Posts
Comments

In response to the first installment of our series “Pension Tidal Wave” come the predictable round of critics who say that before we call attention to the lavish, unaffordable benefits granted to public employees, we must give regular, front-page coverage to the fact that the war in Iraq could cost as much as $1 trillion.
It’s a fair, if misguided, point that is worthy of a response:
1. Public employee pensions in Massachusetts would be a very serious problem whether or not we were at war.
2. Saying that a newspaper shouldn’t present in-depth coverage of a fiscal nightmare in the state unless it first dwells on the cost of war is like saying cops shouldn’t arrest anybody for speeding or drug dealing until they have solved every murder case. The pension problem in Massachusetts threatens the fiscal stability of both local and state governments. That doesn’t mean other issues are unimportant. But other issues, like the war, belong in a separate discussion - not this one.
If you disagree, of course, this is the place to say so.

  • George
    I think that that both the war on Iraq and pensions are a waste of tax payers money. Imagine if we could take just 10% of that money and put it toward public education for out children. That is so much more important than the Iraq war or state workers becoming rich.

    Also great new blog. Five entries on its first day. I will be a regular.

    George
  • jJC
    The main point everyone is missing is that money is taken out of the employees paycheck every week towards their pensions but the state, cities and towns, who are suppose to do the same have not put their share into the fund for decades. The state and municipal politicians have robbed the system and its members for years.

    Most of the public employees, laborers, clerical, etc., average less than $20,000 a year.

    So keep on supporting the "BACON HILL BUMS" [who DON'T have to work 20+ years] yet they get a pension of over thirty grand a year for what is esssentially a part-time job.

    The public employees for years have given up payraises to get better health coverage, etc. Which has kept their payscale down.

    Meanwhile the true workers in governent will be getting "ENRONED". While people like Billy Bulger demand more retirement $$$ because the state owned home and vehicle that he was provided with for FREE, he now wants included in his pension.
  • Nick
    Pensions for public service are NOT the biggest problem in this country and are NOT a waste of money. As a Civil Engineer I would be taking a MASSIVE pay cut to leave the private sector and work for a municipality (for the record, I am employed in the private sector). The ONLY attractive thing about working for the state or local government is the promise of a pension at the end. Make no mistake, there are wealthy law makers in the Commonwealth who would gain my admiration for refusing a pension (as many do not need it), but many working in the public sector take large pay cuts to do so. A consulting civil engineer with 20-30 years of experience can charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their services, while the same engineer, with the same experience in a municipal job would make FAR less than that with far more responsibilty and daily stress. The promise of a pension is the only motivation I can see to encourage the best and brightest to enter the public sector in many important fields. Teachers, for instance, could make more money at a private institution with far less stress, but many see a guaranteed pension as a great reason to stay in public schools. In the end, were trillions of dollars of our tax money being sent over seas to fund a war and rebuild a country that we destroyed, there would be enough money for both social security AND pensions. Perhaps the target of the outrage in this situation should be shifted away from the honest harworking people that (most) pubilc employees are, and pointed somwhere else.
blog comments powered by Disqus