An earmark by any other name would smell so sweet

Just for clarification, as of the last group of transparency, reform requirements in 2009, all members requests were required to be posted on the members website. If the request wasn't on their website, they would not be considered by the House or Senate's Appropriation Committees. The days of the managers amendments have been over for a couple of years. Not to mention the individual requests were open for discussion at the subcommittee and committee level. I guess my point is that they are available for review by the public every year with no demand needed.

BeachSiO2, thank you for the clarification. I did not know this and really appreciate the information. I consider myself fairly astute in following the workings of government but as I said, I was unaware of this provision. But then, I seriously doubt that at least 98% of the general public were either. And therein lies the problem. Its one of those hidden in plain sight things that go on in the federal government.

Andy, I agree with you. It is definitely something that I wish more people knew. If you are interested in earmark reform, search for Senator Inhofe's bill he introduced on 11/15. It is S. 3939. There are two things that I like about the bill. First, it's short and is in English that we can all understand, Two, the ideas are supported by not only Taxpayers for Common Sense (and like minded groups) and the lobbying industry. I think that's good as it means there is a chance it may be passed and would address a number of ills associated with the entire system. If someone will PM me on how to attach a pdf, I will put the speech Inhofe gave when introducing the bill. It's pretty interesting.

If I misread the meaning of your post, I apologize. In the same vein, SWGB and Bob are both out of line in reference to any military individual's retired pay. But then, I expect nothing less from either of them. Oh, and Bob, you really are a piece of work.

you are no better than us, you just think you are.

If I misread the meaning of your post, I apologize. In the same vein, SWGB and Bob are both out of line in reference to any military individual's retired pay. But then, I expect nothing less from either of them. Oh, and Bob, you really are a piece of work.

Pension funding: America's most generous public pension | The Economist That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers.....you Andy, are full of yourself, are self righteous, and on this subject, are ill informed.

But it's also noteworthy that one of the most generous defined-benefits public-employee pension plans in the country isn't being mentioned in this discussion. There is a branch of the federal government that lets you retire after 20 years on the job, even if you're under age 40, and guarantees immediate benefits of 50% of your final salary for the rest of your life. That branch is the military. If you joined the army at age 18, and retired in 2011 at age 38 as a $55,000-a-year sergeant (pay grade E-8) after an unexceptional career, you would be entitled to $26,000 per year for the rest of your life, plus cost-of-living adjustments. The average 40-ish retiring sergeant would put the taxpayers on the hook for over $1m in lifetime retirement pay. That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers.

How does that stack up against overgenerous state employee pension plans? Let's take those California teachers. You can't start teaching at 18, since you generally need a masters degree. But if you got your MA, started teaching at 24, and retired after 20 years on the job, you would get...nothing. California teachers aren't eligible for retirement benefits under age 50, and between 50 and 55, you need at least 30 years' teaching equivalent on the job. So, say you were a late bloomer, started teaching at 35, and retired 20 years later at 55. An average teacher in Los Angeles with 20 years' experience would probably be earning around $86,000 a year. Taking early retirement at 55, you'd get a retirement benefit of $25,000 a year?less than that 38-year-old sergeant. And you'd have to buy your health insurance out of that.

This is not to suggest that we should slash military pensions. The military is one of America's few remaining avenues of income mobility for lower-class youth. And one reason we're not talking about slashing military pensions is that we don't have to; the federal government, unlike California's, can still cheaply borrow the money it needs to keep paying its retired employees whatever it has promised to pay them. But when budget deficits lead to calls to slash teachers' retirement pay, with no corresponding interest in slashing soldiers' far more generous retirement pay, what we're saying as a nation is that we value our soldiers much more than we value our teachers. That's a value structure that I don't share.....unless you are a hypocrite who feels he is better than mere mortals.

still think I'm out of line? cat got your privates big boy?

gross.

We contribute tax dollars to help a lot of folks. Our volunteer military personnel, IMHO, stand at the top of the list of most deserving.

Interesting read:popcorn:

Bob, you're entitled to your opinion of me. Mine of you is not allowed on this board.

It is an interesting discussion. It would be great if ya'll would remove emotion and get real with the conversation.

Bob's post to me was less about military benefits and more about teacher benefits and the twisted priorities of our nation.

I advocate for major cuts in military and defense spending. But this should not be confused with wanting to cut the benefits of those who have served. For instance, if we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 1,000 times over then we could send 99.9% of those to the recycling plant and use the money to pay our teachers more.

We'd still be able to kill every human on the planet once- that's all it takes.

Let me know if I can solve any other complex problems. I was able to solve the deficit on another thread in less than 5 minutes and I never put my beer down.

It is an interesting discussion. It would be great if ya'll would remove emotion and get real with the conversation.

Bob's post to me was less about military benefits and more about teacher benefits and the twisted priorities of our nation.

I advocate for major cuts in military and defense spending. But this should not be confused with wanting to cut the benefits of those who have served. For instance, if we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 1,000 times over then we could send 99.9% of those to the recycling plant and use the money to pay our teachers more.

We'd still be able to kill every human on the planet once- that's all it takes.

Let me know if I can solve any other complex problems. I was able to solve the deficit on another thread in less than 5 minutes and I never put my beer down.

We bow to you, oh great and powerful one.😀 I didn't do the budget puzzle because after looking at it, I knew I could solve it, though most would not have liked my solutions. But then, as Bob so aptly says, "I'm full of myself". He"s right and it took a long time for me to get that way. I'd rather be that way than cowering in a corner, afraid of my shadow. Another reason I like SoWal. None of the posters fit that category and I like the "give and take" for the most part.

We bow to you, oh great and powerful one.😀 I didn't do the budget puzzle because after looking at it, I knew I could solve it, though most would not have liked my solutions. But then, as Bob so aptly says, "I'm full of myself". He"s right and it took a long time for me to get that way. I'd rather be that way than cowering in a corner, afraid of my shadow. Another reason I like SoWal. None of the posters fit that category and I like the "give and take" for the most part.

Talk about a yellow bellied quitter.

gross.

We contribute tax dollars to help a lot of folks. Our volunteer military personnel, IMHO, stand at the top of the list of most deserving.

gross is assuming a teacher is a pariah. gross is targeting a profession with a fully funded pension plan because they don't support the christian conservative agenda of destroying public education. it's about to happen in Florida.

gross is assuming a teacher is a pariah. gross is targeting a profession with a fully funded pension plan because they don't support the christian conservative agenda of destroying public education. it's about to happen in Florida.

Florida's public service employee pension system is far from fully funded, it's grossly underfunded in fact. Let's get that straight, up front.

As far as comparisons go, teachers don't sign up to take a bullet. They get paid for what they do. We all do.

Florida's public service employee pension system is far from fully funded, it's grossly underfunded in fact. Let's get that straight, up front.

As far as comparisons go, teachers don't sign up to take a bullet. They get paid for what they do. We all do.

Thats a pretty bold statement, back it up. Do you even know how it is funded?

Thats a pretty bold statement, back it up. Do you even know how it is funded?

FRS participants have two options- a defined benefit option and a defined contribution option.

The DB plan remains farily well-funded.

http://hr.fiu.edu/uploads/file/BEN/BEN_Florida_Retirement_System_Funding_Status_03-23-09.pdf

While below 100% the plan's solvency is WAY above average for public pensions.

While the DB plan may have funding problems, pension benefits are guaranteed by the state of Florida.

Florida's public service employee pension system is far from fully funded, it's grossly underfunded in fact. Let's get that straight, up front.

As far as comparisons go, teachers don't sign up to take a bullet. They get paid for what they do. We all do.

Florida's pension fund can cover 88 percent of future obligations. this in the midst of a robust recession. The military is zero percent funded. where's your argument? want to puff out your chest and talk about taking bullets or do you let politics cloud your logic? the military currently gets it's funding from china. chew on that.

Florida's pension fund can cover 88 percent of future obligations. this in the midst of a robust recession. The military is zero percent funded. where's your argument? want to puff out your chest and talk about taking bullets or do you let politics cloud your logic? the military currently gets it's funding from china. chew on that.

What return do they assume when calculating that? ;-)

I don't have an argument with you, I was criticizing you for you're complete lack of tact in comparing civil service employees to U.S. military veterans who've seen active duty. You want to cut funding to the VA? Fine. If I had a choice between cutting SEIU pension benefits and the VA, I'd go with the SEIU every time.

What return do they assume when calculating that? ;-)

.

Probably 8%.

If so, the unfunded liability would be greater.

What return do they assume when calculating that? ;-)

I don't have an argument with you, I was criticizing you for you're complete lack of tact in comparing civil service employees to U.S. military veterans who've seen active duty. You want to cut funding to the VA? Fine. If I had a choice between cutting SEIU pension benefits and the VA, I'd go with the SEIU every time.

Report says Florida's state pension fund has recovered from recession - St. Petersburg Times don't want to cut funding to the va, want to check some attitudes at the door regarding our debt and where it comes from. these wars we fight for no reason are criminal. you would cut the seiu because that's just you, and you don't need a reason. the entire military industrial complex is out of control, and well nigh untouchable. military pensions are zero funded, so if you want to talk of cutting pensions, let's be real and start trimming back folks in their 30s and 40s from collecting now! otherwise you have no argument.

I don't see how bashing one group and calling names is supposed to make me then feel sympathy for your cause.

2 of the non-partisan/mutually agreed upon opinions of Sowal are that we support our troops and think education is important.

Benefits for veterans and teachers getting paid a decent wage are a part of that.

Well you should separate your anti-war sentiment from your view of military benefits. The country doesn't lose anything by offering robust benefits to veterans, it gains. On the contrary public service employee benefits that out strip the private sector lead directly to a system similar to the French entitlement system. We don't want that here.

I have no problem with robust benefits for veterans the issue we face is how to pay for them.

Currently we are putting the benefits on a credit card.

If our goal is to offer robust benefits and we are currently borrowing money to fund them, raising taxes on someone is more fiscally prudent.


Or we could wave a magic wand and poof all the problems go away.

Seriously the idea my side is good so it gets funded and your side is bad so it gets cut leads to polarization.

Nothing is solved.

I have no problem with robust benefits for veterans the issue we face is how to pay for them.

Currently we are putting the benefits on a credit card.

If our goal is to offer robust benefits and we are currently borrowing money to fund them, raising taxes on someone is more fiscally prudent.


Or we could wave a magic wand and poof all the problems go away.

Seriously the idea my side is good so it gets funded and your side is bad so it gets cut leads to polarization.

Nothing is solved.

Sure, that's a general problem across the board. Veterans benefits come out of the pentagon budget. If you require a 20% hair cut there, the penny pushers there can make decisions on where the money comes from. Assumedly it won't come out of benefits.

I still think systems tied to a payroll taxes should be split out and balanced to help clarify the problem.

Speaking of which, where does ObamaCare fit in to all of this? It doesn't have a revenue source. Where is the money for that coming? I fear they pulled it out of a hat or something. From what I remember a lot of the funding for healthcare subsidies came out of medicare cuts (500 billion over ten years I think?) So maybe that should get rolled in with medicare, and rshould ely on the same payroll tax numbers for balancing.

A 20% immediate haircut would be lunacy.

We need to be on-track for a sustainable budget.

Don't change the subject.

For the record, Part D - Medicare was pulled out of a hat.