Gov Brown leaves office with a $30 Billion budget surplus

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

they could not even modify pensions how much more filing for bankruptcy

Not getting your meaning here. But, if you are asking for clarification:

Why can’t states use the federal bankruptcy system to reorganize their debt?
“There are two reasons why state governments currently cannot use the federal bankruptcy system to reorganize their debt. First, the federal bankruptcy code does not allow—and has never allowed—state governments to declare bankruptcy.
https://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolidea...issue65_3.aspx

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Not getting your meaning here. But, if you are asking for clarification:

my point is, the state of California cant renege on its liabilities once contracted

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

they could not even modify pensions how much more filing for bankruptcy

PEPRA modified pensions for new employees in 2013. Brown pushed the issue of the California rule to the California Supreme Court where it is now, that rule guarantees that no changes can be made to a pension formula for current employees. His goal is to eliminate that rule and allow pensions to be modified for wages to be earned in the future while not changing the formula for wages already earned. Retiree healthcare for state employees and many local bargaining units has been reduced, part B is no longer paid by the state, employees now contribute toward their retired healthcare and the contribution toward retiree health care will be based on the number of years worked.

So yes, he did modify pensions and if the State Supreme Court agrees pensions for current employees will be cut too.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

PEPRA modified pensions for new employees in 2013. Brown pushed the issue of the California rule to the California Supreme Court where it is now, that rule guarantees that no changes can be made to a pension formula for current employees. His goal is to eliminate that rule and allow pensions to be modified for wages to be earned in the future while not changing the formula for wages already earned. Retiree healthcare for state employees and many local bargaining units has been reduced, part B is no longer paid by the state, employees now contribute toward their retired healthcare and the contribution toward retiree health care will be based on the number of years worked.

So yes, he did modify pensions and if the State Supreme Court agrees pensions for current employees will be cut too.

we hope the CA SC will strike that CA Rule. the basis of pension should be base/basic pay and years of service, not including OT

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

we hope the CA SC will strike that CA Rule. the basis of pension should be base/basic pay and years of service, not including OT

I agree, and I don't see how lowering a pension formula for unearned wages is unfair, I don't see it as any different than getting a pay cut during a recession, if the conditions are such that the burden is unreasonable employers need to have the right to adjust it. I would object to pension reductions on wages already earned.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

we hope the CA SC will strike that CA Rule. the basis of pension should be base/basic pay and years of service, not including OT

One can only hope. If not the people living in CA will see their taxes go wayyy up when the State does not have the funds to pay.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Because of some of his actions. For instance, betraying a good friend of his by having an affair with his wife.

Ok, but I am still not sure what being sworn in on a bible has to to with having extra marital affairs.