Never blame non-legislative public-sector workers for the state pension crisis. None are at fault for accepting an employment benefit spawned by politicians.
John Kennedy's order allowing federal workers to unionize neglected to mandate the obvious: When taxpayers fund jobs, collective bargaining must stop at salaries. Personal earnings, not public subsidies, are what workers fund retirements with.
JFK disfigured America with his feudal system of privileged public workers and those forced to assist them without reciprocation. His federal model polluted every downstream government, including Pennsylvania's.
Tom Corbett helps spread the poison.
First, thank the state's retirement systems (SERS and PSERS). They are forthright in divulging that portion of state pensions paid by taxpayers (i.e., public aid), not employees. It was $2.5 billion last year, rising to $6.2 billion by 2017.
Not enough, says Corbett.
His new budget demands more aid. Not for our destitute or hungry, but for a privileged class created by self-serving politicians who are part of it.
Corbett flat-out ignores workers who are expected to shut up and retire without the subsidy they are forced to fund. People whose retirement savings are not magically infinite but whose earnings are tapped to make the public sector's precisely that. People who use Social Security, a 401(k) plan (if offered) and their own assets to retire on. “Peasants” expected to ease the financial challenges of “royals.”
May the “wolf” at the door chase King Corbett from the castle.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.