Eric:
The union officials receiving pensions are not abusers. They are collecting pensions that were procribed by law. The Tribune articles go on to describe how they got into law and specifically mentions that names of John Daley, Jeremiah Joyce, John Cullteron as being involved in the shell bill. The article also mentioned the timing of the Union Endorsement to Mayor Daley's first reelection coming shortly after the bill became law. This was a political payoff with taxpayer money - plain and simple. I am sure that over the years, more and more provisions of the pension statutes were amended to extend tapayer funds more broadly where there was a benefit to the elected officials. Republicans are not typically beneficiaries of union endorsement or union campaign contributions. The most serious underfunding of pensions and pension abuse are in the California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey - blue states. The Democrats own this particular brand of corruption.
The Sun Times actually reported on the fact that taxpayers were paying pensions for retired public servants - based upon a union salary that they were still earning - about three years ago in their series. Governor Quinn was asked about the perk and said he had never heard this provision was in the law. It was just as inappropriate then as it is today - and nothing was done to repeal or amend these provisions in the recent reform that affected new employees. Now that it is front page news and there are names to attach it they are now talking about making changes.
As for "you get what you pay for" I guess I want to know exactly what the cost of the both pay and benefits to the local and state taxpayer with real comparisons with private sector pay and benefits and job protections. I have heard estimates that the state income tax would need to double and the sales tax go to 13% to pay for pensions on the state level alone. Then there is the whole issue of local pensions.
Let me leave you with the thoughts of Willie Brown, the former Speaker of the California General Assembly, a major contributor of the public employee compensation structure California has. Once again, tell me why Willie Brown is wrong.
Former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown is no conservative. He's a died in the wool liberal through and through. So imagine my surprise upon reading his latest op-ed in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle.
If we as a state want to make a New Year's resolution, I suggest taking a good look at the California we have created. From our out-of-sync tax system to our out-of-control civil service, it's time for politicians to begin an honest dialogue about what we've become.
Take the civil service.
The system was set up so politicians like me couldn't come in and fire the people (relatives) hired by the guy they beat and replace them with their own friends and relatives.
Over the years, however, the civil service system has changed from one that protects jobs to one that runs the show.
The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life.
But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits to private-sector levels while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workers almost as much as current workers.
Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.
Either we do something about it at the ballot box, or a judge will do something about in Bankruptcy Court. And if you think I'm kidding, just look at Vallejo.
Ihttp://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2010/01/willie_brown_tells_california.html
At this point, there is so much written about public employee compensation and the corruption that brought it about - that if someone doesn't acknowledge the serious problems both financially and ethically - well I have to conclude they are benefitting from the system. There is no other reason to want to saddle your neighbors and children with the future costs and the assualt on Democracy this system represents.