[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

The problems would still be here with 85% republicans in state government.

The state cannot simply vote away existing pension obligations and cuts to welfare, healthcare, and transportation will have voter repercussions.

At this point you'll need to rally an army of rich folk to march all the poor minorities out of the state at gunpoint.

This is factually incorrect.

If 85% of the state government were republicans they could eliminate the state income tax and slash spending by 50%

They can default on the pension obligations. Think about it they won't be able to pay in 10 years anyway so what is the difference?

The democrats are making things worse by increasing spending and refusing to deal with the issue. GE just left did you know prompted by Malloy's tax increase.

Do you see a connection?

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Sorry but I disagree. I do not remember Rowland or Rell EVER pushing this or publicly blaming the legislature on this issue. The Governor develops the state budget and the legislature approves it. They both ignored it and kicked the can down the road. Plus the Republicans did not nominate an electable candidate in the last two elections. So I blame them as well. Jay

The democrats are campaigning on a platform of more government spending and more taxes. Right now Bernie Sanders wants universal health coverage and a 90% marginal tax rate.

Republicans are campaigning on a series of flat taxes followed by spending cuts. This isn't rocket science.

The truth goes against your narrative

The parties are not the same and different leadership would lead to vastly different outcomes. Come on Jay you know better

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

They can default on the pension obligations. Think about it they won't be able to pay in 10 years anyway so what is the difference?

The democrats are making things worse by increasing spending and refusing to deal with the issue. GE just left did you know prompted by Malloy's tax increase.

Do you see a connection?

What Malloy should have done is capped pensions, by swapping out workers with under 15 years with Ct (who would have decades to build retirement funds) to a 401K, and he had the leverage, as when he asked and they said no, the cost to them should have been just a partial, not a full rescinding of the 6,000 layoffs he issued a few years ago. He should only have rescinded all 6,000 layoffs in return for a switch of thousands of members and all future ones to a 401K w/o a pension.


But Danny didn't want his union buds to lose a thing...

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

What Malloy should have done is capped pensions, by swapping out workers with under 15 years with Ct (who would have decades to build retirement funds) to a 401K, and he had the leverage, as when he asked and they said no, the cost to them should have been just a partial, not a full rescinding of the 6,000 layoffs he issued a few years ago. He should only have rescinded all 6,000 layoffs in return for a switch of thousands of members and all future ones to a 401K w/o a pension.


But Danny didn't want his union buds to lose a thing...

Are you joking? This is completely absurd. You can't do this to state workers with under 15 years of service. The state has legal contracts that prevent this. A judge would throw it out in an instant. Propose something realistic and legal. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Are you joking? This is completely absurd. You can't do this to state workers with under 15 years of service. The state has legal contracts that prevent this. A judge would throw it out in an instant. Propose something realistic and legal. Jay

I'm talking renegotiating Jay, and the 6,000 layoffs were a great incentive. Let the workers decide-do all 6k have jobs, or do we insist on giant pensions for all? If the latter, DM should have gone full steam ahead with EVERY layoff. All 6,000 axed.


I am not talking a unilateral move. But a smart exec recognizes the weapon Malloy held. 6,000 pink slips. He gave it up w/o getting anything in return.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I'm talking renegotiating Jay, and the 6,000 layoffs were a great incentive. Let the workers decide-do all 6k have jobs, or do we insist on giant pensions for all? If the latter, DM should have gone full steam ahead with EVERY layoff. All 6,000 axed.


I am not talking a unilateral move. But a smart exec recognizes the weapon Malloy held. 6,000 pink slips. He gave it up w/o getting anything in return.

You can't negotiate when you don't have a leg to stand on. They would see right through it. Again not realistic. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You can't negotiate when you don't have a leg to stand on. They would see right through it. Again not realistic. Jay

6,000 layoffs is a leg. Now I agree once DM rescinded the layoffs, he was powerless.


But ask why did he give that weapon up..for free?


Perhaps He could have gotten the union to agree to renegotiate once 6,000 of them were unemployed for a while. If not, those layoffs being permanent save Ct hundreds of millions annually.


Rescinding the layoffs for free ..his dumbest move.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Are you joking? This is completely absurd. You can't do this to state workers with under 15 years of service. The state has legal contracts that prevent this. A judge would throw it out in an instant. Propose something realistic and legal. Jay

I think ERISA has a lot to say about what companies and the government can do to pension obligations.

The state should move all pensions to 401K's. This isn't illegal at all

The state should file for bankruptcy and not pay the remaining pension obligations. It doesn't matter what a judge does if there is no money its not like they are going to confiscate and kill taxpayers to pay for everything.

What do you do when every business leaves and there is no money remaining. This reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.

CT taxpayers need to go galt!

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I think ERISA has a lot to say about what companies and the government can do to pension obligations.

The state should move all pensions to 401K's. This isn't illegal at all

The state should file for bankruptcy and not pay the remaining pension obligations. It doesn't matter what a judge does if there is no money its not like they are going to confiscate and kill taxpayers to pay for everything.

What do you do when every business leaves and there is no money remaining. This reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.

CT taxpayers need to go galt!

Just pushing lowest tiers to 401K would eliminate future shortfalls, and 6,000 layoffs are mighty persuasive.


You are correct that pension recipients should care, as in many cases there are obligations that cannot be paid. Illinois will be the 1st one bankrupt.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I think ERISA has a lot to say about what companies and the government can do to pension obligations.

The state should move all pensions to 401K's. This isn't illegal at all

The state should file for bankruptcy and not pay the remaining pension obligations. It doesn't matter what a judge does if there is no money its not like they are going to confiscate and kill taxpayers to pay for everything.

What do you do when every business leaves and there is no money remaining. This reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.

CT taxpayers need to go galt!

Changing to a 401k pension plan is possible for future employees but the state can't change what is being offered to current employees. There are contracts in place. Declaring bankruptcy is not easy. Remember that Bridgeport tried and failed. Jay.