In taking a position with the State of Washington, it was part of our
agreement that I would receive a retirement pension as part of my pay.
Also I was to receive annual leave, sick leave, and certain designated
Holidays. It was all spelled out in my contract, and to date the
State of Washington has lived up to its end of the agreement. From
time to time the Establishment decides that they are being too
generous with their employees. They decide that receiving both social
security and a state pension might afford the retiree a decent
retirement. And besides, they can use the money for some other
projects. The only defense against such pilferage is a strong
employees union. Although, when I was working for the state, our
employees union had lost the leverage of negotiating wages, it was
still strong enough to prevent the loss of fringe benefits. I retired
under a fairly generous plan. But within a couple of years new hires
had a new plan that offered less in benefits. And I understand that
later on there was a third even leaner retirement package set in
place. A definite sign that the employees union was losing strength.
Also, as with our current employment, the state is doing more and more
contract work. We receive a proposed contract which we can either
accept...if we want to work, or reject...which means the state will
offer it to others. Under contract we have no fringe benefits, unless
we pay for them. This would be fine, if the contract actually covered
the Program Services and a decent wage for the contracting agent. But
of course it never does.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/12/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I read from your link says that a bill was presented which would allow
some state workers, who are unable to receive social security benefits, to
receive state benefits equivalent to what their social security benefits
would be. It doesn't say that they lose benefits.
As for the debate I mentioned, I don't have a link, but it was the one that
took place at Hofstra University.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 1:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
Hi Miriam, in the days after 9-11, the Bush administration amended the
social security law by inserting what is known as the "windfall elimination
provision", which allows states to take the amount of a social security
benefit out of a retirees pension or deferred compensation effectively
preventing them from collecting social security. For example if an employee
retires and gets $2000 from their deferred comensation and $1000 from social
security their deferred compensation will be reduced to $1000. See the link
below my signature. To the best of my knowledge only 6 sates do this to
their employees with Massachusetts being one. Sadly, my senator, Ms. Warren
refuses to take a stand against this provision.
As far as Obama, I found many youtube clips of his debates but I found
noting where he said that he will eliminate or reduce social security. Can
you provide a link? If he did say that it certainly will be everywhere on
the internet.
Frank
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/new-bill-would-change-social-security-rule-on-public-workers-benefits.html
P
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:38 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
Well Frank,
It depends on what you mean by far left. I don't understand about your
state, how it could prevent you from receiving social security. I'll have to
google that. But I do remember hearing Obama, in a presidential debate with
Romney, talk about how it would be a good idea to privatize social security
or lower its benefits or some such thing. And now that I'm reading the book,
We've Got People by Ryan Grinn, which is a detailed history of the
Democratic Party since Jesse Jackson's run, my memory of Obama being willing
to reduce our social security has been verified. So if you think that the
Democratic leadership is left wing, you've been fooled like a lot of us
were. The Clinton wing of the Democratic party is corporatist and cares only
to stay in power. There's an industry of consultants who stay in business
because the party insists that moninees raise a certain amount of money in
order to be supported in elections by the party.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 2:29 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
Miriam, yours is just one of the many experiences that make me think we have
already lost the battle. I used to have a stack of my late mother's medical
bills on my desk at home. I have since put them in a file box and hid them
under my desk as I can't stand to see them. About half of my take home pay
goes to those bills and will most likely do so until I die. Thankfully I
don't have children so the cycle of inherited debt will stop. Carl spoke
about how he fears that his pension and social security will be protected.
That is a generational thing as my generation is already living in a world
where those things don't exist. Even here in my allegedly progressive state,
my union has lost access to the state pension system. Instead we have it
replaced by (nudge, wink) "deferred compensation" which is nothing more than
a zero interest savings account where I am forced to contribute 15 percent
of my paycheck to every pay period and then when I retire I get to cash it
in minus the almost 30 percent of cumulative back end charges and fees. Now
about that social security? As a state employee I am not allowed to collect
social security when I retire. Sure we pay into it but remember that piece
of paper we signed when we took the job? Yes sir that "windfall elimination
plan" law really sticks it to me as it does in the other 5 states in the
country that require state employees to sign away their social security. I
feel defeated and don't have any positive view of the future despite how
many far left podcasts I listen to as they too are part of the corporate
demigods that got us where we are.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 9:25 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
Amy was trying to ask, what she thought was a provocative and meaningful
question, and Warren was trying to dodge it. But really, I don't see the
point of the question. I've noticed that she often does something similar,
asks public figures to comment on outrageous things that other people have
said. Trying to get someone to say something in an unguarded moment is not,
as far as I'm concerned, doing useful journalism.
As for your personal concern, I surely do understand that. As I've
explained, my income slowly decreases as municipal bonds are called and
replaced with bonds that pay a lower rate of interest. My expenses rise,
supplemental medical insurance, Medicare Prescription insurance, and other
expenses. As my physical capacities decline, and I'm not sure how long I'll
be able to walk, I'm going to have to have a different level of care. And
that's another issue. I can be empathetic toward people on the margins of
society, but it's quite a different situation when you find yourself
dependent on people who don't understand your needs, have little education
and poor training, don't speak English well, and may steal your belongings.
Now that Yaneek is leaving to join our military, I may very soon be back in
that situation again. What is most ironic is if I had the $400,000 annually
to pay for what is considered a quality nursing home here and if I wanted to
be in such a place, I'd be cared for by employees at the same level of
education, and they wouldn't be working for me, but for an impersonal
bureaucracy. When my mother was dying of cancer, she was in a well known
Catholic hospital that serves dying cancer patients. It had a modern clean
physical plant. They had her on medication which kept her free from pain.
But all her personal belongings were stolen. I also remember visiting one
Friday night. The rooms were all laid out in a circle, opening onto a
corridor, and in the center of the circle, there was a glass enclosed
nursing station. As we walked along the corridor, I could hear a woman
crying out, asking for help or something. She must have been feeling
frightened and alone. No one went to her. Those nurses acted like she didn't
exist. That was back in the late 80's. Oh, and by the way, because she
didn't die within a year of being admitted, they threw her out. She died in
the best nursing home I could get her into, with a much poorer level of
care, a few months later.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 7:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
I heard it, both during the "debate" and on Democracy Now. I have no idea
why Amy played that up. It sounded to me as if it were simply another side
step in order to avoid saying anything provocative.
Frankly, I run hot and cold. We have a bunch of brain damaged candidates
eager to be the last president of the American Empire.
The billionaires are so greed driven that they no longer understand that
they need to working class in order to continue enriching themselves.
My current concern is wondering how long our pensions and social security
will continue. That is the source of the majority of our monthly income.
If we continue headed down the road the way we are, it won't be long before
Cathy and I will be attempting to live on half of what we need to stay
afloat.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/11/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Democracy Now thought that Warren's response to Amy's last question
was so significant, that they have it as a separate thing on the
website and it downloaded as a separate episode. Amy asked her to
comment on the first 2 primaries being in majority white states where
candidates would have to spend a lot of time wooing voters and then
the third in a state with a large black population. Warren said, "Are
you going to ask me to comment on that?"
and then she said, "I'm just a player in the game." I suppose that Amy
thinks this is significant, Warren refusing to comment on race?
Miriam