With attacks against public pensions escalating, a cadre of retired CTA members is joining forces with Pension Truth Squads that have been barnstorming the state.I love the "editor's note" at the end of the article:
Retired teachers in San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, Chico, San Luis Obispo, Riverside and Palm Springs have shared their stories and brought the truth to the public about their retirement plans. They are not alone in fighting back. They join a coalition of retired school employees, firefighters, police and other public employees who are out to set the record straight on public employee retirement.
They are making it known that their pensions are modest — not the six-figure incomes that those who would undo the public employee pension system suggest.
“We would like to dispel some of the myths about public employee pensions,” said Alen Ritchie, a retired Redlands music teacher, who spoke at an event in Riverside in May. “Teachers do not go into the profession for money, but we do deserve a livable retirement.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: At press time, Secretary of State Deborah Bowen gave the go-ahead for signature-gathering to begin on three antiunion initiatives. One would increase the retirement age for public employees to 65, one would increase the income tax on pensions in excess of $100,000 to 15 percent and higher, and another would eliminate bargaining rights for public employee unions altogether.1. How is increasing the retirement age for public employees "anti-union"?
2. Don't liberals believe that "the rich", perhaps those making 100K or more, should pay more? And doesn't mentioning a 100K pension undercut the article, which discusses "modest" pensions and "liveable" retirement income?
Maybe this lack of logic in CTA articles comes from a dearth of math and science knowledge :-) (see this post from a few minutes ago to be in on the joke)