Monday, May 20, 2013
User: Pass: | Forgot Pass? | Create FREE Account

…do you think it's good or bad pork?

State News Roundup

Posted by BA_Admin On March - 1 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Businessweek reported New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a coalition of 24 local leaders yesterday urged state legislators to support a plan proposed by Governor Andrew Cuomo to raise the retirement age from 62 to 65 and “allow for a voluntary 401(k)-type retirement plan.” Cuomo and his supporters say that no change in the pension plan will result in a jobs cut, but public-worker unions and Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the trustee of the pension fund, oppose changes.

Currently, state and local governments in New York are borrowing $750 million from the same $140 billion pension fund to which they owe money and will likely borrow $1 billion more in the next year, according to the New York Times. DiNapoli defended his stance saying the current pension plan gives “you help right now, not 30 years from now.”

While overall U.S. manufacturing grew less than forecast in February, manufacturing in Philadelphia grew at the fastest rate in four months and in New York at the fastest rate since June 2010.BA

As Americans sit down to file their federal tax  returns, a simple question comes to mind — what’s a “fair share” to give the  federal government in taxes?

For half the working population, fair means paying  almost no income taxes at all.

“The top 10 percent income earners pay about 70  percent of federal income taxes,” says Will McBride of the Tax Foundation. “The  bottom 50 percent of tax filers have, they pay almost no federal income  tax. They pay about 3 percent of federal income taxes.”

President  Obama’s phrase that everyone should “pay our fair share of taxes” has become  something of a political mantra. He has used the expression in dozens of  speeches, beginning back in his State of Union address in January. More  recently, he told University students in Virginia, “we do expect everyone to do  their fair share.”

But for many of the people who pay no taxes, the  government also allows tax credits, which end up providing refunds.

“Close to a hundred billion in checks sent out by  the IRS (go) to folks who have no tax liability,” McBride said. “So the IRS is  becoming a spending agency.”

Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise  Institute, put it this way: “Half of the people who don’t pay anything in  federal income taxes — about half of them pay less than zero.”

But Brooks says the system is tilted even more  toward those in the middle class and below because they also get services from  the federal government. As a result the per capita value of government spending  exceeds what those individuals pay in federal taxes.

“Right now about 70 percent of Americans take more  out of the tax system than they put into it, according to the Tax Foundation,” Brooks said.”That’s something that  should really alarm a lot of Americans.”

The policies that left so many people paying no  income taxes have been supported by presidents of both parties, and despite what  Americans tell pollsters they believe is fair, that’s not how it shakes out.

“The interesting thing is that about two-thirds of  Americans think that everybody should pay something,” Brooks said, “so they  remember that our government isn’t free.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/analysis-fair-share-in-taxes-not-by-numbers/#ixzz1n22ejgav

B.A. Spending Daily

Posted by BA Team On October - 24 - 2011 ADD COMMENTS

Here’s a roundup of this morning’s must-read budget and economic stories:

According to ABC News Radio, Republicans used their weekly address to call on Congress to get the nation’s “fiscal house in order.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Senate will likely vote on a $50 billion infrastructure spending plan that will be paid for through tax increases on the wealthy.

Politico says more than 200 lobbyists have contacted the debt super committee in efforts to defend their points of view.

The Washington Times reports that the Senate voted Friday to cut agriculture subsidies for farmers that earn more than $1 million.

Politico looks at the debate over cutting defense spending.

The Washington Post examines failed federal efforts to boost the U.S. housing market. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal say the Obama Administration will announce new plans to help the market today.

The Economist looks at underfunded public and private pensions systems in the U.S.

On the opinion pages: The Wall Street Journal says the federal government should stop guaranteeing loans for McMansions.

Illinois Pension System Needs Reform

Posted by BA Team On May - 27 - 2011 ADD COMMENTS

This OpEd by Gretchen Hamel, executive director of Public Notice, as seen in The Northwest Herald.

Imagine for a moment you and your spouse or closest family member are sitting down to outline the household budget. You’re trying to balance the outlays — the rising cost of gasoline and groceries, the mortgage and car payments, and savings for kids’ college — with the revenues that you’re earning. Just when the numbers have balanced, your partner drops a bombshell: a year ago he or she received a credit card with a zero percent introductory interest rate and they’ve been dining (and shopping and entertaining) out on it ever since. The bill has now come due.

That is what’s happening in the federal government, as well as in state and local governments all over the United States. Lawmakers are struggling to balance the annual discretionary or general revenue budgets, cutting everything from education to law enforcement and maybe even raising taxes, to do so. Meanwhile, out there hangs another budgetary albatross: the unfunded liabilities these governments owe current and future retirees. At the federal level these liabilities are primarily Social Security and Medicare. At the state and local levels, it’s pension and health care costs for government workers.

While the federal issues of Social Security and Medicare have been a national media issue for decades, local and state pension issues are just now getting the attention they deserve. It’s about time: state workers and taxpayers alike deserve a fact-based conversation about this crisis, and the spending problems that produced it, and promise to exacerbate it if steps toward reform are not taken.

The Government Accountability Office recommends public pension systems maintain a funding-to-liability ratio of 80 percent. According to a recent report from Pew Center for the States state pension funds were about 78 percent funded in 2010 — down considerably from 84 percent in 2008.

Some states are far worse off than this average (Pew says 31 states are below the 80 percent threshold). Illinois has the most dire situation. Pew estimates the Illinois pension system is only 51 percent funded with unfunded liabilities totaling about $86 billion, more than double the $35 billion in unfunded liabilities the state estimated just nine years ago. When retiree health care liabilities are added, total unfunded liabilities will reach $140 billion by the end of the current fiscal year.

These problems are the result of years of overspending (in general) and neglect (ignoring the burgeoning pension problems by shifting funds around to mask the dire situation). Jeremy Gold, a pension expert and New York-based consulting actuary recently told the Chicago Tribune,  “Illinois is a poster child for pension abuses … One of my colleagues calls this child abuse because our children must pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.”

He’s right and without reform the pensions of about 175,000 retirees who currently depend on Illinois’ pension and retirement health care system and another 276,000 current state employees who will eventually depend on this cracking system will be at risk.

Illinois must reform its pension and retiree health care systems — now. The risks of doing nothing, or too little, are extremely high: funding for the system will crowd out spending on other important budget items like law enforcement and education; or seniors who rely on their state pensions will not receive payments; or interest and tax rates on Illinois state debt will skyrocket, killing the economy and job creation in the state.

Illinois, as well as all other states in our country, cannot renege on its promises to its retirees. It also cannot tax its way out of this problem. The numbers are stark, and the situation will not get any better unless lawmakers take action. For the benefit of current and future retirees, and for the benefit of Illinois taxpayers in general, it’s time lawmakers stop hiding from this problem, and work to fix it.

Gretchen Hamel is the executive director of Public Notice, an independent, nonpartisan, non-profit dedicated to providing facts and insight on the economy and how government policy affects Americans’ financial well-being.


The budget process got off to a rocky start Monday night, as several residents – members of the local Republican committee and the Tea Party – all spoke out against an initial proposal to increase property taxes by the maximum of 4.25 percent.

In light of a proposed Narragansett municipal budget with the maximum 4.25 percent property tax rate increase, town republicans heatedly voiced their opposition, with one claiming that town residents are “permanent captives and slaves” to unions.

The remarks came at the first public hearing for the budget, held Monday night during the council’s regularly scheduled meeting. Town Manager Grady Miller spent about 30 minutes presenting the budget to the full house of residents in attendance. About 10 people spoke out against the first budget proposal, with no supporters for the proposal.

In his presentation, Miller highlighted the main shortfall in the budget – a loss of about $1.8 million in state aid for the town, with additional cuts in state aid to the school district. The proposed property tax would increase taxes on a $400,000 home by about $136, as the rate goes up from $8.86 per $1,000 to $9.20.

“In trying to solve the state budget issues, there has been a lot of shifting to the town,” Miller said. “These are some major, major factors that are going to be facing the town and we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.”

The municipal budget would provide a $500,000 increase to the Narragansett School Department. However, at the presentation of the school budget on April 25, Superintendent Kathy Sipala said the drastic loss of state aid would require steep steps to correct. Among the options on the table were eliminating up to 10 teaching positions, and offering early retirement en masse to replace experienced, top-step teachers with entry-level hires.

Also included in Miller’s proposed budget is a 40 percent increase in water fees, because according to budget proposal, “the current rate structure has not been fully recovering the cost of operations and capital costs over the past several years, plus United Water, a major provider of water to the town, has requested a substantial water rate increase totaling nearly 40 percent.”

The idea of raising taxes to the maximum levy and user fees in general to cover budget gaps drew the ire of several members of the Republican Town Committee in attendance, who spoke against the proposed budget.

Richard Vangermeersch, a member of the committee, said he was speaking as a Republican when he called for the town to take a harsher stance with unions.

“Woe is to the taxpayers of Narragansett,” he said. “We are permanent captives and slaves to the public employee unions and to their henchmen, Governor [Lincoln] Chafee, who was elected by these people.”

Vangermeersch read from a prepared statement, and repeated this portion twice, after being asked to identify himself for purposes of the record. Vangermeersch is a retired University of Rhode Island professor.

He added that it was “really quite sick” that raising taxes seemed to be the only solution for solving the state and town’s economic woes.

“Wake up taxpayers of Narragansett,” he said. “Privatization of services is part of the solution.”

Resident Stanley Wojciechowski said he wanted the town to explore raising more revenue through its planning department, and to stop spending money on open space and preservation projects unless they could fund themselves in the future with increased revenue to the town.

“Our planning department needs to look at raising money,” he said. “Double the charges for weddings … Can we rent out our school buildings for second shift [education, such as URI night classes]?”

Robert Palmer, a resident living on Exeter Boulevard, said he didn’t buy into Miller’s statistics and projections for the budget.

“Those are a lot of fancy numbers and a lot of fancy talking,” he said. “It takes a lot of intelligence to do that. All it takes is common sense to know that the residents of this town can’t accept even a one percent tax increase … The people cannot afford it.”

Phil Duquette said that with the current trend of forcing taxpayers to bear the brunt of budget shortfalls, in the future Narragansett could instead resemble the crumbling Detroit.

“We know we’re not going to get any relief from Governor Chafee,” he said. “We cannot tax our way out of our problems.”

Meg Rogers, a Narragansett resident and member of the Patriots of South County, asked Miller what the town’s unfounded pension liability currently is.

“As far as the pension fund, I believe we have roughly a $23 million unfunded liability,” he said.

Town Council President Glenna Hagopian, at the urging of several of the speakers, reiterated that they had petitioned the town’s state senator and representative to pursue some budget relief options – dropping unfunded mandates from the General Assembly, and opposing binding arbitration for teacher union salary disputes.

However, councilor Christopher Wilkens expressed pessimism in Narragansett’s state leadership.

“They are working quite opposite to the town’s best interests,” he said.

Carol Stuart, who runs the preschool at St. Peter’s and is a frequent critic of URI student behavior, said the town needed the support of legislators, especially as it dealt with handling the tenant population and zoning.

“I do have confidence in the council and the town manager, I don’t have confidence in the general assembly or our representatives,” she said. “We have landlords who are irresponsible and who are contributing to [high police overtime costs].”

Hagopian said that after reviewing the budget, she and other councilors would look to trim in certain places.

“The council’s first look at the budget was last week,” she said. “I spent some time with [budget officials] before this meeting, and I would like to see a lot more economies made.”

In response, Miller said, “We will sharpen our pencils and come back with something.”

Radio: Nothing But Truth with Crane Durham

Posted by BA Team On May - 4 - 2011 ADD COMMENTS

Every week Gretchen Hamel joins Crane Durham, host of Nothing But Truth, to discuss the latest fiscal issues affecting Americans. This week they discussed how our dangerously high levels of debt will impact everyone, due to broken promises multiple states are facing bankruptcy, and the looming debate on Capital Hill over the United States debt ceiling. LISTEN NOW

 

Interview Highlights:

In a recent Pew Research Study, eight states have been given failing scores when it comes to their  pension management; they are calling Illinois’s unfunded pension obligations the largest of any state in the nation.

Hamel weighed in, “You’ve got states that are facing pension crises that are going to bankrupt them. States can’t go bankrupt; they can’t borrow. Right now you have people who are going to have to make some tough political choices across the nation.”

As Congress returned to Capital Hill this week the debt ceiling debate started to catch fire again. Earlier this week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sent a letter to Congress indicating the government is on track to hit the current ceiling by May 16, though we can keep the country out of default until August 2.

“Congress just wants to extent the amount of its credit limit which will just offer them a blank check. And right now we don’t need that. We need to look at what the problems are that we’re seeing and what can we can do to reform the spending problems and what we can do to cut spending. So if we do raise [the debt ceiling], reforms need to be implemented along with it, spending cuts need to be implemented along with it, and we need to have a real plan to put this nation back on track,” said Hamel.

Crane asked, hypothetically, if you were chief negotiator what is the one thing that you would do in order to have the debt ceiling raised?

Hamel answered,”I think it would be to bring spending back to its historic levels, which would encourage an across the board cut for everyone.

“We need to return to [20 percent of GPD]. We need to restrain spending, bring it back to its historic levels. Revenues are returning back to historic levels, and I think we will see things start to become more stable.”

State News Roundup

Posted by BA Team On April - 28 - 2011 ADD COMMENTS

On Tuesday, the Pew Center for the States released a report highlighting states’ severely underfunded pensions. Up from $1 trillion, state budget shortfalls grew some 26 percent in 2009, from $1 trillion in FY 2008 $1.26 trillion in FY 2009.

The Washington Post highlighted the causes for the funding gap:

Pew officials said the growing shortfall was driven by inadequate state contributions, an aging population and market losses that accompanied the recession.

The report, which is based on state financial reports, found that states faced a $660 billion pension funding gap. Meanwhile, retiree health-care liabilities — which most states handle on a pay-as-you-go basis — totaled $604 billion, the report said.

Even as they face increasing liabilities, the report said, many states are not making pension contributions in amounts recommended by their actuaries as they juggle retiree and other costs against a backdrop of weak revenue.

Bloomberg noted that the recession is not solely to blame for state woes:

“The states dug themselves a big hole before the recession ever hit,” Susan Urahn, the managing director of the Pew Center in Washington, said in a conference call with reporters yesterday. “We can see how the Great Recession and states’ severe budget problems made a serious problem even worse.”

Some states have fared better than others. Bloomberg continues:

The biggest unfunded pension liabilities in 2009 were in Illinois, which had just 51 percent of what it needed to pay for promised benefits, and West Virginia, with 56 percent, according to the report.

New Hampshire was 58 percent funded, while New Jersey and Ohio both had just two-thirds of what they needed.

On the other end of the spectrum, the pension plans in New York and Wisconsin were fully funded.

Today, the Chicago Sun-Times featured an editorial that makes clear how severe Illinois’ pension problems are:

Illinois is dead last. Again.

Illinois had just 51 percent of the $126 billion it needed in 2008-2009 to pay promised pensions, according to the Pew Center on the States. This was the largest shortfall in the nation, as Illinois’ was in the previous year.

Few dispute the main factor driving this shortfall: the state’s repeated and prolonged failure to contribute what it owes to its pension systems. Meanwhile, state employees and teachers have faithfully kicked in their share paycheck after paycheck.

The state’s annual pension bills, along with accumulated debt, are so high they will soon gobble up resources needed for core state functions, including educating our kids, treating the sick and staffing our prisons.

So, is there a solution? There does appear to be, according to The Washington Post:

If states calculated their investment returns the same way that private firms are required to for their pensions, their obligations would balloon to $1.8 trillion, the report said. If states pegged their returns to 30-year Treasury bonds, an even more conservative standard, the liability would be $2.4 trillion.

Concern about underfunded pensions has prompted at least 29 states to either reduce pension promises to new employees or require workers to contribute more toward their retirement benefits, according to a separate report by Pew.

Additionally, the Chicago Sun-Times adds:

Ouch. It is time for Illinois to tackle its pension problem.

This means changing the pensions of current employees. Not the retirement benefits already accrued, but changing benefits going forward.

Nibbling at the edges won’t cut it.

Two good places to start: Raising the amount employees contribute toward their pensions and/or raising the retirement age. Workers closest to retirement should be exempt.

Something has got to give, and now is the time for all sides, particularly Gov. Quinn, to make it happen.

State News Roundup

Posted by BA Team On March - 31 - 2011 ADD COMMENTS

Missouri’s State Auditor, Tom Schweich, released an audit that found state agencies failed to properly monitor federally awarded funds. As noted by the St. Louis Business Journal, the audit reviewed $13.46 billion in federally awarded expenditures; including $2.57 billion that stemmed from the stimulus. The audit found that: the Department of Health and Senior Services could not determine that Medicaid payments were only made on behalf of eligible persons, the Department of Higher Education had no monitoring policies that ensured colleges and universities complied with regulations and the Department of Social Services lacked adequate controls to ensure payments were proper and benefiting only eligible clients.

Lawmakers in Texas are looking at gambling as a potential means to close the state’s budget gap, as detailed by The Texas Tribune. The Texas Gaming Association asserts that Texas could see a potential $1.3 billion increase in annual tax revenue if gaming was expanded within the state.  It’s estimated that Texans spend $4 billion in nearby Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico and Nevada casinos. Texas’ projected FY 2012 projected budget shortfall is $13.4 billion.

New York lawmakers approved Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget on Thursday, which is the first time the Legislature passed an on time budget in five years, as highlighted by The Wall Street Journal. The $132.5 billion budget will cut year-to-year spending for the first time in more than a decade and will also eliminate the state’s $10 billion deficit. Notably, the newly adopted budget contains no major tax increases or significant borrowing.

Colorado’s revenue forecast just received a $75.5 million boost – from an accounting glitch in March’s forecast. As reported by The Denver Post, an incorrect accrual accounting formula caused the error. The “extra” $75.5 million will be used to offset education cuts and to bolster the state’s general-fund reserve.

 

By KEVIN G. HALL
McClatchy Newspapers

Some members of Congress haven’t been shy about criticizing underfunded state and local pension plans, even though they themselves enjoy much heftier retirement packages than most private-sector employees and state workers do.Budget battles in New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio have captured headlines of late as lawmakers struggle over how to pay retirement benefits for state and local government workers. Some Washington lawmakers have added fuel to the flaming national debate.In a recent speech to South Carolina Republicans, for example, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said “we’ve got to get real about what we can and cannot afford” in state pensions.From the other pole of debate, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown linked opponents of public-sector unions to Nazi Germany.For all the theater, members of Congress, regardless of party, aren’t saying much about their own retirement plans, which are much more generous than those held by most Americans. In fairness, the nation’s lawmakers hold responsibilities more comparable to top corporate executives than to average workers, but there’s no available data on CEOs’ retirement packages, which typically feature forms of compensation other than pensions, such as stock options.Lawmakers also pay less into their pensions, and get a better match from taxpayers, than most state employees do across the nation.”They still reserve to themselves a more generous formula than rank-and-file members of the federal government,” said Peter Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, which long has charged that U.S. lawmakers’ retirement benefits are too generous.Since 1984, members of Congress have enjoyed both a defined-benefit plan and a defined-contribution plan. The defined-benefit plan gives them a fixed pension in retirement that’s scaled to their number of years in office.By McClatchy Newspapers’ calculation, 13 sitting senators and 31 members of the House of Representatives – about 8 percent of the Congress – have served at least 25 years and accrued annual pensions worth at least $50,000. By comparison, for average U.S. former workers 65 or older who receive private pension payments, the median annual amount is $8,016, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefits Research Institute.As long as they’ve served five years, lawmakers can collect their pensions starting at age 62; if they’ve served 20 years, they can collect them at age 50; and if they’ve served 25 years, they can collect them no matter how old they are. Their annual pension annuities cannot exceed 80 percent of their final salaries.Only 30 percent of active workers in the country had defined-benefit plans last year like the one available to lawmakers, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute.Lawmakers also can contribute up to $16,500 every year to a 401(k) retirement plan on a tax-deferred basis, or about 9.5 percent of their pay. Taxpayers match them up to the first 5 percent of a congressman’s or senator’s salary, which has been $174,000 since 2009.Federal lawmakers contribute 1.3 percent of their salaries – $2,262 this year – into that retirement plan. By comparison, the midpoint for defined-benefit pension contributions from state workers – whom some critics have painted as fat cats living off the taxpayer – is 5 percent.That’s not the only advantage Congress enjoys. The accrual rate, a calculation used to determine the rate at which a beneficiary accrues full retirement benefits, is much more generous for federal lawmakers than for most Americans.Most pension plans have a rate of about 1.3 percent to 1.5 percent, according to Labor Department and academic data. Federal employees have an accrual rate of 1 percent for their pensions. However, members of Congress enjoy an accrual rate of 1.7 percent. That means they will retire with greater retirement benefits than those who have defined-benefit plans with lower accrual rates.”Extremely generous plans, it might be 2 percent,” said Dale Smith, president of Pension Plan Professionals Inc. in Jacksonville, Fla. His company administers about 360 pension plans in six states for private companies and nonprofit organizations.By private-sector standards, it’s unusual that lawmakers get both a defined-benefit plan and a 401(k) retirement match.”That’s much more generous than what you would normally find in the private sector,” said Smith, a veteran pension administrator with more than 40 years of experience.The taxpayer match of up to 5 percent of a lawmaker’s pay is the same as what’s offered to federal government workers.Data from Fidelity Investments, the largest pension investment fund, showed that private-sector workers in 2010 on average set aside 8.2 percent of their pay for their 401(k) plans managed by Fidelity, and that employers on average provided 6 percent matches. This suggests that lawmakers are matched by the taxpayer at about the same rate that employers match their workers. But their fixed pensions give them a considerable boost on top of that.Like the average American worker, lawmakers elected after 1984 have 6.2 percent of their pay deducted to pay Social Security taxes.If congressional pensions seem more generous than private-sector ones, it’s intentional. They were designed in an era when there was no revolving door between Congress and the trade associations, law firms and lobbying shops that today offer ex-lawmakers big paydays. In the post-World War II era, generous retirement benefits for lawmakers were intended to attract people into politics who could have made more money in the private sector.”I would say it’s in part a vestige” of a bygone era, said Burdett Loomis, a political scientist and expert on Congress at the University of Kansas. “There was an assumption that a lot of these people, particularly the longer-serving ones, were forgoing a substantial amount of income to stay in the public sector. That was justified on a public-policy basis.”My guess is that most ordinary citizens wouldn’t view this as legitimate, but I think if you do want to attract people over the long term, it’s not unreasonable. If you value a citizen legislature, turnover, then it becomes more problematic.”The current congressional pension system dates to 1984′s creation of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. Lawmakers elected that year or later automatically qualify for the FERS pension.A Jan. 7 report by the Congressional Research Service said that 455 retired members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based at least in part on congressional service. About 275 of them retired under the pre-1984 system and received annual pensions of $69,012. Another 180 members retired with congressional service under both the old system and/or the newer FERS; their average annual pension in 2009 was $40,140.McClatchy has determined that 28 active House members who have served since before 1984 are eligible for the older, more generous pensions. Another 130 House members have served fewer than three terms and aren’t yet vested in their congressional pensions. The House has 435 members, but two seats are currently vacant.In the Senate, 41 out of 100 senators aren’t yet vested to receive their congressional pensions. Nine senators have served since before 1984′s new pension system began. Exactly half the Senate is vesting in FERS pensions.CALCULATING YOUR LAWMAKERS’ PENSIONSIf they’ve already served five years, but started after 1984, they qualify for the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. Take the average of their highest three consecutive years of pay – which for the last three years has been $174,000 – and multiply that by the accrual rate of 0.017. Take this sum and multiply it by the number of years they’ve served to get their annual pensions.If they started after 1984 and have more than 20 years in office, then for every year past those 20 years do a separate calculation of multiplying $174,000 by an accrual rate of 0.01, then multiply this sum by the number of years beyond 20 years in office.If a congressman served 25 years, the equation would be $174,000 x 0.01 x 5, for an additional pension payment of $8,700. When the two sums are added – $41,412 plus $8.700 – a lawmaker serving 25 years can expect an annual pension of $50,112.Most lawmakers serve about 12 years, so if they retired today they’d be entitled to pensions of about $35,496.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/15/v-print/2115698/amid-furor-over-state-pensions.html#ixzz1GgDK1D8z

    Copyright (c) GoodPorkBadPork 2009-2013, Some Rights Reserved, Best viewed at 1024x768 or higher