit next year, can no longer afford to subsidize escalating public employee health costs. "It's hard to justify the disparity," said Rockefeller fellow Carol O'Cleireacain, a former city budget director and labor union economist. Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch, who requested the study, said that "continuing business as usual is not sustainable." The study recommended approval of a state law requiring that all local government workers -- teachers, firefighters and police -- contribute the same amount that state workers pay toward their health premiums. But labor leader Harry Nespoli shot back, "This is nothing but a ploy to set back the unions." Nespoli, chairman of New York's Municipal Labor Council and head of the sanitation workers union, said many city workers were already scraping to get by. "They want us to pay more. It's a difficult thing to do. When taxes go up, we get taxed," he said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95071)	11/11/2010 12:05:05 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224749

The Rollback Begins Posted 06:54 PM ET Public Pay And Pensions: Voters across the nation — California included — are signaling an end to the government workers' gravy train. Even the unions may be starting to get the message. Last week's elections didn't just upend the Democratic Party in Congress. They also delivered a warning to the public-sector unions that form the core of the party's support. In nearly all elections where public pay and benefits were an issue, the voters ruled that the era of ever-richer rewards for government was over: Say goodbye to fat pensions at 55. Get used to living like the rest of us. We can count one contest in which the unions beat back an attempt to trim public workers' benefits. This was in San Francisco, where voters defeated a measure that would have required city workers to pay more for health care and retirement. But even in that union-friendly town, the unions didn't win them all. Another proposition, to end automatic pay increases as part of reforming the city's transit system, won handily. Elsewhere in California, voters in eight cities and counties approved measures to cut public pension benefits. In Illinois, dozens of suburban communities voted for a resolution urging the legislature to lower benefits for new state workers. Six new governors won on platforms that endorsed the idea of moving toward 401(k)-style plans, in which public workers would contribute to their own retirement and are not guaranteed a pension income. Republicans Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Robert Bentley of Alabama, Bill Haslam of Tennessee and Scott Walker of Wisconsin all supported these "defined contribution" plans, which are the norm in most of the private sector. Republican Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania and independent Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have endorsed hybrid plans combining defined-contribution elements with those of traditional defined-benefit pensions, which guarantee retirement income. The Pew Center on the States, at its Stateline Web site, summed up last week's voting as "in some ways the first national referendum on the future of public pensions." It was also a referendum on priorities, with the public choosing to put public services before the self-interest of public workers. Back when the economy was humming and pensions thought they could get 8% annual returns in the stock market forever, unions seemed to have it both ways. They could make their members richer (especially on the retirement end) without the public feeling any pain. But people now see how untenable this sweet deal was — and how it endangers the very services that the public workers are paid to deliver. The revenue hits taken by states and localities in the Great Recession have forced the issue by requiring real trade-offs: Either cut pay and pensions or have fewer teachers, police and firefighters. Then there's the Bell effect. Earlier this year, struggling taxpayers learned just how well some public-sector employees were doing. The revelation of outrageous salaries in the California city of Bell was a catalyst for scrutiny of public pay in general. All kinds of data have surfaced since then about six-figure salaries and lavish overtime in places large and small. It's clear that the governing class has not been shouldering its share of sacrifice in these tough times. Even unions may be starting to get the message. California's largest state employees local, representing 95,000 workers, has just ratified a new contract that rolls back pension benefits for new workers to pre-1999 levels and saves the state just under $400 million annually in labor costs. The future is clouded in California because voters there have just chosen a union ally, Jerry Brown, as their next governor. But as Brown and the unions well know, these voters are also used to taking matters into their own hands through the initiative process. If their actions last week at the local level are any indication, they're tired of writing so many blank checks