Quote :

"State Pensions Now Cloaked in Secrecy Dan Kane, Staff Writer, News & Observer 1-29-2008 The State Treasurer's Office is no longer making public the pensions of state retirees, citing a prohibition in a 2007 law that had been originally intended to give the public more access to the pay and perks of public officials. Senate Bill 1546 was initially intended to make bonuses, incentives and other compensation public. State Sen. David Hoyle, a Gaston County Democrat, filed the legislation after the Carolinas Healthcare System denied that information to The Charlotte Observer. But as the bill moved through the Senate, changes were made to limit other information that had previously been public, including pensions. It's not clear who added the provision that now prevents the treasurer from disclosing how much taxpayers are paying for a state employee's pension. Sara Lang, a spokeswoman for State Treasurer Richard Moore, said no one there requested the change. "We didn't ask for this," she said. "This is the legislation that was passed, and then the Attorney General's Office interpreted it for us, and we're following the law." The prohibition became public last week when The Star-News of Wilmington asked Moore's office how much state Rep. Thomas E. Wright's pension would be if he were to leave this year. Wright, a Wilmington Democrat, is facing state charges of fraud and obstruction of justice, and a legislative ethics committee has found probable cause on eight charges of misconduct, which could ultimately lead to his removal. Former House Speaker Jim Black, who is in federal prison on public corruption charges, stands to receive a maximum benefit of $41,330 a year from his legislative pension. Last year, as a result of Black's wrongdoing, lawmakers passed a new law to require state and local elected officials to forfeit their public pensions if they are convicted of felony public corruption or election law crimes. Those not yet vested as of July 1, 2007, when the law took effect, would lose their entire pensions. Those vested before July 1, 2007, would lose all future benefits from the point they committed their crimes. Wright, an eight-term lawmaker, was vested in the state retirement system before July 1. Hoyle said he did not insert the provision to keep pensions secret. Legislative records show it was added to Hoyle's bill shortly before it cleared the Senate. "I would never have done that," Hoyle said. "Why would I have done that? What would I have to gain from doing that?" Hoyle said he did not know how the pension provision got in the bill, nor did he realize it would be interpreted as a ban on releasing the information. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, a Fayetteville Democrat, made some of the changes in the bill before it came to the Senate floor. Rand had filed a separate bill to keep the public from learning the details when public hospitals buy medical practices, but decided to merge that bill with Hoyle's legislation. An aide to Rand said Monday that the senator is touring Egypt this week and could not be reached for comment. The pension provision drew little notice as the bill worked its way through the legislature. The battle over public access to hospital records got most of the attention. John A. Bussian, counsel to the N.C. Press Association of which The News & Observer is a member, said that he was aware of the provision but that the association went along with the legislation because it made public the full compensation awarded to top public hospital employees and other public officials. He said the association had been assured that problems with the law would be worked out in this year's session. Hoyle said he intends to take up the pension provision when the session opens in May. "If it is public money, if it's taxpayers' money, we have a right to know," Hoyle said. "And I thought we did." Julie White, a spokeswoman for Moore's campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, said he thinks the information should be public. "

So the Taxpayer has to pay for these pensions, but we're not allowed to know anything about them? Oh boy...this a great precedent.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/908980.html

1/29/2008 11:01:09 AM

1/29/2008 11:23:12 AM

glad jim black will be taken care of after his prison sentence, well deserved after such quality public service.

i hope he dies in prison

1/29/2008 11:26:28 AM

Something I was thinking about earlier:

Does the IRS audit every elected official each year that they are on the public payroll? If not, why not?

1/29/2008 5:25:52 PM

taxpayers shouldnt be funding ANYONES retirement, imo.

Look at the mess GM is in over their retirees..why doesnt our govt ever look at examples at how bad shit turns out before they do stupid shit.

1/29/2008 5:28:08 PM

^
Total agreement there.

If you want a pension, don't be a life-time politician...Get a job in the private sector.

1/29/2008 6:00:44 PM

There are a very limited number of "politicians" in state government. The pension system serves every state employee, from the teachers, to the highway patrol, to the state's attorneys, to the elected state officials.

This is something that will be corrected when session starts back again and isn't some sort of evil plan concocted to protect Jim Black.

1/29/2008 6:04:50 PM

Quote :

"If you want a pension, don't be a life-time politician"

you're completely in the wrong here

but nutsmackr already addressed it i see

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ,]

1/29/2008 6:15:39 PM

^right, id be for ending thier retirements too. Let them save like everyone else. We cant afford to keep paying for all these entitlements.

1/29/2008 6:31:40 PM

there are 4930965 other ways to cut spending than to eliminate pension plans for public servants

1/29/2008 6:36:09 PM

^^State employees pay 6% of their paycheck into TSER. So it isn't like we are getting something for free.

1/29/2008 6:37:45 PM

I know, but basically todays workers are paying for the pensions of the retirees correct? Well given the changes in demographics this is always a bad idea. If their money went into their OWN account then it wouldnt be a problem, bc you are paying for your OWN retirement as you go. Not paying for the current retirees and then counting on future workers to pay for yours. This is a terrible idea and one reason companies cant compete.

1/29/2008 6:42:20 PM

The investment of our funds are what pays for the current retirees. We also have the option of a 401k. When people get a job, they always want their own retirement plan and then a company plan.

1/29/2008 6:54:46 PM

^yeah, thats what I said. However that system doesnt work. It will lead into trouble because of changes in demographics and retirees living longer than ever. If you paid for your own retirement fund, then that would offset those changes.

Your retirement is based on a promise. And we cant afford to keep those. It fails time after time, and someone gets burnt.

1/29/2008 7:04:49 PM

^ Then vote for people that want to those promises. Vote for people that are going to end our overseas involvement cause it costs too much, end our various federal departments that are redundant, end our funding of pork barrel projects, end our funding of Social Security cause it'll slowly become an anaconda around our neck.

Luxembourg will become a world power before that happens.

But until then, anyone that whines about costs needs to shut up and quit your b****ing. You get what you vote for. And any idiot that votes for either the Republican or Democratic Party is just as much at fault as the politicians. The reason they're there is cause you voted for them and you are not keeping them accountable.

When the s*** hits the fan and people realize how bad a shape we are, it will be far too late...and I will have moved to another country, cause I don't see why I should pay for the collective idiocy of others when I and others saw it before everyone else did and no one listened.

Quote :

" U.S. Congress to the Next Generation --Drop Dead: Announcing the economic stimulus package agreed to last week by both parties in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that typical Americans can expect to receive a "stipend" of $300 to $1,200. Stipend -- will we get a federally funded sherry hour, too? Calling a government check a "stipend," to make it seem lofty and grand, reflects the modern affection CEOs have for calling the cash they receive "compensation" rather than pay, and consultants and speakers insist on saying they are receiving "honoraria" rather than pay. There is nothing wrong with receiving pay! And no reason to employ euphemisms. The stimulus bill will cost about $150 billion and consists entirely of deficit spending. The secondary euphemism being employed in Washington is to call the checks "tax rebates." But they are not rebates, meaning partial returns of monies paid -- they are pure borrowing. Which is to say, Congress will award most current American adults $300 to $1,200 each, then send the bill to future American adults. Suppose that instead, each American adult today set aside $300 at 5 percent interest. In 20 years, that money would grow to $800, and likely much more if invested in stocks. Such savings would be good for the U.S. economy, which, since 2001, has seen a negative national savings rate. China's national savings rate is currently almost 50 percent. Savings is one reason the Chinese economy is growing far faster than the U.S. economy; the U.S. savings rate is close to negative-4 percent, and our economic growth is sputtering. The framers said, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Today's Congress: "We mutually pledge to pretend to believe what we just promised until the first second it is politically convenient to do the opposite." But rather than help the U.S. economy grow in a generous way that forgoes a little today to gain a lot tomorrow, the American people -- through their representatives in Congress -- just reached into the pockets of future citizens in order to spend more on themselves right now. Explain to me why this is considered a populist action by Congress? Bear in mind, the stimulus package announced last week is only an agreement between the two parties in the House. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate currently are scrambling to add their own pet projects to the legislation -- whenever a big spending bill moves, there's always a bidding war in which Republicans and Democrats vie to see who can stage the biggest giveaway. The damage to the national debt might get worse because what's happening now is the environment Congress likes best -- an environment of zero fiscal discipline. Lobbyists for retirees, who already are subsidized by the young, are complaining that their special interest isn't being showered with free money by the stimulus bill; lobbyists for pork-barrel projects that could never withstand logical scrutiny are maneuvering to wrap them in the flag and add them to the stimulus bill. By the time the stimulus bill leaves Capitol Hill, the young might be saddled with yet more debt so that members of Congress can congratulate themselves as they hand checks to politically connected fat-cat donors or to retirees already drawing out of Social Security far more than they put in, plus interest. Next, recall that on Jan. 4, 2007, both houses of Congress agreed with considerable fanfare on the Paygo measure, which stated that under no circumstances -- under no circumstances, never, regardless of conditions! -- would Congress enact any bill that increases the federal debt. According to the Paygo legislation, the House and Senate are forbidden even to debate legislation that would increase the debt. ("It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit …") Paygo rules specify that all bills causing appropriations increases or tax favors must be offset be spending reductions or tax increases. When Paygo was enacted, many members of Congress from both parties, prominently Speaker Pelosi, patted themselves on the back in public. Thanks to the United States Congress, the National Debt Clock has been spinning overtime. How long did this incredible resolve last? Six weeks ago, Congress passed a reduction of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the bill cut taxes by $51 billion but provides no offsetting revenues. Originally, the measure would have reduced the AMT for the middle class while raising taxes by an equal amount on the upper crust of venture capitalists and hedge-fund managers. All the revenue increases ended up deleted -- hedge-fund managers showered members of Congress with campaign donations -- but the tax cuts were approved. Congress ladled out the $51 billion entirely from deficit spending, then handed the bill to the young. Now, the stimulus package goes even further, at least $150 billion in gravy without spending cuts or offsetting revenue increases. Barely 12 months after pledging never, ever again to add to the federal debt, Congress will add at least $201 billion to the federal debt. The federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year, which ended before either of the new actions, was $163 billion. Congress has, in the past six weeks alone, added more to the federal debt than the entire federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year. It's impossible to be sure, but a rough guess might be that every dollar added to the deficit today represents two dollars subtracted from future economic growth -- which in turn means two dollars taken from the pockets of tomorrow's American adults. This is a cynical exercise, robbing future Americans in order to please voters today, and to inspire interest groups to make political donations to incumbents. When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means? Then handing the young the bill."

Quote :

" Rebate? Maybe You Owe the Government $150,000 One government agent believes Congress should slip a little extra something when and if they mail out those much-debated rebate checks: a $150,000 bill, payment due immediately. "Perhaps when you send out the check, if you also sent out the $150,000 bill (debt per person) … that would get the message across," U.S. Comptroller General David Walker suggested half jokingly to lawmakers Monday. "We are a great country. We are great at spending. But, unfortunately, we are poor at saving." National Debt, Individual Responsibility Walker's point is simple: The national debt is out of control, and it's time to do something about it. His unorthodox suggestion of charging $150,000 per American accounts for not only $9.2 trillion real national debt held by the U.S. government right now but also factors in the $53 trillion the government has pledged to citizens in Social Security and Medicare payments. Funds for those programs are supposed to be accounted for in a trust fund set aside for Social Security. Instead, the government has essentially written IOUs for borrowed money. "If they did this in the private sector," Walker told Congress, "they'd go to jail. You can't invest in your own debt." "

1/29/2008 7:24:07 PM

Keep your hands off my pension.

1/29/2008 8:58:50 PM

nuts, you are a young guy. Chances are you probably wont get one just like SS. Plan on providing for yourself. Id hate to see the younger generation get screwed like plenty of elderly that got thier pensions cut off by companies that folded bc of them.

1/29/2008 9:26:31 PM

Quote :

"When the s*** hits the fan and people realize how bad a shape we are, it will be far too late...and I will have moved to another country, cause I don't see why I should pay for the collective idiocy of others when I and others saw it before everyone else did and no one listened. "

Where will you go? The frightening thing is, almost every country is heading this way.

1/29/2008 9:37:25 PM

Quote :

"The pension system serves every state employee,"

I'm not talking about gov't-hired workers. If they want a pension system which is privately funded..that's fine.

I'm talking about elected officials. Once you are done serving, the money stops. The founders didn't want life-time politicians. Pensions just encourage them to hang around forever.

1/30/2008 10:37:23 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb: nuts, you are a young guy. Chances are you probably wont get one just like SS. Plan on providing for yourself. Id hate to see the younger generation get screwed like plenty of elderly that got thier pensions cut off by companies that folded bc of them."

Did you miss the allure of a government job?

We will always get our pension. Always.

Otherwise, I'll burn the fucking government down. The whole thing. LOL

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 11:01:50 AM

^^it is abundantly clear you do not understand how the pension system works.

Quote :

"nuts, you are a young guy. Chances are you probably wont get one just like SS. Plan on providing for yourself. Id hate to see the younger generation get screwed like plenty of elderly that got thier pensions cut off by companies that folded bc of them."

that would be a bigger lawsuit than the bailey suit. I will get my pension.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 11:11:22 AM

I don't see why everyone is surpised.

Influential politician using their power to $profit and fuck over the common citizen. Seems likely common policy among politicians these days.

1/30/2008 11:13:22 AM

I'll show you my pension. In fact, you can calculate it. I don't know how political pensions work, though.

BTW, I have my own separate retirement plan. The state pension is not much anyway.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM. Reason : big brother]

1/30/2008 11:49:39 AM

^The pension for politicians is exactly identical to the pension for state employees, in fact, it is the exact same pension plan. Just retards *cough*EarthDogg*cough* think it is a different plan and are making it out to be so.

1/30/2008 12:21:29 PM

So it just relates to the salary in recent years + number of years in service, etc?

I didn't know that.

1/30/2008 12:46:04 PM

You can have my fucking pension when you take it from my cold dead hand.

If that ship sailed you would see a HUGE shift away from education, police, fire, and other government work. It doesn't pay great, but thats bouyed by the retirement benefits. Thats why I'm in it. I could do computer work in the business sector and make a good bit more, but I could also walk into work everyday not knowing if its the last. I like my stable job, but would leave this bitch in a heartbeat if that retirement plan was gone.

1/30/2008 12:54:42 PM

all of you people counting on govt pensions good luck. The truth is they will stop one day. I hope you still have a chair when the music stops. I guess your pension is more secured bc they can just bill other taxpayers to keep it, however, time will come when that will be voted out. We cant afford schemes like these. Now if they change it to where your retirement dollars are being paid for your generation, then it would remain solvent.

Pensions in general are a bad business and as demographics and markets shift forces the companies to not live up to those promises. Its just a matter of time before all are disolved and other savings/retirement plans take over, ie 401k.

1/30/2008 1:13:31 PM

Quote :

"all of you people counting on govt pensions good luck. The truth is they will stop one day. I hope you still have a chair when the music stops. I guess your pension is more secured bc they can just bill other taxpayers to keep it, however, time will come when that will be voted out. We cant afford schemes like these. Now if they change it to where your retirement dollars are being paid for your generation, then it would remain solvent."

My dad has both (a pension for combined military and Department of Defense service of 25 years, as well as a 401(k) through invested in funds) and he still thinks he'll outlive his money.

1/30/2008 1:54:31 PM

Quote :

"Pension records open, says Cooper Attorney general reverses office's stand Dan Kane, Staff Writer Attorney General Roy Cooper on Tuesday reversed an earlier opinion from his office and said that information on state employees' pensions should be made available to the public. It became an issue last month when the State Treasurer's Office, which oversees the state's retirement system, declined to make public the potential pension for state Rep. Thomas Wright, a Wilmington Democrat facing criminal fraud charges."

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/926692.html

Hooray.

2/6/2008 11:53:17 PM