Should union pensions be cut? Friday, June 6, 2014

Friday, June 6, 2014. Congress is expected soon to consider the recommendations of a coalition of unions, pension administrators and employers supporting tough measures to save its pensions. The National Coordinating Committee on Multiemployer Plans, or NCCMP, offers several solutions to the problem of pension underfunding in its report, "Solutions not bailouts."

One of its solutions calls for drastic cuts to the benefits of current as well as future recipients.

"Find a better solution," says Karen Ferguson, director of the nonprofit Pension Rights Center. She calls the suggested cuts "draconian. ... They are saying to older people with no other resources -- many barely making it already -- 'We’re going to break the promise that you would have a secure lifetime income.' It's unconscionable."


Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/re...#ixzz34EaRQzIC
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

Not that I will get a pension but I got this sent to me the other day and it fits in here.

: How many died Before Collecting Their CPP??

WHAT WE NEED IS A LAWYER THAT IS NOT A POLITICIAN AND IS HONEST , IS THAT AN OXYMORON?
WE COULD START A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHYSTERS.

A point to ponder.

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE CPP IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A CPP CHEQUE!!!! WHERE DID OUR MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to CPP but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

Another thing, I know someone who had two deceased husbands who died in their 50's, (one was 51 and the other one was 59 before one percent of their CPP could be drawn). She worked all her life and is drawing 100% from her own CPP so is receiving the maximum allowable payment per month.
Her two deceased husband's CPP money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into the CPP plan all their lives.

THE FOLKS IN OTTAWA HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my CPP! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Senator's benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my CPP retirement payments entitlements?

They call CPP an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, like in TRUST not part of the general fund.


WE HAVE BEEN HAD... And SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL, I AM. If you are 65 or older you should be Too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

---

Yea, you should try the social security calculator on Cato institute, you jaw would hit the floor.

The first thing to understand when it comes to SSA is there is no fund. Very simply it is just another tax. Half of it falls on an employer for the activity of having people in their employ and is measured by wages. They will pay this tax no matter what form of "money" they pay out.
Now for the employee things get a little more murky. The half of the tax that falls on the employee is a "special income tax" that is also measured by wages. Unfortunately the supreme court never espoused what exactly made it "special".

I have come to the conclusion that this "special" aspect is being paid in money not issued directly by the congress (bank credit / federal reserve credit are not issued via congressional money powers). The presumption is created when you give your SSN number to an employer that you want to participate in the SSA program and hence your wages are treated as taxable whether or not you actually created a taxable event by being paid in money substitutes.

I would suggest reading these two cases for more understanding:
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...us/75/533.html

AND

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/301/619.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

The first thing to understand when it comes to SSA is there is no fund. Very simply it is just another tax. Half of it falls on an employer for the activity of having people in their employ and is measured by wages. They will pay this tax no matter what form of "money" they pay out.
Now for the employee things get a little more murky. The half of the tax that falls on the employee is a "special income tax" that is also measured by wages. Unfortunately the supreme court never espoused what exactly made it "special".

I have come to the conclusion that this "special" aspect is being paid in money not issued directly by the congress (bank credit / federal reserve credit are not issued via congressional money powers). The presumption is created when you give your SSN number to an employer that you want to participate in the SSA program and hence your wages are treated as taxable whether or not you actually created a taxable event by being paid in money substitutes.

I would suggest reading these two cases for more understanding:
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...us/75/533.html

AND

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/301/619.html

---

Exactly. Since I have already paid in 40 quarters I am now eligible for SSI benefits. Therefore I would not give any prospective employer a SSN.



Therefore I am unemployable because of social conditioning. [I treat SSI like insurance.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Exactly. Since I have already paid in 40 quarters I am now eligible for SSI benefits. Therefore I would not give any prospective employer a SSN.



Therefore I am unemployable because of social conditioning. [I treat SSI like insurance.]

---

It does create an interesting twist to try and unwind. I think if one were to follow the path to remedy and get the IRS to recognize it you could work backwards and recoup the funds withheld for the employee SSA withholding. As far as getting an employer to not require a SSN...good luck.

This letter always amuses me. You don't need an SSN to live and work in the U.S.....
what don't they say?

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ss/letter.2004-05-26.gif

Social Security judges rubber-stamp disability (insurance) claims from the cash-strapped program facing its own long-term financial problems for a lifetime of benefits at taxpayer expense. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report...142057018.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

Not that I will get a pension but I got this sent to me the other day and it fits in here.

: How many died Before Collecting Their CPP??

WHAT WE NEED IS A LAWYER THAT IS NOT A POLITICIAN AND IS HONEST , IS THAT AN OXYMORON?
WE COULD START A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHYSTERS.

A point to ponder.

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE CPP IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A CPP CHEQUE!!!! WHERE DID OUR MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to CPP but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

Another thing, I know someone who had two deceased husbands who died in their 50's, (one was 51 and the other one was 59 before one percent of their CPP could be drawn). She worked all her life and is drawing 100% from her own CPP so is receiving the maximum allowable payment per month.
Her two deceased husband's CPP money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into the CPP plan all their lives.

THE FOLKS IN OTTAWA HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my CPP! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Senator's benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my CPP retirement payments entitlements?

They call CPP an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, like in TRUST not part of the general fund.


WE HAVE BEEN HAD... And SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL, I AM. If you are 65 or older you should be Too.

---

This is called a tontine scheme.

Why Boehner Can’t Sue Obama?

Obama’s reliance on executive orders meant that he was acting with “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.”

As a result, Boehner said he planned to sue the president over executive orders to be named later under the aegis of a resolution passed by the House of Representatives. http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-v-obam...-politics.html

The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority, required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used, and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought.


National Emergency Powers in pdf - Updated September 18, 2001. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf

No emergency justifies a violation of ANY Constitutional provision. 16 Am Jur 2d "Constitutional Law', Section 70 & 82. Coercion has been continually utilized by the corporators of The Fund and The Bank, and their sister organizations, corporations, associations, combinations and AGENTS within each of the several States of the Union - occupying offices and positions of Public Trust, Honor and Profit - to ensure that the Offices do no function within Constitutional import, in order to implement their pollicies and programs, and their agents and representatives have continually used threat, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, usurpation, oppression and tyrannical means and modes against the Citizens of the several States of the Union, and against the several States themselves.



Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw

No emergency justifies a violation of ANY Constitutional provision. 16 Am Jur 2d "Constitutional Law', Section 70 & 82. Coercion has been continually utilized by the corporators of The Fund and The Bank, and their sister organizations, corporations, associations, combinations and AGENTS within each of the several States of the Union - occupying offices and positions of Public Trust, Honor and Profit - to ensure that the Offices do no function within Constitutional import, in order to implement their pollicies and programs, and their agents and representatives have continually used threat, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, usurpation, oppression and tyrannical means and modes against the Citizens of the several States of the Union, and against the several States themselves.

---

Understood LearnTheLaw

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) — Before a unanimous Supreme Court weighed in, the White House had brushed off claims that President Barack Obama was exceeding his executive authority as just so much grousing from frustrated partisans.

Then, in a 9-0 decision Thursday, the high court ruled that at least in one case Obama had gone too far. http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-c...-politics.html

---

16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 97

A court's adherence to the principle that acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional is guided by the court's understanding that when it is required to pass on the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the court assumes the gravest and most delicate duty it is called on to perform.

"Legislative power" is the power to make, alter, and repeal laws and to formulate legislative policy; and "executive power" is the power to put laws enacted by the legislature into effect.[16]

It is clear that the executive can neither encroach upon the functions of the legislature nor interfere in its duties;[17] neither can the executive discharge the functions of the legislature in any manner by so acting in his or her official capacity that his or her conduct is tantamount to a repeal,[18] enactment,[19] variance, or enlargement[20] of legislation. For instance, the separation of powers doctrine precludes the executive branch, in expending public

Various tests have been suggested for determining what are or what are not judicial powers. The protection of constitutional rights is a core function of the judiciary.[42] It is, of course, the ultimate prerogative of the judiciary to determine whether an act of Congress is consistent with the United States Constitution,[43] or to determine whether an act of a state legislature is consistent with the state's constitution,[44] and the power, under certain circumstances, to review decisions of the separate departments of government—judicial review—is an exclusive power of the judiciary.[45] Clearly and unarguably, the construction and interpretation of a constitution is a judicial function.[46]

It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, not Congress, to define the substance of constitutional guarantees. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S. Ct. 955, 148 L. Ed. 2d 866, 151 Ed. Law Rep. 35 (2001).

§ 260. Judicial functions, generally
The federal and state constitutions are the common sources of the power and authority of every court, and all questions concerning the jurisdiction of a court must be determined by those instruments,[38] with the exception of certain inherent powers which of right belong to all courts.[39] Therefore, unless the power or authority of a court to perform a contemplated act can be found in the constitution or the laws enacted thereunder, it is without jurisdiction and its acts are invalid.[40] At least in the absence of a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of an issue to a coordinate political department, it is presumed by the United States Supreme Court that justiciable constitutional rights are to be enforced through the courts.[41]

The executive power is said by some to be more limited than the legislative powers, extending merely to the details of carrying into effect laws enacted by the legislature as they may be interpreted by the courts—the legislature having the power, except where limited by the Constitution itself, to stipulate what actions executive officers shall or shall not perform.[73] As are all of the three main branches of government,[74] the executive branch is independent of the other two.[75] However, unlike the monarchs of old, the President of the United States, though entitled to extreme deference in the conduct of his constitutional duties and obligations, is not above the law.[76] And in accordance with the general principle of the separation of powers, the executive department cannot generally usurp or exercise judicial[77] or legislative[78] power, and, by the same token, the executive power may not be encroached upon or interfered with by the judiciary.[79] It is as important to preserve and protect the powers of the executive branch of the government and its ability to function as it is to preserve and protect the other branches.[80]

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) - "The presidency dodged a bullet today," said John Cooney, “This decision could have been a lot worse", He said Obama will still leave his successors with more constricted authority to make recess appointments than he had when he came into office. "All his predecessors had been very careful not to risk the powers of the presidency on separation of powers litigation whenever they didn't have high assurances that they'd win," http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-c...-politics.html

---

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

There should be no public unions period ! Private ones can do what they want to, but public unions have no place in government\official posts.