Connect with us

Politics

California Pensions Of State Workers Could Be In Trouble After Court Ruling

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

For decades now public pensions have been guided by one universal rule which stipulates that current public employees can not be ‘financially injured’ by having their future benefits reduced. On the other hand, that ‘universal rule’ also necessarily stipulates that taxpayers can be absolutely steamrolled by whatever tax hikes are necessary to
fulfill the bloated pension benefits that unions promise themselves.

Alas, that one ‘universal rule’ may finally be at risk as the California Supreme Court is currently considering a case which could determine whether taxpayers have an unlimited obligation to simply fork over whatever pension benefits are demanded of them or whether there is some “reasonableness” test that must be applied. Here’s more from VC Star:

At issue is the “California Rule,” which dates to court rulings beginning in 1947. It says workers enter a contract with their employer on their first day of work, entitling them to retirement benefits that can never be diminished unless replaced with similar benefits.

It’s widely accepted that retirement benefits linked to work already performed cannot be touched. But the California Rule is controversial because it prohibits even prospective changes for work the employee has not yet done.

The ballooning expenses are an issue that Gov. Jerry Brown will face in his final year in office despite his earlier efforts to reform the state’s pension systems and pay down massive unfunded liabilities.

His office has taken the unusual step of arguing one case itself, pushing aside Attorney General Xavier Becerra and making a forceful pitch for the Legislature’s right to limit benefits.

“Lots of people in the pension community are paying attention to these cases and are really interested in what the California Supreme Court is going to do here,” said Amy Monahan, a University of Minnesota professor who studies pension law.

“For years, self-interested parties, overly generous promises whose true costs were often shrouded by flawed actuarial analyses, and failures of public leadership had caused unsustainable public pension liabilities,” his office wrote. A ruling is expected before Brown leaves office in January 2019.

Meanwhile, it’s not just California taxpayers that have an interest in the Supreme Court’s decision as twelve other states also observe a variation of the ‘California Rule’, said Greg Mennis, director of the Public Sector Retirement Systems project at Pew Charitable Trusts. One of them, Colorado, has walked it back a bit, he said, requiring “clear and unmistakable intent to form a contract before pensions will be contractually protected.”

While a change to California’s interpretation of its rule would not automatically change legal precedents in other states, it could provide the catalyst for lawmakers to test changes that they previously considered unfeasible.

As we pointed out earlier this year, the case currently before the Supreme Court comes after a lower court ruled that “while a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension — not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension.” Here’s more from the Los Angeles Times:

The ruling stemmed from a pension reform law passed in 2012 by state legislators. The law cut pensions and raised retirement ages for new employees and banned “pension spiking” for existing workers.

Pension spiking has allowed some workers to get larger pensions by inflating their pay during the period in which retirement is based — usually at the end of their careers.

In a ruling written by Justice James A. Richman, appointed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the appeals court said the Legislature can alter pension formulas for active employees and reduce their anticipated retirement benefits.

“While a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension — not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension,” wrote Richman, joined by Justices J. Anthony Kline and Marla J. Miller, both Gov. Jerry Brown appointees.

Of course, ‘reasonable’ can be a tricky term to define and for most union bosses it is synonymous with ‘MOAR’….the only question is does the California Supreme Court agree?

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Democrats

Progressive Delaware Website Uses Picture of African-American Candidate as Clickbait for Transgender Candidate.

Published

on

Wilmington, DEBlue Delaware — a far-left website that seeks to cover politics in Delaware from a liberal and progressive perspective, and hold Democratic office holders accountable to their ideology — used a Republican Candidates’ picture, Steven Washington, as a link to an article supporting his opponent, Tim McBride. Tim now goes by the name of Sarah, and is a transgender activist-turned-Delaware State Senate candidate. Both candidates are running for Senate in Delaware’s 1st Senate District. 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i0.wp.com/bluedelaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/14257573_1309511252405875_2121716808778731178_o.jpg?fit%3D1079%252C880%26ssl%3D1%26resize%3D350%252C200&imgrefurl=https://bluedelaware.com/2019/07/09/sarah-mcbride-to-run-for-the-1st-senate-district/&tbnid=erRoKRZxPXM4nM&vet=1&docid=0Cr1dQEiYD1FQM&w=350&h=200&q=steve+washington+for+sd1&source=sh/x/im

When reached for comment regarding his thoughts, Steven Washington said: “I’m not sure that it was purposeful, but it doesn’t send a good message, and displays implicit racial bias.” 

When Mr. Washington first announced his candidacy, McBride’s Campaign Manager, Phoebe Lucas, released a statement claiming that the Republican party recruited heavily to find someone to run against McBride, because it 

“sees Sarah as a threat…picked a candidate who is already testing messages to attack Sarah on ‘family values.’ And we all know what that means.” 

Populist Wire isn’t exactly sure which candidate ranks higher on the Intersectionality score at this time. According to sources familiar with the GOP of Delaware, the party isn’t actively recruiting candidates to target specific threats, but rather to field a candidate for every contestable office.  

Sarah McBride, whose birth name is Tim, is a man suffering from gender confusion. According to researchers such as Dr. Paul McHugh from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, people suffering from such confusion have higher than usual rates of suicide, which is not reduced after “gender transition” therapy or “sex reassignment” surgery:

“Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify,’ In that lies their problematic future,” 

Chris Hyde, from Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence facility, when discussing gender reassignment surgeries states: 

“there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized – often to the point of suicide.”

A brief overview of ‘Sarah’ McBride’s financial reports indicate that the majority of their donors are from out-of-state donors who enjoy enabling such confusion and suffering. 

Delaware’s 1st Senate District is predominantly African-American. Transgenderism is a tough sell in that community, but usually Republicans are too. This should be interesting. Steven Washington’s website is: 

votestevewashington.com 

Continue Reading

Culture

Neo-Con & Israeli Puppet Dan Crenshaw Lies About America First Patriots, Just Like He Did About Trump

Published

on

Dan Crenshaw continued an onslaught of attacks against Nick Fuentes, Michelle Malkin, and America First patriots by labeling them “vehement racists, antisemites, & ethnic nationalists”. This is a far cry from the truth. He also went on again to call America First patriots as ‘antisemitic’ in a response to Michelle Malkin blocking him. Dan Crenshaw also supported Red Flag laws, something that also got him a lot of flack. He also criticized Donald Trump in 2016 on top of coming out in favor of same-sex marriage, all of which that has been questioned and exposed of Mr. McCain, oops, we mean Crenshaw.

It is very apparent Mr. Crenshaw has nothing but an ‘Israel First’ policy, constantly making linear conclusions between conservatism and support for Israel. Making his own opinion that if you don’t support Israel, you don’t support America. A very sick and warped view of America Politics in general, some would say traitorous. Dan Crenshaw represents the worse the establishment can offer so far, he must be unseated, exposed, and further more shammed from the conservative movement, along with all the other conservative grifters and Conservative Inc. types.

Dan on Red Flag Gun Laws:

Dan’s Facebook Post from 2016 denouncing Trump’s “hateful rhetoric”:

Continue Reading

Politics

Conservative Inc. Coordinates Attack on Nick Fuentes and Michelle Malkin for being America First Patriots

Published

on

Since the ‘Groyper War’ Phase 1 was a decisive victory following the November 14th ‘Change my Mind’ rip-off Charlie Kirk attempted to pull off, this late weekend we’ve seen a new onslaught of attacks from many mainstream Republican pundits, attacking Nick Fuentes and Michelle Malkin for their American First allegiance. Conservative Inc. is scared of the true conservatives exposing them and their big donor’s motives & hypocrisy. Even YAF (Young Americans Foundation) who even recently hosted Michelle Malkin, disavowed “holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists”. A slew of other clips and comments were made by Guy Benson, Michael Knowles, Stephen Miller, Bradon Tatum,Jordan Schachtel, & Matt Walsh.

Twitter threads about Fuentes and Malkin

Tweets Supporting Fuentes and Malkin

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.