One’s got to love the Chutzpa of Dan Winslow. He was asked to leave the Romney Adminstration because of constant screw ups when it came to dealing with public employee issues. One big dust up occured when he pushed legislation that would have completely eliminated state worker pensions. Such legislation would actually have cost the the state billions in new costs. This is because most state workers hired in the past few decades essentially pay for their pensions themselves. The state puts in only a very small percentage towards these workers pension costs.
By eliminating the pensions the state would then be obligated to pay social security, or 6.5% of the workers pay to the feds.
Embarrassed by this “mistake” be Winslow, the Romney folks had to pull back the pension bill. Another example occured when he inserted himself into the negotiations with the Boston Police Patrolman, pushing the idea of binding arbitration for wage disputes. What dandy dan did not realize was that the Romney Administration was arguing the exact opposite in negotiations with the state police, that binding arbitration on wage matters was not good public policy. Again, Romney had to yank the leash and stop Dan from embarrassing the administration. Eventually, he was asked to leave the administration.
You may be right about all of this, but nobody is going to fact-check it for you (certainly, I’m not going to). Please back up your assertions.
the rates of return don’t materialize and the taxpayers are still on the hook for the pensions.
themselves, while not eligible to receive social security?
<
p>People like you won’t be happy until every member of the middle class is in the poor house. Why do you hate regular people, EaBo? You sound like the douchebag republican from Wisconsin who said the protesters were a ‘different breed’ of people, and “slobs,” and therefore didn’t count. A case in point that there really are evil people who walk on this earth, wanting only to do people who aren’t in the elite stratospheres of society harm.
My point is that those who over reach, as dan did, and propose eliminating state work pensions might actually cost tax payers more money. The state (and tax payers) avoid paying the social security tax because there is a state pension in place. The state pension is cheaper for the tax payers beceause it costs less then the social security tax. However, you teabaggers might also be if favor of getting rid of social security as well.
<
p>As for the public record on mr. winslow. Let’s invite him to respond himself.
Four C’s – have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Since when is the truth limited to what the press has picked up? Let’s let Dan speak for himself