Minnesotans should be wary of public-pension distrust

  • Article by: Don Leathers
  • Updated: April 8, 2013 - 7:18 AM

Recent news has implied a greater taxpayer burden than exists.

  • 93
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
blahstateApr. 7, 13 5:56 PM

Don, two words, Stockton, California. Everything you say can be disputed if you know anything about Stockton and what is going on. Its educators, and Unions that are strangling our economy. You need to do some research before you make false claims.

47
63
rcarlson07Apr. 7, 13 6:22 PM

While Minnesota is not yet Stockton, we have been kidding ourselves for too long that our public pensions are adequately funded. It is more than a little disappointing that it is now necessary to raise taxes to cover pension obligations. This problem was foreseen years ago and could have been fixed more easily then. But at this point, some pain needs to be shared by the retirees and current public employees -- not just taxpayers.

43
52
akmscottApr. 7, 13 7:04 PM

Yes, an unbiased report!

29
20
sharkysharkApr. 7, 13 7:24 PM

The unholy alliance between public employee unions and the politicians that they put in office has made fiscal Armageddon a reality.

39
55
supervon2Apr. 7, 13 8:00 PM

I would almost believe the article but I know the Met Council has plans in that let people retire far before 65 at full pension with no reduction for starting earlier. I want that fixed because the public employees don't work a bit harder than the general public. Most of them work for the government becuase they can't take the pressure in the real world. If they can't perform I don't give them a free ride. Period.

42
56
billiebob345Apr. 7, 13 8:11 PM

"The casual reader may be taken aback by the $36 million figure, only $13 million of which is taxpayer money. The balance is fees tacked on to homeowner and auto insurance policies to bolster police and firefighter retirement funds. The $26 million is a significant difference." Who is paying the fees that are tacked on to the police and firefighter's retirement funds ? The policy holders who just happen to be TAXPAYERS. Are we supposed to think the insurance companies are paying this 26 million. The Taxpayer is on the hook for 36 million and to this is significant.

61
31
ndragisichApr. 7, 13 8:18 PM

"The casual reader may be taken aback by the $36 million figure, only $13 million of which is taxpayer money. The balance is fees tacked on to homeowner and auto insurance policies to bolster police and firefighter retirement funds. The $26 million is a significant difference." Am I missing something here or are homeowners and auto owners not taxpayers? This is an unbelievable statement by someone who should now better! I am not opposed to funding the shortfall, but we need to be honest about where the money will come from.

50
18
wickeywackeyApr. 7, 13 8:19 PM

Great article, Don. Informative, factual, and relevant - and clearly causing a mindjam among those used to a diet of hyperbole and manipulation.

37
51
jpcooperApr. 7, 13 8:24 PM

"The casual reader may be taken aback by the $36 million figure, only $13 million of which is taxpayer money. The balance is fees tacked on to homeowner and auto insurance policies to bolster police and firefighter retirement funds. The $26 million is a significant difference.

Don Are you kidding me? Why in the world should ALL home and Auto policies in the state be tapped for a surcharge to cover the pensions of the Duluth Teachers and the police and fire fund! Taxpayers already contribute 14.4% of the employees earnings into the fund. If the fund needs a boost tap those that will be taking from it!

51
30
albundy74Apr. 7, 13 8:32 PM

"The balance is fees tacked on to homeowner and auto insurance policies to bolster police and firefighter retirement funds." Hey Don--As a taxpayer, I pay for that in my premiums too. Anyone else in the private sector would need to adjust their lifestyle if their pension dropped. WHY should public employees be treated any different? No one helps out private employee pension funds. What you're asking for is a life and job without risk for public employees. Until you can offer that security to all, don't play favorites.

52
28

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question