I took Bevin’s statement to be some impractical egg-headed take based solely on statistics. As in, it’s probably known what the incidence rate is for that kind of assault, you multiply that by the number of kids statewide who would have been in school but for the teacher call in. Basic math, several kids were assaulted who would not have been otherwise. It’s how he can make the “guarantee”. Even if all that is true, and that is what he meant, it was a dumb thing to say. Same thing could be said for Saturday Sunday and any holiday. Such a stretch. It was so dumb I wonder if he’s turned a winning hand (in terms of public support) to a losing one.
Kentucky governor: Children were sexually assaulted and tried drugs because teachers were protesting
- Thread starter mktmaker
- Start date
They are going away because u can put in 27 years and retire at 49 and then live another 40 years drawing 75% of your highest 3 YEAR AVERAGE. In no other profession can you retire after 27 years and then draw a guaranteed salary for the rest of your life, which could end up being almost twice as long as you worked.
That is not financially or economically sustainable. If teachers want to agree to work until sometime in their 60s and then get those benefits then maybe reasonable people might start to listen.
Not intending to be argumentative, but they cannot retire at 49 with 27 years' service and draw 75% of their high 3 years average. The KTRS website has a calculator you can use to see the numbers, as you presented, do not give the benefits as you state. There are situations in which one can get 75 % but not as you propose. There are situations in which one could retire at 49, but not as you propose.
As a retired administrator, I agree the plan that has been in place cannot continue. Changes must be made.
With all the "Naught Teacher" threads we have floatin'round the Paddock, you would think the kids would be better off at home?.......
The catch-22 of trying to enact fiscal responsibility when your predecessors for the past 30 years ****ed it up.
The first elected official to take away money, instead of hand it out like candy, is a one-term politician.
That's not the reason people are throwing shade at Bevin. The reason you have people marching on his front door step is a) in an attempt to continue with a modified pension system he's only dicking over state employees, when it was all of Kentuckians that benefited when previous administrations didn't fund the system to cover budget shortfalls, b) the previously mentioned dicking of one targeted group doesn't come remotely close to fixing the issue and b) that he's saying some outrageously offensive things in his defense of the woefully inadequate proposals, including but not limited to the idea that teachers are to blame for rape and sexual molestation of kids when they're not in school.
There are myriad ways to address the pension crisis while maintaining confidence from your constituency in your ability to effectively lead. Bevin is choosing to do the opposite, while also inadvertently emphasizing the importance of teachers when trying to slash their benefits.
I've got news for you...
When a politician tries to come in and un-**** something that took 30 years to **** up, people are going to get dicked over. Had these same employees given a shit during the last several governors, they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
If they've got a problem with what is going on, they need to direct that anger at their Democrat politicians that they continued to vote in over and over. The state has had a whopping 7 years of Republican governorship over the past 47 years, and 11 years of Republican governorship over the past 71 years... If they want to blame somebody, start there.
But somebody has to be the 'bad parent', and it happens to be the guy in office right now.
First, that's not news. But in this instance, the way you're using 'dicked over' is not the way that state employees are getting royally dicked over (in that they're the only group assuming the bulk of the cuts). Like I said, the reason we have the pension crisis is not because of benefits promised to state employees, rather because of the failed leadership of the state over the last 30 years in which the benefit system promised to state employees was not funded as monies were diverted elsewhere - a decision THAT WAS A BENEFIT TO ALL KY CITIZENS.
These same emplyees did give a shit which is why they supported candidates that fulfilled the promises of their benefits given when employment was offered. And you're also conveniently ignoring that these cuts targeting state employees cover 0.1% of the unfunded liability. Something else HAS to be done which bends over everyone in the state, and it actually doesn't have to involve cutting benefits of current and former state employees.
I've already directed anger at past administrations and legislators. But the current problem of 1) completely bungling the fix of the pension crisis and 2) blaming rape and molestation on the actions of teachers is SOLELY on the shoulders of Bevin and some of the current legislators.
But you're also forgetting that R's have controlled the state senate since the mid 90's, when this shit really escalated.
That's not being a bad parent, his statements over the past two months make him an 'awful human being', and that's the crux of this thread. Not that someone had to jump on the grenade of fixing the unfunded liability problem.
Last edited:
Bevin has done a terrible job trying to fix the problem and past administrations have raped our state.
Now, how can we fix it going forward?
Where has the money that was supposed to be for state workers pensions been diverted over the last 50 years or so?
Now, how can we fix it going forward?
Where has the money that was supposed to be for state workers pensions been diverted over the last 50 years or so?
So you follow those teachers home and see that they don't take papers to grade, lessons to plan...don't make calls to parents? Do you follow them to Hobby Lobby or a teachers supply store to spend $100s if not more of their own money to buy supplies for their classrooms and often for kids in their classrooms who don't have what they need?
Yeah, a lot of teachers leave the building when the kids leave often because they too have kids of their own that have to be picked up or cared for. That doesn't mean that their day of work has ended.
I'm the son, husband and father to teachers and have been around them all my life. You wouldn't last 1 week in their shoes.
Yeah, it really is funny that the people closely associated with teachers would actually know how much they work vs some asshole who doesn't know his from a hole in the ground.
Published: Dec. 11, 2017
MSU scholars find $21 trillion in unauthorized government spending; Defense Department to conduct first-ever audit
Skidmore got involved last spring when he heard Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, refer to a report which indicated the Army had $6.5 trillion in unsupported adjustments, or spending, in fiscal 2015. Given the Army’s $122 billion budget, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times spending authorized by Congress. Typically, such adjustments in public budgets are only a small fraction of authorized spending.
Since 1982 the feds have been cutting taxes and "paying" for most of it by pushing items that were once paid by the federal govt down to the states. Not eliminating programs. The states not wanting to raise taxes looked for pockets of money that allowed them to get by another year without doing so. The feds have been raiding the Social Security trust fund in the same way. Not only are they stealing from the pension fund, they are also taking money from the funds set aside to pay for teacher's healthcare.
Government entities cannot continue to fund services at current levels while they reduce their income at the same time. My father worked for UK...when he first started the state paid 88% of cost to run UK. By the time he retired in '88 it was down in the 60s%... today it's about 5%. Wonder why tuition has risen?
So to answer your question the state spent that money instead of asking you to pay higher taxes at the time. Now the governor wants to cut state taxes all while claiming they don't have the money to fund their current obligations. ...because we all know that when you don't have enough money that the first thing you should do is take a pay cut.
You're an idiot. Go away.
There are some great teachers. There are some terrible teachers. I'd be a hell of a terrible teacher. Don't ever think or insinuate otherwise.
Based on all of your posts bitching about jobs and your employer...I have to think you are terrible at most things.
So please explain how when accepting a job that promises as part of your compensation for employment specified terms for retirement isn't depending upon one's self? Especially when part of the money to fund that retirement is withheld from your check?
If the state doesn't want to fund the pension plan then they need to arrange to pay teachers more to compensate for the loss of that plan. Otherwise they are effectively cutting their salaries.
Military- pension earned after 20 years of service (used to be 50% of final salary for life).
I’m sure taxes are a big part, but spending is a bigger part. I spend less than I make at home.Since 1982 the feds have been cutting taxes and "paying" for most of it by pushing items that were once paid by the federal govt down to the states. Not eliminating programs. The states not wanting to raise taxes looked for pockets of money that allowed them to get by another year without doing so. The feds have been raiding the Social Security trust fund in the same way. Not only are they stealing from the pension fund, they are also taking money from the funds set aside to pay for teacher's healthcare.
Government entities cannot continue to fund services at current levels while they reduce their income at the same time. My father worked for UK...when he first started the state paid 88% of cost to run UK. By the time he retired in '88 it was down in the 60s%... today it's about 5%. Wonder why tuition has risen?
So to answer your question the state spent that money instead of asking you to pay higher taxes at the time. Now the governor wants to cut state taxes all while claiming they don't have the money to fund their current obligations. ...because we all know that when you don't have enough money that the first thing you should do is take a pay cut.
Some school districts in the state give everybody in the school free breakfast. That is not the job of the state or it’s taxpayers.
I think Bevin has done a pretty good job dealing with the pension issue. He has made it a top priority unlike his predecessors (mostly dems who heavily relied on the votes of public employees). Next he forced the state to stop using rosy actuarial assumptions which grossly understated the pension problem. This forces the state to set more money aside for pensions each year. Bevin made many painful budget cuts (like higher education) and redirected those funds to shore up the pensions. Finally, he took on the powerful teachers unions and made them take some cuts to their unrealistic pension program. He hasn't fixed the problem and I don't think the legislature is willing to go as far as he would like. However, Bevin has made some real progress and now everyone at knows that the pension shortfall is one of Kentucky's biggest challenges today.
Where I disagree with Bevin is on creating extra revenue to help shore up the pensions. Adding Casio gambling is an obvious source of funds. We are surrounded by other states that allow casino gambling plus we already have the lottery and horse racing. Too bad Bevin won't go for it.
I agree that he has done some good things, but with pension reform, if we lump how he has handled the entirety of the issue(personal attacks lose people’s support) together. Not good.
As a retired school admin, I recognize something needs to change and would be willing to make certain concessions as long as the legislature/rest of the population is willing to do their part. The problem is not the making of school employees or the general public. The problem is there due to politicians being willing to only make decisions that don't interfere with their prospects of re-election. Someone used the parent analogy relative to Bevin's approach to the issue. I understand the poster's position, but if Bevin's behavior in the case of pension reform is illustrative of an approach to parenting, it is illustrative of a very poor, unskilled approach. Nonetheless, a good parent has to make tough calls. Both the general public and those directly impacted by the pension problem need to make sacrifices. Then the pols need to make changes in the system for future employees.
I agree with what you wrote. I wish more of the teachers would be that reasonable. They are pushing back very hard (strikes, threats, etc.) against some relatively small changes to the pension plan such as not counting career unused sick days in the benefit calculation.
Last edited:
What you are describing is a product of big government. It's a product of the mentality that government should provide services and fix our problems. Personally, I want very little from government. I would say what they should be doing is dramatically cutting expenses. They definitely don't need any more more of my money than they are already getting.Since 1982 the feds have been cutting taxes and "paying" for most of it by pushing items that were once paid by the federal govt down to the states. Not eliminating programs. The states not wanting to raise taxes looked for pockets of money that allowed them to get by another year without doing so. The feds have been raiding the Social Security trust fund in the same way. Not only are they stealing from the pension fund, they are also taking money from the funds set aside to pay for teacher's healthcare.
Government entities cannot continue to fund services at current levels while they reduce their income at the same time. My father worked for UK...when he first started the state paid 88% of cost to run UK. By the time he retired in '88 it was down in the 60s%... today it's about 5%. Wonder why tuition has risen?
So to answer your question the state spent that money instead of asking you to pay higher taxes at the time. Now the governor wants to cut state taxes all while claiming they don't have the money to fund their current obligations. ...because we all know that when you don't have enough money that the first thing you should do is take a pay cut.
It's a misunderstanding by the employees fault.....and probably brought about by the misleading of the employers fault.
My father worked for GM for ~45 yrs.....obviously has a pension. They told him when he started working there many moons ago that his pension is not guaranteed......and that it's GM's property since they are in charge of managing it. About every 10 yrs, GM would threaten changing the pension plan.....forcing GM and the UAW to squabble over it. Even now that he is retired, he still gets wind that GM wants to mess with it.
The misunderstanding comes from the idea that the employee is in charge of that pension. They aren't. They don't have nearly as much power/control as they think they do. And, as I said, the employers don't really do much to dispel this.
Now, Kentucky isn't the only state to get rid of pension plans. From what I understand, they don't have to pay teaches that much more for self-funded retirement plans. The money that normally would go to a pension now would go to a retirement plan. You wouldn't need to get paid too much more in order to make the finances work. And teachers would be able to retire as comfortable.....or even more so than before.....but granted they'd have to work as long as the rest of the world.
Also, there is the argument that you won't be able to attract teachers without a pension or early retirement. This is false as well. From what I gather other states haven't seen a big loss in teachers attraction due to this factor. Overall low pay and increasing knowledge (getting a masters, etc) are likely the main driving forces which push people away from teaching.
The main issue that I see from a self funded retirement plan is that I doubt the general public is contributing in a manner in which they should. I think we're breeding a huge portion of the population who aren't really funding their plans until way too late.
The reason for solvency issues in KTRS is bad luck/choices in investments and but primarily inadequate funding by the state. The funding issues can only by spending more money.
If you compare new average teacher pensions by neighboring states, KY ($35K) is less than Illinois (more bankrupt than KY) and Ohio (both $46K) that also don’t participate in Social Security. They pay more than than Tennessee ($18K) West Virginia ($19K) and Indiana ($17K) but those are eligible for Social Security ($20K) which when added makes their benefits greater.
If you compare to other pensions, in 2014 the median income from private pensions and SS is $36K, from government pension and SS is $38K, and from military pensions and SS $37K.
If you want to say some teachers have an over generous pension, there are examples but KY does not really seem to fit. When KY chose to not include their teachers in SS, they assumed a higher level of responsibility for a secure and sufficient pension.
So why did any realistic reform plan discussion never include the movement of new hires or early career teachers into SS along with a 401(k)?
Could it be the huge liability for the existing and entering participants into the current DBP along with constantly decreasing employee contributions or that the cost savings of the new plan would be negligible or nonexistent or that the state would lose its pension piggy bank?
Does it need to be solved? Of course. It will take more money. No matter how. Should the guidelines be radically changed? Maybe? It may make you feel better but it won’t save money in the short run and may not in the long run either. Will it affect the quality of people entering the profession? Probably not but the advantages of staying long would be less.
If you compare new average teacher pensions by neighboring states, KY ($35K) is less than Illinois (more bankrupt than KY) and Ohio (both $46K) that also don’t participate in Social Security. They pay more than than Tennessee ($18K) West Virginia ($19K) and Indiana ($17K) but those are eligible for Social Security ($20K) which when added makes their benefits greater.
If you compare to other pensions, in 2014 the median income from private pensions and SS is $36K, from government pension and SS is $38K, and from military pensions and SS $37K.
If you want to say some teachers have an over generous pension, there are examples but KY does not really seem to fit. When KY chose to not include their teachers in SS, they assumed a higher level of responsibility for a secure and sufficient pension.
So why did any realistic reform plan discussion never include the movement of new hires or early career teachers into SS along with a 401(k)?
Could it be the huge liability for the existing and entering participants into the current DBP along with constantly decreasing employee contributions or that the cost savings of the new plan would be negligible or nonexistent or that the state would lose its pension piggy bank?
Does it need to be solved? Of course. It will take more money. No matter how. Should the guidelines be radically changed? Maybe? It may make you feel better but it won’t save money in the short run and may not in the long run either. Will it affect the quality of people entering the profession? Probably not but the advantages of staying long would be less.
Not false. Consider: I worked many years as a recruiter for a school district. We were not satisfied to simply get local applicants, we pursued bright candidates throughout Ky and other states. You are right in the sense that current salary levels will attract applicants, but you are incorrect if you believe salaries don't have an impact on attracting the best and brightest. I always told my principals that we wanted to hire no teachers that didn't demonstrate the ability to be as good as or better than our best 20% teachers. To attract that type person into the profession, you have to be able to compete with private business. I know this is long, but bear with me: About 25 years ago, I recruited 2 applicants that had degrees in math. Both were brilliant. Both agreed to accept positions with my school district provided they didn't accept positions from as a result of upcoming interviews. Both called me and told me if they had chosen to teach, they would have accepted jobs in my district. However, both had been offered jobs as actuaries with a national company at TWICE the salary. I hated to lose them but at least we were competing with a Fortune 500 company for employees and not Walmart.
I've heard many bright kids that could have gone into other fields say that one of the benefits of teaching was the retirement plan. If the current plan is done away with, we will find fewer and fewer of the best and brightest kids going into the field.
I never said salary doesn't attract applicants. Need to re-read what I wrote.
I said there is an argument out there that because the state is getting rid of the pension system that they'll struggle to find teachers.
And note my last sentence of the paragraph you referenced, "low pay and increasing education demands impact applicants more than pension plans..."
What you say is partially true. People that have better options than teaching can choose those options. If you have an Early Elementary Education degree, the only option you have to use your education is to teach. No matter how poor the pay or benefits are. If your degree is in Math you have private sector options. Benefits can help to level the playing field.
As far as your dad’s pension vs. the teacher’s pension is as you said, GM never said his was guaranteed. The state has in the past specifically said the teacher’s pension is.
The point of my post was to say that a kid doesn't choose to major in education in college because of a pension program. It may be a small factor in the decision process, but when someone is choosing a major they are first going to look at salary, hours, what the job is like, it is rewarding, etc. When the who pension ordeal was going down and finally was removed, I heard many people in the general population (both teachers and non-teachers) say that they'll have a hard time finding teachers now.
As to the other point. If the pensions were slam dunk guaranteed than why were sooooooo many teachers worried about losing their pensions?
If you are going to look at the prospective salaries, then you will surely notice that teachers make less than other professionals. You may decide that less money for fewer hours and a nice pension is a good trade off. The best of the best will be influenced by that. Because they have more options.
As far as being upset about losing the guaranteed pension, it doesn’t mean that government can’t decide to try to take them away. Government always just have their fingers in the wind to see which way it is blowing and how hard.
Yup, pretty much. That’s what I’ve been saying. The salary and the job are larger factors in people deciding to be teachers than a pension. Most 18-20 yr olds don’t think about things like benefits first. And most understand that you can be as (or more) wealthy with a self funded retirement. They might just have to have a longer career.
I guess someone would just have to love teaching because that is a shit salary for a master's degree. I have no degree and easily double that salary. It makes me kind of feel sorry for teachers because they do deal with a bunch of BS especially my oldest son's teacher. He is a little shit.
The first question asked when interviewing prospective teachers was "Why do you want to teach?". Many /most said something like "Because I love kids". That was an immediate strike against them. The correct answer is something like, "I feel it's my calling or my purpose in life" or " I want to make life better for kids" etc.... Bottom line is this: You might love kids that's going to wear thin after about the second week dealing with the typical public school classroom. The profession has to be your calling or purpose in life. I guarantee any person that ever went through public schools can look back and recall the teachers who were there because it was their purpose in life vs the others.
Yup Mojo....
It was one of the dumbest comments a person could have made.
And attaching pension reform to a Sewer Bill was equally dumb...
The conservatives cut off their own heads and served it to Dandy Andy on a platter. Easy to spot a Republican in Frankfort right about now.... They be the ones with heads up their asses....
Where I grew up, the school was the largest employer of the town. Kids either grew up and went back to the farm......or went to college to become a teacher. Of our graduating class of 69, 17 went to college (only 12 made it) to become teachers. It was kinda of all they knew.
The education demands have been there for some time. They actually make it harder on you if you don't have a Masters degree by requiring more CE which all comes out of your own pocket. When my wife started teaching she didn't plan on getting her Masters but after a few years of having to search out classes for CE credits she realized it was ridiculous not to go ahead and get it, get the pay bump and be done with it.
The reality is that there has been a huge falloff of college kids seeking education degrees and without taking actions to attract more people into the profession school districts are going to find it harder and harder to hire teachers. Several states have already resorted to lowering their qualifications for teaching and increasing class sizes in order to "make it work".
This is a point that I have long been making. First off, most people have no idea of how to manager their 401K. Second, they severely underestimate how much they need to save. Third, they wait way too long to start saving. It's amazing how many 40-somethings I know that earn 6 figure salaries and have $50K or less saved for retirement...much less those earning far less with nothing or next to nothing saved. They spent their 20s into their early 30s getting out of school debt, their 30s saving for a home.
Growing up it was mostly high school kids that worked bagging groceries, now it seems they are mostly folks who "should be" retired but are having to continue to work to make ends meet. That's fine as long as their health allows them to do so but at some point that health will likely deteriorate or fail not allowing them to do so. The strain and demand on the "safety net" for the elderly is going to be severely tested in the years to come.
