Thursday, February 12, 2009
'The first real glimpse ..'
If only this could happen in Massachusetts: After decades of one-party rule, the governing majority is finally tossed out -- and lookie what the opposition finds. ...
... What are Dems going on now in Massachusetts? Four decades going on five? Five decades going on six? I've lost track. The decades meld together at this point. ... House Dems are preparing to unveil 'sweeping reforms' to crack down on 'egregious loopholes' in the pension system. It's so typical. It takes 'egregious' abuses for lawmakers to finally act -- and then they don't fix the fundamental problems like early retirement, double dipping, sick and vacation day payouts, salary padding. ... A 'cap' of $100,000? The new definition of 'egregious': Anything over $100,000. Everything else flies under the six-figure radar. ... I'm still trying to find words for it.
Update -- Kevin writes in: "On the pension front, saw that you were 'almost speechless.' Me, not so much." But he notes that words aren't enough for the Manny item the other day: "Thanks for the Manny link. Read that story. Puked." ...
Brighton Reader also writes in:
As for Wall Street, I've long assumed many government workers, especially managers, have enviously looked at the worst of the private sector, i.e. those executives making killer deals on bonuses, stock options, golden parchutes, etc., and adjusted their own perks accordingly to "stay competitive," not having a clue, or just not caring, that the vast majority of private-sector workers can only dream of making such amounts, on both fronts.
If only this could happen in Massachusetts: After decades of one-party rule, the governing majority is finally tossed out -- and lookie what the opposition finds. ...
... What are Dems going on now in Massachusetts? Four decades going on five? Five decades going on six? I've lost track. The decades meld together at this point. ... House Dems are preparing to unveil 'sweeping reforms' to crack down on 'egregious loopholes' in the pension system. It's so typical. It takes 'egregious' abuses for lawmakers to finally act -- and then they don't fix the fundamental problems like early retirement, double dipping, sick and vacation day payouts, salary padding. ... A 'cap' of $100,000? The new definition of 'egregious': Anything over $100,000. Everything else flies under the six-figure radar. ... I'm still trying to find words for it.
Update -- Kevin writes in: "On the pension front, saw that you were 'almost speechless.' Me, not so much." But he notes that words aren't enough for the Manny item the other day: "Thanks for the Manny link. Read that story. Puked." ...
Brighton Reader also writes in:
What’s good for Wall Street should be good enough for Beacon Hill. So how about a local version of the bailout salary limit: a pension cap.I'd make the cap lower. What's the max for Social Security? Bring it in line with that. BTW: Those of us who pay into the Social Security system really do pay into the system. Unlike those who pay into a system, then get a huge portion of it back via 'unused' vacation and sick time payouts, before they start collecting pensions, sometimes decades before private-sector workers can collect on Social Security. ...
No one could collect more than $100,000, in total, per year from the state pension system.
I really want to hear the argument why someone cannot retire on far more than 90% of what average wage earners live on.
As for Wall Street, I've long assumed many government workers, especially managers, have enviously looked at the worst of the private sector, i.e. those executives making killer deals on bonuses, stock options, golden parchutes, etc., and adjusted their own perks accordingly to "stay competitive," not having a clue, or just not caring, that the vast majority of private-sector workers can only dream of making such amounts, on both fronts.
