Rick Scott & Mike Bennett are coming after your retirement

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.

Like Sink wouldn't have messed with your FRS. Maybe Scott will find the truth about what Sink did & he can have an investigation.

Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Bogeyman is coming..........run............

What about them pulling out six percent of your pay in order to offset retirment? That idea keeps getting tossed around in the rumor mill. And how does it affect you if you are in the investment side of FRS? Up's and down's in the market aside are you more or less screwed?

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.



It means you are all suckers who VOTED for me. FLIP YOUR MONEY NOW How come this never came up during the election? Where was our great sheriff, chiefs, captains, to give us guidance on these issues?? I was against the UNION but you have my VOTE now just for the principal of it. So I'm pushing a green and white for another 3 years now instead of retiring like I planned? This is unfair and we get screwed by the state of fla now?? What about my spouse who works in low risk is she now required to work 35 years? Thanks Sheriff, for your great leadership. Maybe I should have voted for Alex Sink. I forgot our Sheriff and Chiefs have so much money why do they care? We're screwed boys and girls.
t

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.



It means you are all suckers who VOTED for me. FLIP YOUR MONEY NOW How come this never came up during the election? Where was our great sheriff, chiefs, captains, to give us guidance on these issues?? I was against the UNION but you have my VOTE now just for the principal of it. So I'm pushing a green and white for another 3 years now instead of retiring like I planned? This is unfair and we get screwed by the state of fla now?? What about my spouse who works in low risk is she now required to work 35 years? Thanks Sheriff, for your great leadership. Maybe I should have voted for Alex Sink. I forgot our Sheriff and Chiefs have so much money why do they care? We're screwed boys and girls.
t

Where have you been for the past several months in the Keys? This FRS issue as it pertains to Scott has been kicked around now for along time. Why do you think all of those cop's, Chiefs and Sheriff's on those tv commercials across the State endorsed Sink? BECAUSE SCOTT WANTS TO SCREW US!!! Start paying attention to politics and you wont have this problem of being uninformed. And don't blame the Sheriff for this it is not his job to tell you who to vote for or to keep you up on current events. Now gas up your patrol car you got another three years of calls holding... :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.



It means you are all suckers who VOTED for me. FLIP YOUR MONEY NOW How come this never came up during the election? Where was our great sheriff, chiefs, captains, to give us guidance on these issues?? I was against the UNION but you have my VOTE now just for the principal of it. So I'm pushing a green and white for another 3 years now instead of retiring like I planned? This is unfair and we get screwed by the state of fla now?? What about my spouse who works in low risk is she now required to work 35 years? Thanks Sheriff, for your great leadership. Maybe I should have voted for Alex Sink. I forgot our Sheriff and Chiefs have so much money why do they care? We're screwed boys and girls.
t

Where have you been for the past several months in the Keys? This FRS issue as it pertains to Scott has been kicked around now for along time. Why do you think all of those cop's, Chiefs and Sheriff's on those tv commercials across the State endorsed Sink? BECAUSE SCOTT WANTS TO SCREW US!!! Start paying attention to politics and you wont have this problem of being uninformed. And don't blame the Sheriff for this it is not his job to tell you who to vote for or to keep you up on current events. Now gas up your patrol car you got another three years of calls holding... :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:


Now that was funny! I have to admit you did make me laugh. THanks

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.



It means you are all suckers who VOTED for me. FLIP YOUR MONEY NOW How come this never came up during the election? Where was our great sheriff, chiefs, captains, to give us guidance on these issues?? I was against the UNION but you have my VOTE now just for the principal of it. So I'm pushing a green and white for another 3 years now instead of retiring like I planned? This is unfair and we get screwed by the state of fla now?? What about my spouse who works in low risk is she now required to work 35 years? Thanks Sheriff, for your great leadership. Maybe I should have voted for Alex Sink. I forgot our Sheriff and Chiefs have so much money why do they care? We're screwed boys and girls.
t

Where have you been for the past several months in the Keys? This FRS issue as it pertains to Scott has been kicked around now for along time. Why do you think all of those cop's, Chiefs and Sheriff's on those tv commercials across the State endorsed Sink? BECAUSE SCOTT WANTS TO SCREW US!!! Start paying attention to politics and you wont have this problem of being uninformed. And don't blame the Sheriff for this it is not his job to tell you who to vote for or to keep you up on current events. Now gas up your patrol car you got another three years of calls holding... :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:


Now that was funny! I have to admit you did make me laugh. THanks

I mean come on now was this guy kidding? And how strange he just doscovers this forum post election. For how many months now have their been threads about Rick Scott and FRS. This guy will make a great addition to CID a real Shirlock. Hope he is not a pillow biter... :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:

I wish you guys would pay attention. There is a list of steps that have to be taken before doing ANYTHING with FRS. A suggestion has to be brought up (even by the governor) that has to be voted on by a board from the Florida legislature.
If you think they are going to sign their death warrant and approve what he wants your smoking your evidence. They will go with the people (to save the elected positions) and shoot down any suggestions Rick Scott wants concerning Florida retirement. Remember Scott is a business man not a politician YET he will learn quick who not to mess with.

My kitty predicted a Rick Scott win.

Kitty is cool

CASE LAW AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS

History is on the employees’ side. State statutes, constitutions and case law consistently define a public pension as a contract between the state and its employees that cannot be impaired. For example, Alaska’s state constitution makes it clear that “membership in employee retirement systems of the state or its political subdivisions shall constitute a contractual relationship. Accrued benefits of these systems may not be diminished or impaired.” Eight other states protect workers in their constitutions. They are Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York and Texas.

In states without constitutional guarantees — Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota fall into this category — statutes and court cases consider retirement benefits an unbreakable contract between the state and workers. That same protection is in the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says: “No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligations of contracts.”

Courts have determined that cost-of-living increases, which keep pension income on pace with inflation, are part of a worker’s benefits that cannot be diminished. (Generally, increasing benefits faces no legal hurdles.) The principle of safeguarding the purchasing power of pension income through a cost-of-living adjustment is well established. Social Security, the federal government’s retirement program, instituted automatic annual cost-of-living increases in 1975. The amount of the increase has averaged about 3.3 percent a year, although for the first time in 2010, there was no increase because the consumer price index did not rise.

The Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota lawmakers are hoping that the courts will agree that the current financial turmoil facing states imperils public pension systems as never before and calls for a new approach. If legislatures are not permitted to cut retirement costs now, the argument goes, the ability of the public pension systems to pay future benefits will be jeopardized.

“If we don’t reduce these automatic pension increases, the entire fund is poised to go bankrupt,” Republican Josh Penry, minority leader of the Colorado state Senate, told the Denver Post. “Think United [Airlines]. Think GM. That didn’t work out well for the company or the retirees.”

Attorneys for the states say in court filings that limiting cost-of-living increases was justified, and actuarily necessary. “There can be no dispute that preserving the solvency of PERA [The Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association] is a legitimate governmental interest,” Colorado officials argue. Minnesota’s pension legislation “was reasonable and necessary to maintain and restore the financial stability of Minnesota’s public pension plans,” say the state’s pleadings.

MANAGING MARKET SWINGS

Although Colorado lawmakers and state pension officials blame much of the retirement fund’s current financial troubles on investment losses suffered during the 2007-09 recession — the median decline for funds nationally was 25 percent in 2008 — the truth is that Colorado lawmakers failed to make their annually required contributions to state pension funds in good times and bad. They also boosted retiree benefits without considering future costs.

Colorado’s pension fund was fully funded in 2000. Eight years later, before the recession hit, Colorado fell to 70-percent funded and was heading down further, according to a report released in February by the Pew Center on the States, which publishes Stateline. Most pension specialists recommend a funding level of 80 percent or higher.

Minnesota lawmakers also slid on their pension fund payments. Their pension system’s funding level dropped from 101 percent in 1999 to 81 percent in 2008.

“The Legislature was cutting off funds and starving the pension system,” says Stephen Pincus, a Pittsburgh attorney representing the retirees in all three states. “They shouldn’t now be able to cry there’s no money in the pension system. They had a large hand in creating the crisis.”

South Dakota offers a twist. The state Legislature has been one of the best in the nation at financing its public employee pension system over the years; it was 97-percent funded in 2000 and 2008, according to the Pew report. Lawmakers even increased benefits two years ago. The state retirement system investments did lose more than 20 percent in value in 2008, but gained as much in fiscal 2010.

Pincus says that makes South Dakota’s targeting of current employees and retirees suspect. “There’s no crisis in South Dakota,” he says. “They had one bad year. So they’re going to shore up their pension fund by cutting benefits to those who already receive them?”

Rob Wylie, executive director of the South Dakota retirement system, counters that when the funding level fell to 76 percent after the 2008 losses, it triggered for the first time a state law requiring the pension system to take immediate steps to return the funding level to 100 percent. Savings gained from reducing benefits for newly hired employees would have taken too many years for the system to catch up, Wylie says. So after consulting with retirees the pension board chose to ask lawmakers to trim the cost-of-living increase.

“We could have reversed the increase in the funding formula we approved in 2008,” says Wylie. “But the retiree groups said can you find another way to slow the growth in costs without decreasing the formula? So we did.”

Asked why states are taking the risky strategy of aiming at current retirees, Robert Klausner, a Florida attorney who specializes in public pension law, says many state officials believe they have less to lose in the courtroom by challenging pension protections than taking no action at all. “The belief is that if the employer [the state] prevails, it will have been worth the political risk,” Klausner says. “And if they lose, they will be no worse off than before.” Klausner adds that legislatures are taking the politically-difficult step and letting the courts be the “bad guy” if they overturn the law. Retired judges are among the plaintiffs in Colorado and South Dakota.

The first case to be heard is the one in Minnesota, where a September 15 hearing is scheduled on a motion for summary judgment that will be filed by the state. Colorado’s Supreme Court already has sided once with retirees, saying in a 1961 ruling, “Whether it be in the field of sports or in the halls of the legislature it is not consonant with American traditions of fairness and justice to change the ground rules in the middle of the game.”

Meredith Williams, executive director of the Colorado retirement system, says he is confident the state can prove that the system’s current and future financial stress will compel the court to allow the cost-of-living rollback. “PERA has been upfront about the challenges we face,” he says.

By Stephen C. Fehr, Stateline Staff Writer

View Full Story From Stateline.org

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=504503

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/11/05/2713559/florida-legislature-first-up-overriding.html

[veteranrookie]

Mike Bennett put his plan on hold until after the election, he knew Sink would not support him, but he knew Rick Scott would back his plan.

The Mike Bennett Plan for FRS

1. Retirement raised from 25 years to 30 years no grandfathered in, if you are still working when his bill takes effect you will then be required to work for 30 years.

2. Retirement age raised from 55 to 60, again no one is grandfathered in.

3. Percent earned for each year of service currently is 3%, Bennett will reduce it to 2%.

4. You high five average will be changed to your average pay over your 30 years, that is going to reduce your retirement considerably.

What does this mean? It means we all lose. Instead of working for 25 years and retiring with 75% of your high five years, you will be forced to retire after 30 years with your average being all 30 of your work years and only getting 60% of that.

To think people in our line of work have sold out on this idea that electing an Obama Democrat was a solution to any problem. Have you people lost your freaking minds? Sink would have spent your retirement three times over and then would have had the audacity to call it "job stimulus." I'm tired of my government writing blank checks, aren't you?

The Mike Bennett plan is excactly the way Rick Scott wants FRS to go in the future. Talk to some of the people right here in Naples who are very close to him. There was a group of his friends on 5th Ave, right after his acceptance speech who were very concerned on what is going to happen with FRS.

It doesn't matter if your already retired either. Rick Scott wants to restructure the whole FRS system. He doesn't care if you retired 20,10,15, years ago etc... Your benefits are going to be looked at very close. He is now Governor Rick Scott and they have ways of changing things before your eyes. You can have all the case law you want and the protection you think you have. It only takes a bill to be voted on and he has the right people's support. Hang on guys...

First, please do not panic and 'flip' your retirement plan. Analyze carefully and then decide. I did it years ago, flipped mine, and now I regret ever touching it. Almost no employer anywhere (private sector) pays you for life after retirement, so do not throw that away. (Rumor mill people also went out and bought as many guns as they could after Obama was elected because of that fear "he's gonna take away our guns!" It didn't happen, did it?) So before you listen to the fear mongers, just don't do anything until you are positive and have facts and are 100% sure you want to be 100% responsible for funding your own retirement.
In the meantime, begin additional savings by doing the following: Pay down/off ALL your credit card debt, beginning with the highest interest rates first. Then destroy all but 1-2 credit cards. Load some money into a savings account so you will never need credit cards for non-emergency purchases. (this obviously will take many months/years, but should be done if you want to be debt free).
Next, do NOT go out and buy a harley, boat, RV, jet ski, etc unless you have cash and you and your family really really need/want it. Those are all money pits and that is why people are always trying to sell them on the notice board. As my man Colin Cowherd says, only buy assets that APPRECIATE. Real estate appreciates (usually and over the long term); toys only depreciate.
Finally, do not rent; buy your home/condo as soon as possible. Now is a great time since there is a large inventory and interest rates are low.
And start additional saving/investments (IRA's, CD's, deferred compensation).

Now then, about that kitty...what color? what's his/her name?

Excellent advise, pal. Renting is not a viable option with the continuation of the foreclosure and walk away real estate issues. Sure, you can rent from some stranger and be evicted 30 days later because they were already losing or walking away from their house and decided to scam you out of a few months rent. Interest rates are at an all time low. Refinance if you have one (procrastinator) of those nose bleed interest rates and if you have collateral or a down payment, buy one of these bargain houses. Stash some money in a IRA, Nationwide, or ROTH IRA, even if it is only $25 a pay check. Set up a savings or money market account and have some money sent to the account directly from your check, you won't miss it.

If it is really true about Rick Scott's plan to trash the FRS, then the karma train will surely run his sorry as$ over.

The last thing you want to do is piss off a large number of type A's with lots of guns.
Disclaimer: not a threat, just true general statements so don’t go calling FDLE on me, Nancy

My kitty sais that information is sound advice. Even my kitty has an IRA.

Excellent advise, pal. Renting is not a viable option with the continuation of the foreclosure and walk away real estate issues. Sure, you can rent from some stranger and be evicted 30 days later because they were already losing or walking away from their house and decided to scam you out of a few months rent. Interest rates are at an all time low. Refinance if you have one (procrastinator) of those nose bleed interest rates and if you have collateral or a down payment, buy one of these bargain houses. Stash some money in a IRA, Nationwide, or ROTH IRA, even if it is only $25 a pay check. Set up a savings or money market account and have some money sent to the account directly from your check, you won't miss it.

If it is really true about Rick Scott's plan to trash the FRS, then the karma train will surely run his sorry as$ over.

The last thing you want to do is piss off a large number of type A's with lots of guns.
Disclaimer: not a threat, just true general statements so don’t go calling FDLE on me, Nancy
People should have been doing this a long time ago rather than think the gravy train would last forever. It never does.