California Republican touts legislation banning public pension bailouts


#1

California Republican touts legislation banning public pension bailouts
By Mike Lillis - 01/01/11 12:31 PM ET
The Hill

The country’s public pension system is grossly underfunded and needs an overhaul, Rep. Devin Nunes said this week.

The California Republican is promoting legislation designed to gauge the extent of the problem, while also establishing a ban on federal bailouts of public pension programs.

“Part of the problem that we have today … is we don’t know what the truly unfunded liabilities are,” Nunes told Fox News on Friday. “We need to know exactly what the number is. We can’t make decisions at any level of government if we don’t know what the true undisclosed benefit is or liability is for these benefits.”

Please! Let the greedy union people receive the consequences of their greed!


#2

This is my guy, when he first ran for office his mom was making calls during the campaign. She was a great lady and we talked for about 20 minutes, the next day Devin called me and said "My mother told me I HAD to call and talk to you about this election"

He was joking of course but he is a solid Conservative and from a great family near as I can tell. I have come to expect this type of effort from him, he usually lands on the right side of everything.


#3

THIS IS DELICIOUS


#4

I just had a “cut” in my company-supplied Medicare supplement. It was totally funded until this year, in which it became just a subsidy for a chosen plan - of $450. I talked with a rep from the company that administered it. They advocated a plan that would cost me (in addition to the company’s subsidy) $128/month. I said I couldn’t afford that, and its promising me less out-of-pocket expenses - one, in particular, was the full payment of the hospitalization co-payment of medicare. Since I have not been treated as a hospital in-patient since going on medicare, I don’t think it is worth it. I’d be paying for “out-of-pocket” benefits that I seldom if ever will use. I took the lowest cost plan they had, which will “only” pay half of the co-pay. So, half of nothing is still nothing, and I’m paying $80/month. The point I was getting around to was that this change does not affect union retirees. Go figure.


#5

[quote=“Susanna, post:4, topic:28808”]
I just had a “cut” in my company-supplied Medicare supplement. It was totally funded until this year, in which it became just a subsidy for a chosen plan - of $450. I talked with a rep from the company that administered it. They advocated a plan that would cost me (in addition to the company’s subsidy) $128/month. I said I couldn’t afford that, and its promising me less out-of-pocket expenses - one, in particular, was the full payment of the hospitalization co-payment of medicare. Since I have not been treated as a hospital in-patient since going on medicare, I don’t think it is worth it. I’d be paying for “out-of-pocket” benefits that I seldom if ever will use. I took the lowest cost plan they had, which will “only” pay half of the co-pay. So, half of nothing is still nothing, and I’m paying $80/month. The point I was getting around to was that this change does not affect union retirees. Go figure.
[/quote]yeah but aren’t you living large on the public’s dime, you know the idle rich old people who go out and eat and waste their money because their healthcare and medicine is free? Me neither


#6

And I don’t have the “blackmail” power of the labor unions.