Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Saturday, February 06, 2010Retirement Reform
Facts about Senator Liljenquist's proposed retirement reform:
1. Current employees WILL KEEP 100% OF THEIR PENSION BENEFITSWe lost a lot of money in 2008. The proposed reform bills (SB 63 and SB 43) will ensure that the pension system can meet 100% of its pension obligations to current and retired employees, and reduce long-term bankruptcy risk to state & local governments. Here's a fact sheet (PDF). This is Utah, not California. We look ahead, and try to avoid problems before they become a crisis.  BTW - This . . . is ridiculous. But not surprising. The UEA has the facts but opted instead to stampede their followers with FUD.
posted by The Senate Site at 10:34 PM | Link
|
Connect & EngageRadio Free SenateKeep in TouchTwitter UpdatesYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
29 Comments:
What about the people in the private sector that are losing their pensions and the vaules in their 401k. Are you going to save theirs also. Don't they pay the taxes for the government pensions? SHouldn't they be helped also?
Utah Teachers are used to being screwed so no changes there.
"This is Utah, not California. We look ahead, and try to avoid problems before they become a crisis."
No clearly instead the State is going to be a party to something much worse, your going to steal from your new employee's to pay old employee's pensions.
And at the Same time you are going to destroy the benefits that bring people to work for the government even know they will have to take a massive pay cut because of how much less the government pays when compared to private industry.
This is going to lead to an inferior quality in state services, and eventually hiring problems.
“UEA members’ retirement benefits are in jeopardy, and we will be rallying to show the legislature how we feel about these proposals,” UEA President Kim Campbell said
Your "fact sheet" is a text book example of LYING BY OMISSION.
It is absolutely amazing to me that the ultra conservatives in the Legislature believe that the public employees in the state somehow can't see through their partisan treachery and deceit. Trust me they can.
The truth is that the public employees retirement system could be made solvent again, but the conservative controlled legislature is not willing to generate and allocate the resources to do so.
That's your plan, John? Just raise taxes?
URS actuaries project that the market crash of 2008 will cost the State & Local governments $400 Million (plus 4% annual growth) for 25 years.
"New employees hired after July 1, 2011, will be part of a NEW RETIREMENT SYSTEM."
You neglect to mention that the "New Retirement System" being proposed provides LESS THAN HALF what current new hires receive. Cutting compensation for new teachers is NOT RESPONSIBLE when we are trying to attact the best and brightest and asking them to devote their career to the field of education here in Utah.
Public employees always get the raw end of the deal - they make less money than someone in the private sector, when there are hiring freezes and positions cut, those existing have to do twice the work for less money, and now we are going to take away their pensions? Not only do public employees pay their fair share in taxes, but they also pay their share by doing a whole lot for a whole lot less than the private sector. Don't we owe them anything?
Here's an idea: first cut state legislators benefits and pass ethics reforms to prevent them from accepting bribes---then we can talk.
I am very offended you would refer to the more than 4,000 constituents who atteded Saturday's rally as "ridiculous." It shows a real distain by our majority party senators for the voice of us "little people."
http://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0094.htm
Curious... when was the last time state employees received a pay increase? Anybody know?
Such disrespect from the Senate Site. Elitist GOP call public employees ridiculous?
I'm voting Democrat against Senator Liljenquist.
This post has been removed by the author.
I would like to know the name and title of the anonymous person posting as "Senate Site". Some honesty and transparency is appropriate if that individual wants to engage in a discussion on this topic and respond to mine and other citizen's comments.
No, Utah Senate site, that was democracy. Your comment. on the other hand, was ridiculous.
Re: Anonymous at 3:10 pm
That was not Senator Liljenquist posting the "ridiculous" comment.
Whichever staffer wrote that post needs to make it clear that they are not speaking for the senator, merely stating some facts about his bills.
Brooke is right, that comment was mine, not Dan Liljenquist's.
I was bugged. Not by "public employees" or the rally or "democracy" -- I actually LOVE it when people engage like that. It was surprising, however, that UEA reps let public employees believe their retirement was at risk.
The argument that we'll have a rough time recruiting future teachers makes sense. The near-hysteria that we're cutting employees pensions doesn't.
Appreciate all the thoughtful comments here.
RC
Ric, with all due respect, it sure came off like you believe the protesting employees are acting in a ridiculous way. Step back and look at the comment. Ridiculous?
Sorry you were "bugged" by UEA's comments. But if you'd bother to take a look at SB42 and SB63 you'd know retirement benefits for current and future employees ARE at risk. Not sure what you find "ridiculous" about it.
I am requesting one more time that the anonymous "Senate Site" give his/her full name and title in this discussion.
It isn't just UEA who opposes this. It is also your Firefighters and Cops. We have read the bills and are certain, these bills will have a negative impact on our retirements and our ability to recruit and retain employees. We were there also at that rally. This is a knee jerk reaction to something that occurred in California? There is absolutely no similarity to California in this state or its retirement system.
It appears that the anonymous person posting as Senate Site lacks the courage to identify himself or herself. My question is does that individual speak for the Republican membership of the Utah Senate in their comments on this blog calling the public employees of the state "RIDICULOUS"? Is this what the Utah Republican Senate Majority stands for?
Hopefully this individual will join the class of vertebrates and identity him/herself and accept responsibility for those comments.
It's me, John. I thought that was already clear.
You've misunderstood my comments – maybe with reason. Ridiculous = the UEA rallying their members by saying their retirement benefits are in jeopardy. Dan Liljenquist is working to craft a bill that does the opposite. We need careful dialogue between different viewpoints and the FUD didn't help. My brief conversations with UEA reps since Saturday have been civil and I do appreciate them using different arguments.
On another note - when you post something for a legislator or staffer and half a day goes by with no response - especially during the legislative session – chances are they have a heck of a lot going on and haven't had time to stop and write back.
I'll try to respond to your Email by tomorrow.
Thank you for your response Ric Cantrell. Your demeaning comment about the state empoyee's position on the retirement changes was patently offensive to me and I am sure other public employees past and present.
Those of us who are currently in the system whose benefits are not in jeopardy care deeply about the entire class of public employees whether they are past present or future. Whether you know it or not, present public employee benefits are the result of many years of difficult negotiations, concessions, and compromises on the part of public workers like myself.
It make come as a surprise, but public employees are not so selfish as to think "I've got mine, so screw those who come after me in my job". We respect the positions of service we hold in the state and care deeply how the state treats those who follow in our footsteps.
Those people at public employee's rally understand clearly what is at stake, which is the retirement benefit of future employees. To suggest otherwise is absurd. We are not stupid! It is far from ridiculous to voice our opposition to changes to a system that we have fought so hard to get even when it affects only future hires. Rather than ridiculous, "forward looking" and "unselfish" would be far more appropriate terms to describe the rally on the steps of the capitol.
Senate "staffers" such as yourself would be well advised to actually think before making such insulting and derogatory comments about the thousands of Utah's public servants who do more for less than their counterparts in most other states. It reflects poorly on not only yourself, but the Senate Republican majority you appear to represent.
I'm still voting Democrat against Liljenquist. We need more balance. We need real leaders.
John, go ahead and vote however you choose. Your right. You can also say we need "real leaders". But I believe a real leader is someone who will take a difficult stand on something when they see a problem rather than shoving it off on the next generation. That, in my opinion, is exactly what Senator Liljenquist is doing.
I don't appreciate being referred to as a group of cattle i.e. "opted instead to stampede their followers with FUD." There are 187,000 people in URS so next time ,Ric, I would choose your words more carefully. I'm a firefighter and these changes are going to affect future recruitment and to say it is not is naive. I understand that we all need to make tough choices but I know you don't understand the years of negotiations it took to create the Firefighter retirement system when you are making the comments that you are. My question to you is how are we going to recruit new teachers in Utah when we pay them $25,000.00 a year and offer a pension they can't live on when they retire? How are we going to recruit firefighters when we pay them $35,000.00 a year then offer them a pension they can't live on when they retire? What is going to happen is we are going to get people coming in and out of these career fields looking at them as jobs. They are going to work 5-10 years then move on to something that pays a lot better. This is going to destroy these fields and reduce the quality of product that they produce. The reason people are willing to work for 20-30 years making less money then other professionals is they know they are going to be able to retire and receive a modest check until they die.
Good points, worth considering.
Post a Comment
<< Home