[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, right now there is no federal backstop for state and local pension in case of shortfall. So it’s not like we have to pay for something we don’t like.
Didn’t you say the pensions are self-sufficient with employer and employee contributions making up the funds. Let them remain self-sufficient. They can kick in more contributions if they wish. Or they can reduce benefits. Or they can eliminate defined benefits pensions if they want. Each locality has the choice based on its resources.
Detroit needs to examine its resources and decide what to do. If they can successful sue the state for money based on the Michigan constitution, good for them.
Harvey was talking about the risk of matching current contributions to future benefits. Can’t deal with the risk? Don’t do it.[/quote]
We all have to pay for things we don’t like at the federal, state, and local levels. The point is that EVERYONE is paying for backstops (at the federal, state, and local levels) and other spending that they don’t agree with. That’s the price of living in a civilized democracy. Pensions are just one of many things that we are paying for. Some like it, some don’t. That’s life.
BTW, with the way the pensions work, increased employer contributions are the “increased taxes” that the privatization movement is using to brainwash people into thinking that privatization saves money, even though there is no evidence of this “savings” in the existing privatization schemes.
Witness our disastrous for-profit healthcare system for another example of how bad privatization is — one of the worst health outcomes with some of the highest costs among developed nations. Why do you think the insurance/healthcare/pharmaceutical lobbyists were fighting so hard against a public option? If the private market could do a better job for less, the public option would not be a threat; so why all the opposition?
