TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

The new enemy

BY Dave Ross  on June 8, 2012 @ 10:29 am (Updated: 7:06 am - 6/10/12 )

The economy has a new enemy, and you saw it in the voting on Tuesday: retirees.

While Wisconsin was teaching its unions a lesson, San Jose and San Diego were teaching their municipal retirees a lesson.

Voters in both of those cities cut the pensions of public employees by huge margins. It was a bipartisan effort: both Democrats and Republicans joined the landslide vote that cut benefits.

Governments have trimmed their pension plans before, but it usually applied only to new employees. San Jose and San Diego will be cutting current beneficiaries.

And other cities are very interested.

Even some private companies are very interested because it shows there are legal ways to take away pensions that workers thought were locked in.

The idea that people deserve their retirement no matter what seems to be slowly changing. Boomer retirees look a little too comfortable. They may have earned it fair and square, but when you're paying 27% of the budget to people who aren't working - as San Jose was - it's hard to justify, especially to younger employees who know they have no chance at anything remotely as generous.

But there is a downside to cutting retirements. I just want to alert the Millenials that this means a lot of us Baby Boomers may decide we need to keep working well into our Betty White years. That means we'll be right there next to you into our 70's and 80's swapping funny blood pressure anecdotes, and not appreciating your irony or getting your Dub Step references.

We also tend to brag about the used underwear we bought at the thrift store. Anyway, have a good weekend. See you at work Monday. And Tuesday. And...you know...

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (73)


  • Add A Comment

  • mnpat wrote...
    "The new enemy".....are you starting another war?
    June 10, 2012 6:39 am
    No enemies just doing what it takes to spend less then you have in revenue....if there is a real enemy it is false propoganda from the media.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    and the next thing we need to wake up to is the disaster called welfare
    June 10, 2012 9:03 am
    kids from single mother welfare do worse in school, go to prision more often, more likely to have drug and alchohol problems, die younger and more likely to be a single mother on welfare herself. THIS SYSTEM IS CREATING POVERTY AND CRIME AND COSTING BILLIONS THAT COULD GO TO USEFUL ENDEAVORS! Read up on this, the media wont cover it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 10, 2012 9:09 am
    And don't forget the Biggest WELARE Queen's of all. Corporations.Of course Corporations are now PEOPLE too. Right?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sportfisher wrote...
    Yes Messiah 101 Corporations receive too much welfare
    June 10, 2012 10:08 am
    Robert Reich reported on that during the... wait for it... The clinton years. So why is it still a problem? Even more juicy are the private liberal investors who got their money back from Solyndra, while leaving the taxpayers and unemployed workers holding the empty bag. Republicans want to cut into the deductions of corporations that are not available to ALL business, and then level tax rates, but Harry REID won't allow it to be voted on. Like all the other bills republicans passed in the house. Do nothing Senate under REID.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    messiah-are you aware that corporations create jobs? Do you think Boeing is a net benefit to puget sound or a net drain?
    June 10, 2012 10:09 am
    are you aware that for every Boeing corporate job there are 7 jobs in industry that is supplying to Boeing? Why cant you have sympathy for the kids being brought into third and fourth generation welfare world that is crime ridden, lacking male role models and a track to hardship and problems? do you care?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 10, 2012 11:12 am
    Yes corporations create jobs but they do so so they can earn more profit (nothing wrong with that)so why should the US government hand over welfare payments to Corporations?Either the company needs the extra workers or they do not. Yes welfare needs fixing but doesn't Corporate Welfare need fixing also?See Boeing would be manufacturing airplanes with or without government WELFARE as there is a market for their product so all the Government does when it gives them money is FATTEN the bottom line
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    messiah-what do you define as corp welfare? Do you believe that Boeing and MSFT get money from our gov?
    June 10, 2012 7:18 pm
    or are you talking about tax breaks which lowers the taxes corps pay and allows for R&D write offs. Ever thought that states are competing to get corporations like boeing to re-locate. In fact do you know much about business at all? It isn't apparent in your posts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 11, 2012 6:42 am
    I'll direct the same question to you. Do you know ANYTHING about money,because if I give you a tax break I'm putting CASH in your pocket.Yes States compete for companies and how many times is that a pure political move?Check the amount per job it cost States like Alabama and S Carolina to attract these corporations and when those tax breaks and incentives go away the Corporations will start looking for greener pastures and most likely go somewhere that a local group of politicians are looking for a springboard to re-election.In some cases companies were allowed to not collect local taxes on their products which gave them a 7%-8% price advantage over their competition now is that fair and equitable to other business?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    messiah-you again are just plain wrong! When a corp gets a tax break for buying new equipment or for R&D, they are not getting cash from the gov!
    June 11, 2012 7:57 am
    they are being incentivized by the gov to buy new equipment and spend their own money for R&D. Do you not realize that boeing in order to compete with subsidized Airbus needs some tax breaks. Read more, please!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 11, 2012 12:19 pm
    The FACT that our US dollar is so devalued should be enough for Boeing or any other corporation that sells product Internationally to have a HUGE advantage over AirBus or most othe companies.Why should a company require financial insentives from the uS taxpayer to make a better product more efficently and why should a Boeing Union worker in Washington have his tax dollars used by a Union busting State like S Carolina to lure UNion jobs to that State?You really need to find out what your talking about because the items you keep bringing up are easily proved Bogus.Let me leave you with a old saying a penny saved is a penny earned,have you ever heard that before?If you give a company a $1 tax break you gave them a $1 profit.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 11, 2012 12:21 pm
    The FACT that our US dollar is so devalued should be enough for Boeing or any other corporation that sells product Internationally to have a HUGE advantage over AirBus or most othe companies.Why should a company require financial insentives from the uS taxpayer to make a better product more efficently and why should a Boeing Union worker in Washington have his tax dollars used by a Union busting State like S Carolina to lure UNion jobs to that State?You really need to find out what your talking about because the items you keep bringing up are easily proved Bogus.Let me leave you with a old saying a penny saved is a penny earned,have you ever heard that before?If you give a company a $1 tax break you gave them a $1 profit.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    @messiah101
    June 10, 2012 9:44 pm
    At least corporations CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING to society. Jobs, products and services! Welfare families contribute NOTHING to the economy, they just suck on the taxpayer's money! As far as making corporations pay more TAXES, who do you think they would pass the increased costs on to? That's right- their customers! Higher prices for all of us...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    timbrt
    June 11, 2012 6:46 am
    I'll go with HUMANs over Corporations any day of the week. I thought you Rightys valued Human Life,I guess you value $$$ alot more but of course we on the Left knew that already. AS far as increased costs go thats fine that is the way the economy is supposed to work. The consumers of a companies product SHOULD pay, the ones that don't use it should not. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?So why should non user tax dollars subsidize a companys product?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    Messiah-with the post re welfare families spending the US, you show that you dont read very much.
    June 11, 2012 12:04 pm
    ever heard of the multiplier effect? In freakonomics, the author detailed the net drain that welfare families cost the economy. This group has far higher jail time, far more crime, far less education, far less productiveity, far less business start ups and far more gun violence-hence a total drain and zero benefit with a very few exceptions. You just do not get economics-try taking a class.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    delvin
    June 11, 2012 12:38 pm
    You must have missed the economics class that explained the poor of any country more then likely have higher jail time,more crime.less education,less productivity,less business startups,more gun violence then the richer folks of that same society and that holds true if they don't recive a penny of welfare.I would believe that the Wealthy and Corporations actually STEAL more money from the American taxpayer then the poor.FOr an economics lesson (it seems you badly need one) try reading The Trap by Sir James Goldsmith it will teach you a thing or two about a topic you seem lost about
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • otmilkr wrote...
    Gee Delvin
    June 10, 2012 8:58 pm
    You just figured that out? Any ideas on what should be done?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    otmilkr- Do mean welfare. i think we need to try shelters that have rules, good food for the kids and are not located in the hood.
    June 11, 2012 7:58 am
    Shelters worked years ago, why not try again. Plus I want it to be a bit of a drag for single mothers so the words gets out and these idiots start using the free birth control avasilable to them. This is such a problem that needs to be talked about and some thing to fix.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    We have met the enemy and he is us.
    June 10, 2012 6:50 am
    Walt Kelly was a prophet before his time. I didn't know that after the summer of love, view Nam and working 40 years those of us 60, something, would become a burden on society. Dang it - wasn't the a box market Social Security in my name ? .. Of, course, always being self employed, I never DID build up a big pension for the 'kids' to cut back on. So I will be working until I can't anymore.

    THEN, I'll do what we all did long before pensions were ever invented. Sponge off the kids.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Siriusly wrote...
    Thanks, Boomers
    June 10, 2012 7:29 am
    Nice system you guys built there. You guys planned on having an entire half of your lives paid for by someone else, didn't you? Jerks.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • otmilkr wrote...
    Siriusly
    June 10, 2012 7:38 am
    No, you are too young perhaps to realize there once was an economy in the USA ( Pre Reagan ) where the wealthy did not control the vast majority of the economy. The people who put together the retirement plan had no idea that working class wages would be stagnated for 30 years , that Unions would be broken to the point where they have no power. You obviously have no concept on what a world like that was or could be because you have never lived it. What the Boomers are at fault for in my view is going along with it for so long. WE should have been occupying and striking and doing all sorts of things long ago to have stopped it from getting to where it is, but, we listened to Limbaugh and beleived being Conservative and paving the way for the wealthy was the 'good" and "right" thing, and we were just "happy to have a job" when they stagnated our economy for us.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Yeah
    June 10, 2012 10:13 am
    The government has done so well taking care of our money. Too bad idiots like you believed all the government lies. It's not the Corporations it's th Government that is the enemy. Wake moron.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    maplefish
    June 10, 2012 7:24 pm
    What LIES do you feel we idiots believe and why can't you except the fact that Corporation have been a huge part of the financial problems and unemployment this nation faces today?THey take the taxpayers money and move jobs overseas.At least the WElfare family spends the money here in the USA
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Messiah
    June 10, 2012 10:19 pm
    Democrats just cannot stop spending. Just look at the mess this state is in. 30 years of Democratic Government have run this State into the ground. It definitely wasn't corporations. Liars never figure and figures never lie.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    maplefish
    June 11, 2012 4:19 pm
    How exactly is this State "run into the ground"?Wages are high,taxes low,we are one of the BEST states in the country for a business to operate. Your dreaming maplefish.Your just another WHINER nothing more.DEmocrats spend but so do GOPers they are peas in a pod both of them . TO blame one is ridiculous. Your complaint is you don't like public money being spent on social issues.And you expect public employees (except cops and fire) to work for free
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sportfisher wrote...
    otmilkr A good Eye Doctor will help realign the prism effect you suffer from.
    June 10, 2012 11:00 am
    I'm 59. Pre-Reagan, our economy was very, very small. The Dow was under 2000. It was controlled by regulation that prevented a young man from buying a semi truck and making cold calls and finding new customers. Trucking was severly regulated. Trucks could only go a short distance and then the company that "controlled" that next piece of the planet had to hook on and move the trailer to the next area. Costs were much higher and the efficiency of the trucking industry suffered. Rich people still got rich. Airlines were heavily regulated. Chiropractors- were not allowed to work on FOOT bones. Fast forward to Reagan, more products, more services and more efficiency in the private sector. Where did the money come from the make that happen? Tax cuts. 70% down to 28%. Now... business could spend the money to get a return, rather than piss it away for the tax deduction. Few paid 70%. Its the difference between forcing you to spend money to avoid taxes and saving money for rough times, or expanding into other areas of business. When you are hamstrung by the banks, because the feds have all your money, its difficult to expand your business. Your emphasis is on unions. Unions helped pass laws. Laws that made the playing field level. At some point, people realized, that even though their lives were better because of union advocacy, unions did not have much to offer workers any longer. Union membership has been on the decline for decades. So unions infiltrated Govt and that has not worked out for taxpayers. What stagnates an economy is when govt spends money on crap and borrow more money to buy more crap. Reagan made a deal with congress. Taxes were increased and Congress failed to make the cuts it promised under that deal to balance the budget. Democrats just cannot say no to spending and taxing. While the Bush tax cuts helped middle and upper class workers, the states turned around and raised taxes. Thats where the income stagnation comes into play. Someone is making more money, cause student keep paying more. Home prices went up and so did cars. Garbage men didnt take pay cuts. If they take home less, because govt is growing and taking more to feed their own, who is to blame? Govt workers. Is the govt people too? Or does that cliche really matter? Some in govt think a command and control economy works. It does not, anywhere. Even Sweden has changed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • otmilkr wrote...
    OK Sport
    June 10, 2012 3:30 pm
    An awful lot of what you typed is truly over my head. Why? Because I have been a truck driver for almost 30 years, I am not smart enough to hang with you.... . I would personaly rather drive back when trucking was regulated because the drivers lived a better standard of living by far then, than they do today. In fact, much of trucking today is bottom feeder immigrant labor. Not my idea of the direction I want my economy going. It sounds to me like you think trucking is better off today than when drivers made a decent living....I am guessing you own a trucking Company that benefits from the deregulation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Sportfisher
    June 12, 2012 10:57 am
    Oh one other thing, that deregulation of the trucking industry that you spoke of was done by the Democrats,it was Teddy Kennedys bill and signed by President Jimmy CArter in 1980 I believe it was called the Motor Carrier Bill. Oh and Unions DID NOT infiltrate anywhere they were VOTED in by the MAJORITY of the workers.Tell ya what about your idea of what Stagnates an economy you blame the Governmate (of course) but if you worked in the Defense Industry and the government doesn't order NEW CRAP every year your out of a job and how's that for stagnation? IF you live in a State that has inititives on the ballot (like California)then the STate government IS FORCED to fund them and they need to find a source of funding to do it,If the money from DC drys up as it has that makes the problem even more severe.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    @ottmilkr
    June 11, 2012 2:51 am
    Your logic is LUDICROUS! Socialists like you haven't a CLUE.... The "wealthy" are not the enemy. We should all work toward being better off. Socialists like you think that you become wealthy by TAKING IT from others who have it. Failures and lazy slobs find it easier to blame the guy who built something and worked to make themselves wealthy, rather than THEMSELVES. The end result of socialism is making EVERYONE POOR. We are stagnating because the left has destroyed our industrial and economic base with high taxes and stupid regulations.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Siriusly
    June 10, 2012 2:39 pm
    Did you honestly believe that you are so special that you expect to inherit America as it is built on the backs of those before you DEBT FREE? Are you that naive?You could have been born in Mexico,Somalia,Nigeria,Laos, Burma and you would have had little or no DEBT and you'd start off on day 1 of your life wondering where your next meal or peso is coming from.That hospital,school,hiway,bridge,airport was built by the generations before you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • El Duderino wrote...
    Public Sector Unions
    June 10, 2012 9:18 am
    Should have never come about in the first place. Politicians buying their vote by giving them more and more of the taxpayer's money was never a system that was going to work in the long run. Its problems are coming to roost now that municipalities are forced to either reduce services to a barebones level (and effect a majority of voters) or cut back pensions (and effect a minority of voters).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Europe is here! Get ready for even more austerity measures
    June 10, 2012 9:33 am
    Government's and States have been running deficits and living high on the hog for three decades now..Greece here we come.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    there is no question that if left to dave R and straight ticket D voters the USA will become southern Europe
    June 10, 2012 10:12 am
    why cant lefties ee the writing on the wall? Dave points to one country Germany which is far superior in terms of fiscal management and manufacturing to the rest of the EU and far differet than the US in terms of diversity and military obligations. DAve R and Luke and seattle libs live in a bubble which they cant see out.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 0623 wrote...
    pension cuts
    June 10, 2012 9:48 am
    This is incomprehensible. Surely it is not legal. Current retirees paid for their pensions from every paycheck during their entire working lives. It's not as if current benefits are being paid by today's workers. Benefits are distributed from the fund in which current retirees invested for many years. To cut payments to people who now have no way of earning supplemental income--people in their 80s and 90s is just plain stealing. Can someone explain this, please?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Well,
    June 10, 2012 10:20 am
    The Government SPENT all YOUR MONEY! Sorry, but these Bail-Outs don't come cheap. Fanny Amy & Freddie Mac cost us tax -payers something like $2 TRILLION. I am truly sorry for retiree's but bloated government and wreckless wasteful spending have caught up to all of us with a vengence. The sad part is it's going to get worse and will doubtfully ever get better. And yes, I blame the studid HIPPIE liberal Boomers for destroying the futures of "We the People".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    I meant Fanny May
    June 10, 2012 10:24 am
    Fanny AMy is her sister in law.....& the STUPID HIPPIE LIBERAL BOOMER ENTITLEMENT Government programs. Liars never figure and figures never lie....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    0623
    June 10, 2012 12:05 pm
    Yes, it can be explained. Firstly,the current retirees didn't pay for their pensions out of every paycheck, they were promised them in the contracts agreed to between the unions and the politicians. The problem is, the promises by the politicians are not sustainable...they were false promises.

    In return for the false promises the unions rewarded the politicians with their support and a percentage of the "cut" of all increases in the form of union political donations to the democrat party and ground support in campaigns. For their part the politicians offered protection to the unions from competition and ever more expansive promises (lies) the union leadership uses to keep the union membership in line.

    The problem is, it is all unsustainable, and the people who are left holding the bag aren't the politicians who lied, or the union leadership who empowered the lying politicians...it's the taxpayers who are left holding the bag. Now that the tax payers aren't able to pay the bills the democrat politicians ran up those who are hurt are the union membership and the tax payers. This is just the bill coming due to pay for the lies of the democrats and union leadership.

    The losers are the union membership who believed the lies and the tax payers.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Top Grunt wrote...
    Wake up Dave and those who think these pensions were paid for!!!!
    June 11, 2012 6:45 am
    The problem with these pensions are that they were never paid for, and if the people did pay into them they never paid enough to cover the cost. These 2 cities were drowning in unfunded pension that ding bat elected officials promised so they could get the union dues to fund their campaigns. Just more of the ponzi schemes hatched by the union and elected officals. It is not the governemnts responsibility to take of you, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. If you believe that Social Security will be there for you then I have some ocean front property in AZ for you cheap....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    To liberals it's all about divide and "conquer".
    June 10, 2012 9:59 am
    First it was "the rich"...then women...now this. Dave...you & the left are desperate and terrified and looking at every angle possible. They have spent us into oblivion and now want to blame the public/taxpayers. Funny thing is those retirees would not have to pay the price had they not backed the Dimocrats to begin with; they were their own enemy by allowing the Dims to spend...spend...spend. Liberalism is a failure.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    It's fairly easy to sell your conscience. Used consciences are a dime a dozen on the market...
    June 10, 2012 10:34 am
    It's a little more dicey when it comes 'round to actually selling your heart, and once the conscience and the heart are peddled away the soul will seem like no great loss at all.

    How low, oh God, will we go? To avoid any increase in taxes (oh no! rape my sister please, but don't raise my taxes a percent or two!)or any offsetting austerity in government spending (oh no! when you're done with my sister take the other one as well, but don't defund my pet projects!)we choose the most defenseless and powerless group and break a lifetime of promises to them. Some of these people who will see their pensions rolled back are well into their 70's, 80's or even beyond. Many of them don't have the physical ability or the option to return to work. Who's going to hire a 75 year old, anyway? Mickey D's? Walmart? other slave wage employers?

    To those voters who took the view, "Those retired public employees have it too good, so even though it was a condition of their employment and even though they contributed to their retirement, let's just take it away so our taxes don't go any higher!", I would point out that it won't be long before some other group decides that whatever it is that you have been awarded by contract and have worked to earn should be taken away as well.

    How does that old saying go? Something like...

    They came for the blacks. I wasn't black, so I didn't protest.

    They came for the Jews. I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't protest.

    They came for the homosexuals. I wasn't gay, so I didn't protest.

    They came for the mentally handicapped. I wasn't handicapped, so I didn't protest.

    They came for the Catholics. I wasn't Catholic, so I didn't protest.

    Finally, they came for me- and there was nobody else left to protest on my behalf.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    CG It's from Germany, circa 1942.
    June 10, 2012 10:53 am
    "They came first for the trade unionists, and I was not, so I didn't protest." ..... Not blacks - there weren't any in Germany. ... Otherwise, your order is off, but we get the idea.

    BTW: If you sell your conscience, it's worthless. But if you USE your conscience, it can cost you dearly.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Chuck I think
    June 10, 2012 10:57 am
    you've gone of your meds again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    It's true that entitlements are destroying our economy, but we need to correct this mess with honor rather than hatred and fear
    June 10, 2012 10:44 am
    The old model is broken. We no longer have a population where succeeding generations multiply like rabbits to create a pyramid that supports retirees. If it were not for immigration, our population would not be growing at all.

    We no longer have an economy where working people expect to be rewarded for working harder and acquiring advanced skills. Getting to keep your job for another six months or so is about all the reward people expect these days. The purchasing power of the middle class is decreasing, even during a time of close to zero inflation.

    We can't continue to provide retirements. Scale back retirements. Phase them out. But do so in a manner that allows people to plan for the future. You can't tell somebody who is 60 or older, or even really 50 or older, that the rules have now changed and they better start socking 100% of every paycheck into savings if they are going to have anything to live off in their old age.

    Clawing back retirements sets a bizarre precedent. What's next? An employer deciding that he really couldn't afford to pay the money he has already passed out in paychecks and suing his employees for a refund?

    Fix it going forward, with honor and with the courage to make tough choices. Don't fix it in arrears, fearfully jerking the rug out from under people who don't have the option to plan differently. You make plans according to the rules of the game that are in effect, and that's what the public retirees did.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Chuck Gould - correct this mess with honor
    June 10, 2012 12:25 pm
    I frequently disagree with you, but in this post I agree entirely with what you've written. Do you realize that Bush actually called for what you're suggesting and the democrats killed him over it?

    The problem is, even if everyone ackowledges the problems, and someone steps forward with a solution, there will always be someone (and this goes by ways party wise) who will take advantage of that effort as a political opportunity.

    It's an indisputable fact that in the hands of the federal government social security has been robbed and is not sustainable. Government can not be trusted. I remember all the talk of "lock boxes"...there are no lock boxes, all there is, is a bunch of IOU's and given the sad state of the US government debt those IOU's are looking to not be worth much. If we want stability in our retirement we need to take it out of the hands of those who have proved they are incapable of keeping their fingers out of our pockets.

    I have an idea for a plan that addresses both retirement and insurance but it's hard to address such complex things on a message board. The basic deal is to remove insurance from being supplied by your employer and shift it to a personal account, which can be tied to your retirement. Our auto insurance isn't tied to our employment...so if you change jobs you don't have disruption in your auto insurance...why not do the same with medical? Then corporations can just pay you higher wages since they don't have to deal with insurance programs.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Is that why Bush signed Medicare Part D?
    June 10, 2012 2:19 pm
    So, in your "proposal", can an insurance company turn down an individual? Can they charge anything they want? Will the corporations pay whatever the insurance company demands for their employee?

    Be specific now.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    William Lawn
    June 10, 2012 8:12 pm
    Bush was a big goverment progressive. And no, in my proposal you have your same policy long before some preexisting condition, so they won't be turning you down the same as if you move from one place of work to another. And corporations won't be paying for insurance, they don't have to concern themselves about that, they can just pay each employee the additional amount they would have paid into insurance as an increase to your salary. And then you choose what level of insurance you want. You want a full package then that's your choice and you pay that premium, you want something that just covers major emergencies, then take a basic package and more money goes into your retirement account. Choice belongs to you, not some government beaurocrat.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Seems like all you are proposing in tossig millions more people with preexisting condition into the private insurance pool
    June 11, 2012 4:54 am
    Why would an insurance company insure, at a reasonable price, a cancer patient? The only reason they do it now is because of regulation and/or group policies
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    William Lawn
    June 11, 2012 6:01 am
    That is something that would have to be addressed as such a program is begun, but protections can be written into programs of this sort so that insurance companies can't easily discard patients that develop serious conditions such as cancer while holding a policy.

    Or, you can stick with the status quo and just wait unitil the current system or Obamacare crashed and no one is insured. Having everyone kicked off social security and without medical insurance does seem to be the democrat's plan. Talk about throwing grandma off the cliff!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    How could it be "addressed"?
    June 12, 2012 5:40 am
    And what evidence have you that "current system or Obamacare crashed and no one is insured." besides unreasoned panic?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    William Lawn
    June 12, 2012 11:16 am
    As for addressing preexisting conditions when switching to a personal insurance system from the current employer based system...I imagine there are a number of ways to address, one might be requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants and cap the premium increase for a period of time. Any major change of that sort is certain to have bumps in the transition.

    As for the current system, it's not perfect,and it doesn't seem headed to a certain collapse like Obamacare is, but it's less than optimal and far, far from efficient. Just ask any leftist and they'll tell you the problems with the current system. As for Obamacare, it was a sham...you have 7 years of benefits for 10 years of payments for the first decade as a shell game to hide the increased costs...ok, so what happens second decade...drop everyone's coverage for 3 years? And the costs have already been skyrocketing, and they had to rob medicare of half a billion dollars...sorry, but setting the unconstitionality of Obamacare the costs were criminally understated. But the supreme court should toss it out anyway as it's unconstitutional.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Rational
    June 12, 2012 2:48 pm
    And how exactly do you dictate to a Business that they can't offer Health Insurance,or massages,pensions,trip to Hawaii or anything else to employees?If I own a Company and want to attract top people I must be prepared to offer them better incentives then my competitor will,if I don't they work for him and I lose.You don't actually believe a business gives benefits out of the goodness of their hearts do you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    messiah101
    June 12, 2012 4:02 pm
    I wouldn't "dictate" to a business that they can't offer insurance, pensions and trips. But if you want to attracts an employee you could offer him gobs more cash and allow him to decide what insurance, pension and trips he wants to spend it on. Personally, I'd rather the choice instead of a business dictating the specifics of my perks.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Redistribution of property and wealth
    June 10, 2012 11:12 am
    Obviously, only flaming commie pinko liberals would support the idea of confiscating the wealth and property (pensions rights) of a targeted few and distributing that wealth and property back to the "masses".

    That's probably why it passed in California. I hear there are a lot of commie, pinko liberals down there.

    No conservative person, with a respect for the private ownership of property or the sanctity of a contract could possibly be in favor of this idea at all.

    Or, will the "real Americans" stand up and shout, "If you're a real American, you don't honor any promises that turn out to cost you more than you thought they might!"? I guess I must not be a "real American", if that's the case. If your word isn't binding, you're not worth a tinker's darn. In any society.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    you got it Chuck
    June 10, 2012 3:59 pm
    it was the commie pinko liberal party that created this mess. Let's see if Eric Holder intervenes on this one....or is he only interested on seeing that the illegals vote?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    Paul, I dotn mind saying that you are a complete idiot because you must be.
    June 10, 2012 4:48 pm
    The national debt has tripped with the last Republican president and that Government actually started to bankrupt the nation throwing us into a depression that Obama and his programs are just starting to pull us out of. Obama's bailout actually saved the US auto industry while the republicans yelled, let the fail! Remember?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • delvin wrote...
    fartforce-are you aware that many airlines flying today filed chapter 11 bancruptcy? Leting the automakers fail would have merely allowed reorginazation so they could better compete in the future.
    June 10, 2012 7:09 pm
    Ever heard of Detroit? Ever heard of all the car mfging being done in alabama, S carolina and other states? We as a country would be so much better off if people like bothered to read and study issues. So many blogers apear to be ingorant of the nuances that are happening in this GLOBAL ECONOMY-WHICH CANNOT BE TURNED BACK.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Yeah, I do remeber
    June 11, 2012 5:17 am
    The capital markets were frozen solid
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • El Duderino wrote...
    Uhh...
    June 10, 2012 10:03 pm
    Chuck I liked your earlier comment, but you went back to the sauce on this one.

    When a politician promises future taxpayer money to union workers, who's private property is it? The workers, or the taxpayers? I argue it's the latter.

    The fact is the pension funds made a number of dumb investment decisions and figured that an 8% return was guaranteed every year. Now they all have less money than they had in 2007 right at the time more people are retiring than ever. So the taxpayers just need to foot the bill because the funds screwed up. Private sector workers don't get this deal, why should public sector workers?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }