Mark Klein wrote on May 08, 2008 09:32 AM: The so called "Pension Proposition 13" you mention was Proposition 1262. I say "was" because it failed to qualify back in January. The sponsors promised to resubmit the Initiative, but they didn't. Why? Because they were unable to raise money or gather signatures. Why? Because it was a flawed proposition and those behind it were incompetent ideologues who had no support other than other incompetent ideologues.

In other words, the proposition you think is such a great idea doesn't even exist. Nice research.

One more point - Californians are finally aware that the original Proposition 13 was an utter disaster that ruined public education, public health, public transportation, public infrastructure and public assistance. The anti-tax movement it jump-started has given our nation record deficits, an insurmountable national debt, and two generations of illiterate no-nothings.

When the history of the decline of America is finally written, Prop 13 will be given the credit it truly deserves.

Randy Moffat wrote on May 02, 2008 02:18 AM: Again, an unnamed LV Review Journal Attack on Hard Working State Employees. The Truth isn't even close to what the RJ Portrays in their Editorial. The State of Nevada has Hundreds if not thousands of Job openings, BECAUSE of Poor Pay, Poor benifits, lousy working conditions, abusive supervisors. Don't complain, apply for a job, God knows we can use the help.
In my line of work for the state, we are currently short by 30-40% of the needed workforce. We typically have to drive 60-140 miles a day to and from work, work for 30-40% less pay then our City and county counterparts, ensure the public stays safe regardless, and need to work 25-30 years in these same conditions to recieve a retirement.
Only 1.57% of my fellow workers actually ever get to that retirement, it may be higher in other Departments, but few actually get to retirement. Yet we have to Contribute to it typically $200-400 just someone who has a 401k, or take $200-400 less pay, so it isn't 'Free' retirement like the RJ likes to portray it.
But then those who are complaining here and those who hide behind the editiorial don't have to stand out working in 115 degree weather laying hot asphalt, or work in the welfare office with a caseload of 600+, or Teach your children in gang infested, grafitti covered schools, where drugs are sold, or work on a lonely highway with no back up officers for 100 miles, or deal with 200 convicted Felons daily with no Assistance or no equipment.

Duncan wrote on May 01, 2008 05:03 PM: Mike L.,

Are you renting? If so, a portion of your rent goes to the owner of the property, which they use to pay property taxes. They get the deduction and you don't.

Virgil A Sestini wrote on May 01, 2008 03:49 PM: You seem to center your comments about state workers and their retirement. I ask you, what about the big money boys who have been dipping into the retirment fund for years? For example, what about double dippers like John Ensign, Harry Reid, Paul Laxalt? What about the state legislators, the judges, county and city commissioners who are also on state retirement? Make any retirment cuts to be retroactive for those who have benefitted the most...the fat cats and their cronies.

Its not the common state workers like clerks and the teachers who are draining the system...it is the big cheaters who are doing it. Walt Rulffes and his appointees are drawing very big salaries for a few years service all of which counts towards retirement. A teacher, choosing to earn a few extra bucks teaching summer school cannot use that money toward his/her retirement.

Why should someone who has worked at other than a state job and earned social security have to give it up if they become a teacher? That is Republican baloney...

Keep on with the idea of cutting back on state retirment for the common state workers and see what you will get. Improve the system,make it better, require that one be in the system for 25 years before gaining a single dollar of benefit...don't allow these quick appointments and ove up the salary schedules to increase their retirment benefits until they have held that postiion for 10 years...improve it don't eliminate it.

Common Sense wrote on May 01, 2008 01:04 PM: "This means that unlike social security, PERs does not steal money from everywhere else to pay."

As usual, the government workers have to LIE to justify their pensions. Social Security doesn't "steal money from everywhere." Its money GETS STOLEN by the socialists who dream up ever more ways for the government to spend money -- including raising government employee salaries and benefits.

"If you people think that public employees have it so good go get a public job or stop complaining."

We'd love to, comrade. But we don't have the juice to get one.

Anyway, if you think you have it so BAD, you can always get a private sector job. No influence from family required.

Of course, then you'll have to pay into Social Security. But you won't mind, because that program "steals money from everywhere" to pay out HUGE benefits to retirees. Same with Medicare.

Yep, we greedy taxpayers are always taking more than we deserve!

CAS127 wrote on May 01, 2008 10:03 AM: Mr. Draper,

One alternative way to extract justice from corrupt public sector employees/unions in TX (who betrayed public trust by creating the insane pension funding schemes) would be to pass a special tax based on public pension income.

Hell, let's make it a wealth tax and reclaim the kleptocrats ill-gotten wealth.

There are plenty of profession, occupation, function, and purpose specific taxes in our tax codes - the luxuriating 50 year retiree kleptocrats will scream about 14th Amendment Equal Protection guarantees but our legal system has long since shredded equal protection in the economic/tax realm.

Anybody here of the "progressive" income tax? How much "Equal Protection" of the laws does *that* represent?

Let's claw back the wealth that the public sector kleptocrats engaged in fraud and deception to acquire.

Danny Draper wrote on May 01, 2008 09:37 AM: Sounds like another California fiasco. Here in Texas the state constitution was amended a few years ago to protect gov't employees and make local gov'ts keep the promises made to employees. If you are vested in your plan, your benefits may not be reduced or impaired. Period. Recent rulings by the state att'y general have put teeth into the amendment when local gov'ts have tried to limit the amount of salary they would base the pension on. The ruling was, if it was a benefit prior to passage of the amendment, it must remain a benefit. It cannot be changed.

Jack wrote on May 01, 2008 08:08 AM: In the Nevada PERs system employees and their employers negotiate wages and compensation to include the percent that goes into the retirement fund. What this means is that as a government worker you negotiate for a 3 percent raise and a 1.5 percent part that goes to the benifit plan. Our benifit plan in NVPERS is solvent. This means that unlike social security, PERs does not steal money from everywhere else to pay, it is in a fund, invested and solvent without your additional tax dollars. If you people think that public employees have it so good go get a public job or stop complaining.

Mike L. wrote on May 01, 2008 06:44 AM: I'm glad it won't make sense to buy a house for the next 10 years, so I won't be paying property taxes to government scum. I shop mostly on the internet, so the state goons get very little of my money.

Joel Rossetti wrote on May 01, 2008 05:23 AM: "The end justifies the means"? Good for everyone except politicians. You do two terms in the Congress---you get$100,000. @ year in retirement money. Are they worried about Social Security takein into consideration?

Read All Comments