I'm wondering why we can't go after the ridiculous PERS benefits in this state as a way to cut spending. Private sector employess are having to pay for PERS at this point, and the state is running a deficit, as their own retirement is being diminished.
Why can't the public PERS beneficiaries agree to give up some of their pensions? They made a life living off the private sector and "serving" them. Why not return some of the money when the private sector is struggling to "serve" them?
Because the way people think, the retirees as a group, wouldn't even come close to giving up their $$$ that they expect. You cannot talk people out of what they think is theirs, no matter how unfair, no matter how much they hurt the general public, no matter how little they may have worked, and no matter how long they may live and collect a pension.
You have to force a change on them. Which is nothing more than Politics really.
Why is reducing a Pension promise any different than a large tax increase?
It isn't. Jacking up someone's taxes in the middle of their prime working career is a "broken promise". Bait and switch.
Why is reducing a Pension promise any different than laying waste to school budgets just as a family was getting ready to put their kids through school, after years and years of paying taxes to put other families kids through school?
It isn't. They are screwed. Either send kids to an overcrowded and declining school or pay yet more to go to a private school if that can be afforded with all the new taxes kicking in - to pay for the public servants to go on cruises.
And yet, "Public Servants" have their rights. Just that their rights are more important than most everyone else.
Because in this county we have Equal Rights under the law.
Except that some folks rights are much, much more important than others.
In Oregon (as in some other states as well) the "rights" of Public Pension participants to receive their promised benefits are in the state constitution.
So, the Legislature can cut school funding, cut state police funding, cut welfare funding, cut homeless support funding, increase taxes - but touch the retirement? Hell no. Against the Constitution.
That does not belong in a Constitution as it hamstrings a Legislature. But, there you have. It is in there.
It will be very difficult to make changes to restore fiscal sanity.
Good Luck.