Pension talk




If we are going to take pension reform seriously, does it make more sense to attack the lowest wage earners rather than the highest paid public employee pensions in California?

I contend we need to look at the highest paid politicians who overburdened our pension obligations by far—and are the ones who voted for those pension plans in the first place—that ought to be altered first. But doesn’t the word “obligation” mean anything?

If The Acorn opinion section does not believe grandfathered employees should be treated differently than new employees signing different contracts begs the reason for signing contracts in the first place. Is a person or company’s signature guarantee no longer meaningful?

The idea that this paper suggests we should change the contracts under which our cities guaranteed our city employees a certain pension to come and work for reduced wages and other benefits in exchange for a better pension plan than provided by the private sector should just be thrown out the window demonstrates that The Acorn does not believe in contracts.

A signed contract or a person or company’s signature used to mean a promise to fulfill.

Does that mean that contracts or promises need not be taken seriously even from public agencies? Maybe the “tsunami of toxic mortgages” that The Acorn editor decries occurred because even signed contracts or promises from any public sector, banks or real estate companies are not considered binding and no longer need to be honored.

Marcy Bergman

Agoura Hills



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *