Posted on Friday, 11/06/2009 - 5:10 p.m. PST — by liberty2
Help at last. This is CAs only hope! This is critical !! It is truly hope people do what's right, fair, & just for all Californians. However, we must be bright enough to not let the public unions lie and destroy this chance, the way they destroyed our chance in 2005. CA would not be in the fix we are today if we had passed those chances. CA will be UNgovernable for the rest of our lifetimes, if we aren't wise enough to pass this initiative. It's such common sense. If you've checked Soc Sec age has been creeping up...now starts around 67 -68-69 for different birth dates. FDR set 65 for SocSec BECAUSE average age at death was 65 !!!!! If we had adjustments along the way nobody would get S S until about age 80. People don't save, so most people keep working at something until 70+. It is criminal to have taxpayers keep working to pay taxes for public safety employees to retiree at 50 !! 50 !!! @ $100 - $200,000. per year!. Too much AND too soon !. Raising to 58 is VERY logical, and VERY REASONABLE..... more fair for taxpayers and a C H A N C E to save CA.....BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE !!!
Joined: May 2004
Current Posts: 143
We need this desperately for cities and counties, since local electeds are huge babies and cowards. They think it's more important to be neighborly instead of fiscally responsible. They take oaths to serve us in trustworthy manner...but most do NOT, most of the time. SInce they lack the spines to carry out their duties in a responsible manner, we need these new laws , so the cowards can point to that and hide behind the law to help them do the jobs they were elected to do.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
I find it hypocritical that you write, "However, we must be bright enough to not let the public unions lie and destroy this chance, the way they destroyed our chance in 2005." and the write your own lies, "It is criminal to have taxpayers keep working to pay taxes for public safety employees to retiree at 50 !! 50 !!! @ $100 - $200,000. per year!
Less than 1% of retired public employees earn more than $100,000 per year in retirement benefits. Not all public employees retire when they turn fifty.
Do you want a 58 year old cop or firefighter handling your emergency?
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 208
So if you are happy with 58 year old cops running around protecting you then good luck with that. Why do you think sports people have to quit so young........duh.
I also wish people like these compainers would put half as much energy into doing something about big business crooks and our idiot politicans. How about pushing people to vote for a third party instead of the same old crooked politicans who refuse to represent us.......like on immigration........Oh well the beat goes on.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 80
Mark my words because I'm always right about this stuff! Not to mention I have a little inside information. First of all, expect an editorial in the next few days supporting this legislation. The Times Editorial Board (Bornstien included) is very much anti-law enforcement. They will do everything possible to oppose tough on crime measures and will support lower pay for cops and firefighters. There are several reasons fpr this but basically it boils down to their left-leaning viewpoints (Chancey Bailey and a general anti-establishment outlook they gained in journalism school also play a role). Since the Editorial Board is a bunch of liberals they of course will never mention that Democrats have been key in promoting the benefits of cops and firefighters over the years. The overriding concern in what they write however is to not hurt left-wing politicans so watch as they dance around that. As far as this legislation goes it is misguided to say the least. If anyone deserves these benefits it is cops and firefighters. The problem in California is that Democrats took the benefits that public safety officials deserve and gave them to everyday union employees. This is where the SEIU, ACORN and other union thugs enter the picture. These folks have gained benefits over the years that they cannot justify. Of course you won't see anything in this paper about them. They union guys aren't running around in hazardous situations, chasing people, wearing 50 pounds of gear etc etc. That is where the legislation should be aimed. Too bad the Times and others care more about being soft on crime and helping liberal interest groups than they do actually solving the problem.