Proposed State Constitutional Amendment on Ballot?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the automatic position of a lot of conservatives is no to anything the politicians propose.

Yeah, that's my general default position.

 

[SwikLS]

Retired teachers seem to be for it.

https://www.retiredteachers.org/understanding-indiana-s-balanced-budget-amendment

 

[Tactically Fat]

I've seen several postings saying that this amendment will allow for the Government to take/borrow/remove money from the public employee's retirement funds to make up for shortfalls.

If this is the case, then I think all of us need to vote "NO" on it.

Don't ever allow any government, anywhere, ever, to remove money from pension funds.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've seen several postings saying that this amendment will allow for the Government to take/borrow/remove money from the public employee's retirement funds to make up for shortfalls.

If this is the case, then I think all of us need to vote "NO" on it.

Don't ever allow any government, anywhere, ever, to remove money from pension funds.

It doesn't, according to my reading. If anything, it puts whatever pensions it's talking about first in line in the budgeting process. I think that is wrong and I plan on voting 'no' on it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I like the provision that any budgetary shortfall after a 2 year cycle has to be included in the next 2 year cycle. There is no starting over if you pooch it on your forecasting.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It doesn't, according to my reading. If anything, it puts whatever pensions it's talking about first in line in the budgeting process. I think that is wrong and I plan on voting 'no' on it.

I don't fully understand what you're saying. The pensions get paid regardless, the new amendment just makes sure that we actually budget for it. I suppose we could default on pensions, but that would kill our credit rating.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://action.holcombforindiana.co.../10/Balanced-Budget-Amendment-One-Pager-2.pdf

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't fully understand what you're saying. The pensions get paid regardless, the new amendment just makes sure that we actually budget for it. I suppose we could default on pensions, but that would kill our credit rating.

I lived my career in private industry. My pension was never protected from changes in my company's economic condition. State employees should be subject to the same types of economic presures as those of us in the private sector. I simply don't think they should be put in front of the line if/when the time comes when difficult decisions have to be made when times are tough. It sucks when those things happen to you. Trust me, I know.

Get rid of that provision, and I'd support it. Not that it will do any good. Because as we saw with the gas tax thing, republicans have no appetite for belt tightening and rationalizing spending. It's easier, dispite their claims on small, responsible government, to raise taxes to fund what they want than it is to cut what we can live without.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Ok, I get it, but there are a couple of things to consider.

1) These pensions were promised and as men and women of principle, we should uphold that promise. I also agree that is sucks when private companies default on their pensions. There was a lot of bad decisions made when those pensions were first issued and then more bad decisions on how they were funded. We have the opportunity to do the right thing, and not compound problems.

2) I will say it again, that these pensions are going to get paid regardless of the budgetary process. If we don't budget for them, it will be counted as a "casual deficit" and we'll incur some form of debt in order to fund them. If we start to default on our debts and financial obligations, it will ruin the business climate that we've worked so hard to cultivate. It's spite and all it will do is hurt everyone.

While I don't 100% agree with everything in the amendment, I do agree with 90% of it. It's a decent compromise that has been passed twice since 2015 with overwhelming support. I don't recall hearing a lot of opposition back then.

 

[EMDX6043]

Subject to "government downturn", eh?

As in, lower or less tax collected?

What's wrong with pushing 401k's and the like?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok, I get it, but there are a couple of things to consider.

1) These pensions were promised and as men and women of principle, we should uphold that promise. I also agree that is sucks when private companies default on their pensions. There was a lot of bad decisions made when those pensions were first issued and then more bad decisions on how they were funded. We have the opportunity to do the right thing, and not compound problems.

2) I will say it again, that these pensions are going to get paid regardless of the budgetary process. If we don't budget for them, it will be counted as a "casual deficit" and we'll incur some form of debt in order to fund them. If we start to default on our debts and financial obligations, it will ruin the business climate that we've worked so hard to cultivate. It's spite and all it will do is hurt everyone.

While I don't 100% agree with everything in the amendment, I do agree with 90% of it. It's a decent compromise that has been passed twice since 2015 with overwhelming support. I don't recall hearing a lot of opposition back then.

I'll tell you, you might consider them a promise and that's the way many retirees thought about my company's pension program when they started to modify it. It's not a promise. It's a part of your compensation program and it is subject to change. Bear in mind, I'm not calling for them to be stripped, only that in the event cuts have to be made, everyone have skin in the game.

 

[actaeon277]

I always wonder why companies can say there's no money for the pension, but there's money for the "golden parachutes".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I always wonder why companies can say there's no money for the pension, but there's money for the "golden parachutes".

When I first started working for my company, in a rare moment of complete and utter transparency, during an orientation at our divisional headquarters, a divisional HR rep told the group: Always remember, despite what [the company] will tell you over your career, [the company] can do whatever it decides it wants to, to whomever it wants to, however many times it wants to. That's not a direct quote but the meaning is clear. And I've had it happen to me (not for me but for a person in my group). When I asked about how that violated a policy I was told existed, they looked at me like I had two heads and told me that move did not violate company policy. At first, I was indignant...but then I remembered what that HR lady told me and realized...they were right, that move did not violate their real policies.

 

[2A_Tom]

Government may not ever keep it's promises to the people, but they make the people pay for the promised to themselves.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'll tell you, you might consider them a promise and that's the way many retirees thought about my company's pension program when they started to modify it. It's not a promise. It's a part of your compensation program and it is subject to change. Bear in mind, I'm not calling for them to be stripped, only that in the event cuts have to be made, everyone have skin in the game.

I agree. However, you are essentially the boss for all these public employees. What kind of boss are you going to be?

Going forward, if you don't think public employees should have pensions, then that should be something that is debated (and I'll stand up and say that pensions need to go). In the mean time, they do have pensions, and the ethical thing (in my opinion) is to fully fund them.

 

[2A_Tom]

I agree. However, you are essentially the boss for all these public employees.

Har, har, hardy, har, har!

They consider us nothing more than their meal ticket.

 

[Trigger Time]

Government may not ever keep it's promises to the people, but they make the people pay for the promised to themselves.

These are wise words

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree. However, you are essentially the boss for all these public employees. What kind of boss are you going to be?

Going forward, if you don't think public employees should have pensions, then that should be something that is debated (and I'll stand up and say that pensions need to go). In the mean time, they do have pensions, and the ethical thing (in my opinion) is to fully fund them.

I'd like to think I'd do what's in the best interest of everyone.

 

[actaeon277]

When I first started working for my company, in a rare moment of complete and utter transparency, during an orientation at our divisional headquarters, a divisional HR rep told the group: Always remember, despite what [the company] will tell you over your career, [the company] can do whatever it decides it wants to, to whomever it wants to, however many times it wants to. That's not a direct quote but the meaning is clear. And I've had it happen to me (not for me but for a person in my group). When I asked about how that violated a policy I was told existed, they looked at me like I had two heads and told me that move did not violate company policy. At first, I was indignant...but then I remembered what that HR lady told me and realized...they were right, that move did not violate their real policies.

Well, when those companies go bankrupt, or out of business, I think that a judge should list the "golden parachutes" along with all the other "assets".
Why would a judge treat the golden parachutes different than a pension?
That's my question.
Seems to me, if you can't pay one, then you can't pay the other.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I'm still hesitant to vote yes. If we already have an amendment prohibiting debt, why do we need this? I just think there a Trojan horse hiding here somewhere.

I'm also not in favor of pensions being first in line. Maybe that's the Trojan horse?