And here lies the problem...  You can't just take it away and solve the problem because those people earned their retirement. You can stop new stuff but your stuck with the old.  So now, how do you solve the problem.  Example:  If I work at CalTrans for 30 years and was told I have a retirement system I am ac-crewing, then I deserve that.  It wouldn't be fair and equatable for the state to come to me and say sorry, we can't afford your retirement and medical, your on your own... So with that said, whats the answer?

mudslinger47 wrote on 04/02/13 at 8:35am:



I agree.  It isn't fair but that is what happens to people with pensions from a private company when it goes bankrupt. The retiree still gets something but it isn't what they were promised and not what they counted on.

Something similar happened to my parents when my dad retired.  He worked for Grumman for 33 years.  He was promised a year of free health insurance (as part of his pension) for every year of service.  When Northrop bought Grumman that part of his pension went poof.

As far as the last paragraph is concerned... why would you not include everything?  How could they omit something like pensions and insurance for retirees?  Its like they don't want to know the true state of things and don't want us to know either.  Very frustrating.

Amen about Maldonado and with Perris...whachu talkin 'bout Willus

watching the Stockton situation very closely....but not a close as some city managers.....hide and watch!

situation is too far gone for this state...2014 will prove that loud and clear...we are bankrupt and there aint no fixin it without default...or "bailout" lol...jmo.

Not sure why I even clicked on the thread, but I did read the articles and read the comments you guys posted.I understand why and where your coming from.There can be a whole lot cut from the states budget. But trying to lump every person that has worked for the goverment into the same pail is wrong.

If you look at the average wage and the average hiring age of a state/city  worker you would be surprised. The wage is lower and the age at hire is higher, than it would be in the private sector. Working for the goverment isnt a get rich deal,however the stuff that makes the news is the high up management people. That throws the numbers way off.Johhny Pothole fixer makes about 45-50k a year. Now Johnnys upper management makes 150-200k per year with a better retirement. Johnny was hired around 40 years old he works till hes 60(20 years) hes gets around 40% of that 45-50k per year. Thats 20k a year no Social Sec. no medical benifiets.


Its real easy to say the people doing the actual work are the problem.(Its that guy you see holding up the shovel as you drive by) But what about the cops fireman(they dont count???) @ twice the retirement as Johnny P. Or the city manager that moves from town to town until they make 300k a year.

Sorry for the long winded post, just trying to get a couple things clear. Dont beat down the little guys doing the work, beat down the big guys creating the positions to forward themselves.

Ryan just for clarifacation...it is the leadership that is the problem.

at EVERY sector including the UNIONS.


and any argument should address the sustainability of what has been promised/negotiated/demanded/received at any level of any govt in this state.

jmo...hide and watch because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.