Analysis: Pennsylvania pension "fix" could add to woes

Comments (8)
InMotion wrote:

During all the ‘good’ economic years, state governments underfunded their pension systems to use the money on their own pet projects and, now that times are bad, want out from under their self created problems. So who loses? The state legislators? No, they never lose. The taxpayers who already funded it once and had it stolen away? Probably not. The public employees who contributed their share to the system while the state refused to put in their share? Of course. Why aren’t legislators in jail for misappropriation of funds?

Feb 10, 2013 9:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:

Once again the greed of public unions is unmasked when government and taxpayers feel the pinch and start examining where their hard earned dollars are going. The sad reality is that no one meaningfully represents taxpayers when government union employees “negotiate” with their own.

Feb 10, 2013 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
InMotion wrote:

Sheep: the people you elected to represent you were your representation. It’s not the union that underfunded the pension funds in normal economic times. It was your greedy representative that stole the money that was budgeted to be used for funding purposes. If they had just done what they were supposed to every year, there would be no shortage of funds for pensions. You obviously know nothing about public workers or public unions…typical.

Feb 10, 2013 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:


Yes, the people that were elected (choices: bad and worse) did not do “…what they were supposed to…” and tell their government unions NO when they sought benefits beyond those average (non-union) taxpayers get.

Yes, tax revenue is the crack cocaine of politics at every level, more used to assure reelection than to do what needs doing. But I know a LOT about greedy public worker/unions and the word “enough” is not in their vocabulary.

Feb 10, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
InMotion wrote:

When those benefits were set up, public companies were matching 401k contributions and paying into social security for their employees. As an Illinois public school teacher, matching funds of any type were not available for us and we do not get social security, so our employers paid into our state retirement fund along with the employees. The state then did not put in the contribution that they were required BY LAW to make. So who is greedy. As employees, we are also taxpayers in the state. Our retirement benefits are better because the companies have gotten greedy and decided to keep all the money for upper management retirements. Maybe you should think about getting a union so you can be paid what you are worth.

Feb 10, 2013 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:

If you are a union “…Illinois public school teacher…”, how is it that “Our retirement benefits are better because the companies have gotten greedy and decided to keep all the money for upper management retirements”. Sounds like you read the wrong line off the union list of approved responses.

No capable person willing to work hard will ever join a union if they have a choice (I’ll admit, many don’t). They don’t like being told to “slow down” so as to not “show up” the average knuckle-dragging idlers the union sticks employers with, and they don’t like seniority taking precedence over ability. In short, THESE kind of people don’t HAVE to “work union” to EARN a good wage and “living”.

Feb 10, 2013 7:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kathy6829 wrote:

@Motion – Sheeple probably is getting paid what he’s worth and he is exposing the evil green eyed jealousy.

Sheeple – you might be interested that here in WI public employees earned 4-8% less than the private sector in TOTAL compensation (includes retirement benefit calculations). Now that Snot Walker has entered the pix the differential is even greater and many good hard working people are leaving the private sector and taking jobs at higher salaries that people like you aren’t even qualified for. We took lower/no raises for many years in order to maintain the benefits that we had.

It’s my understanding that the IL public employees don’t contribute to SS and are ineligible for benefits unless they have 40 quarters of work outside the public sector. The IL contribution to the pension fund would have been LESS than what they would have contributed to SS and they were derelict in not funding even that lower contributions. They would have been required to make the SS at least quarterly had the employees participated in that program. Somebody NEEDS to go to jail.

You really should research your “facts” before your post Sheeple. Pull up your pants, your ignorance is showing.

Feb 11, 2013 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:


“…here in WI…”. “It’s my understanding that the IL public employees…”. I was responding to a Analysis of a “Pennsylvania pension fix”. I have NO interest in bantering back and fourth who gets what in individual states. My “beef”point is that it is many times the case that the “management” sitting across the table from government union “bargaining agents” themselves belong to that union for life and there is no “agent” that represents the taxpayers who must provide the ever-increasing revenue “on the table”.

“…many good hard working people are leaving the private sector and taking jobs at higher salaries…”. Where? The “public sector”?

“…that people like you aren’t even qualified for…”. Let’s see…you’ve never met me and never seen my resume yet you deem yourself sufficiently informed to stake your credibility on a silly comment like that? Well, I guess starting from NO credibility you don’t have much to lose.

It’s the unions that usually show “plumber’s butt” when the curtain is jerked unexpectedly back.

Feb 12, 2013 2:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.