> What part of "pension contributions required [by law] of the
> teachers" do you not understand?
> If the law had been teachers get a fully-paid for pension
> without having to contribute, there would be no argument.
> That is not the law. There are two issues ultimately here:
> 1. Teachers are supposed to be contributing to their
> retirement, and the general public is under the impression
> that this is the case.
> 2. The state does not have enough money to cover obligations
> that it never agreed to. It is wrong to force our children
> to pay for some corrupt, back-room deal that was made
> without public knowledge.
> You need to contribute to your own retirement, and stop
> asking taxpayers, who have struggled for years in a bad
> economy, to pay for it. The public is tired of the union bs,
> the lack of accountability, the poor performance in the
> schools, and now this nonsense.
So you seem to be saying .....put the pension contribution into
the paycheck so the teacher can then contribute it back into the
pension. Then legal problem is fixed...contribution made and
law upheld....only problem is the money isn't there right this
moment (or moment when this was first done). This agreement
most likely allowed the money to be put off and used for
whatever else. Money is still owed though....deferred
compensation once again.
btw....also would be great if all of us NOT in social security
were in it. That saved the states billions. Prehaps they should
also cough up that money...certainly would make me more secure
Posts on this thread, including this one