[quote=harvey] . . . Brian mentioned renegotiating contracts – something Trump advocates as one of his strengths – and pointed out that that BG’s support for Trump is inconsistent with her position on pension policy. A reasonable and valid observation. . . . [/quote]It’s not “inconsistent.” I have no idea if NAFTA contracts are renegotiable as I don’t know anything about NAFTA law. I know it is part of Trump’s platform, but that is not why I support him. Whether or not he is successful in doing that (should he win the election), it won’t bring any more jobs back to SD County. We didn’t lose any jobs to China or MX. Your reading comprehension must be lacking, pri_dk. I’ve posted here numerous times that I’m a “single-issue voter” in this election. I want obamacare repealed and replaced yesterday. If a border wall is actually successfully completed in a Trump Administration, that would icing on the cake (and especially a big boon to CA’s finances).
HOWEVER, I DO know a thing or two about public pension law in CA. There HAVE been municipal bankruptcies in CA filed in recent years. Ask yourself how those cases turned out. I didn’t bother to check on PACER to peruse these cases but if the following articles are any indication, these cities’ pensioners didn’t give up a penny of their pensions after their cities went BK and some of them had to give up part or all of their healthcare allowances as retiree healthcare (or HC allowances) aren’t part of many public union contracts and if they are, they aren’t guaranteed (under certain conditions) by CA law.
It appears from the first article that City of Vallejo had to refile for BK two years after conclusion of their first BK case because they were still having problems meeting their pension obligations (small city). However, they will NOT be attempting to renegotiate with their retirement assn(s) in their refile because they KNOW they won’t be successful. City will cut more fat out of current employees’ benefits and more retirement benefits from its yet unvested workers to continue to meet its obligations until such time as its pensioners (pensioners at the time of its first BK filing) all pass away.
My position on (CA) public pension policy is consistent with the law. And so are all the BK judge’s positions on this subject. pri_dk, I’ve given you (and NSR and several others here) the opportunity to lobby your representatives to bring forth legislation which chips away at this body of law. You’ve had YEARS now to do so, yet you are still complaining. I literally spoon-fed you and your anti-public pension brethren on this board more than enough statutes to get you started on developing a cogent conversation with your representative(s) in effort to convince them to take action. You can’t blame ‘lil old me that CA public pensions are still in place after all these years when YOU failed to DO anything positive towards reform. Most of this body of law was already in place before I was even vested!
Your complaints on this subject are old news. It’s time to put up or shut up. Are you listening, phaster??
