Travis Rowley: Are Future Pension Payments “Property”?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
While everyone prays for a positive outcome, one potential roadblock to pension reform is being continually brought up for discussion: Do public employees have a property right to their pensions? Is it even legal to make adjustments to the benefits system?
Absent a law degree, this writer will have to admit to some insecurity when predicting how a court may answer this question. But even those with law degrees differ over the issue. So, whatever.
This pension crisis is only a crisis precisely because the pension is “unfunded.” The money just isn’t there. Any court ruling that confirms a property right to money that is paid from an empty pension fund would be a decision that says that government workers have a right to other people’s property.
Inconceivable, right?
Sure, one could make the case that Rhode Island’s government employees were lied to, and robbed by, union leaders and Democratic politicians; that they are victims of the union-Democrat alliance. But how does that give them a right to more of your money? It’s difficult to recall a similar argument being made for the victims of Bernie Madoff.
State Employees' Lawsuit
It is probably pertinent to point out that this is the precise ruling – legally feasible or not – that labor leaders are cheering for. State employee unions have already filed a pending lawsuit against the state for minor pension changes that were made in 2009 and 2010 by the General Assembly, claiming that even these tiny cutbacks amounted to unjust “takings” of government employees’ property.
Executive Director of Council 94 Ken DeLorenzo blasted, “We believe the government can’t take away your life or your property.”
Unless you’re a taxpayer. In that case, the public unions are all for it.
The situation is dire. As absurd as a court ruling in favor of the unions might sound, more ridiculous decisions have been made by the judiciary. Besides, what if the reigning judge is a Democratic partisan who sympathizes with public unions? Or perhaps owes his entire political career to organized labor? Is that so unthinkable here in Rhode Island?
The kick is up. The ball is in the air, and heading toward the goalpost. Rhode Islanders are on their feet, waiting to see if the unions will, once again, provide the gust of wind that sends Democrats wide to the left.
- Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is chairman of the RI Young Republicans and a consultant for the Barry Hinckley Campaign for US Senate.
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
Comments:
George Smith
8:29am on Saturday, May 28, 2011
Here's someone worse than Madoff. Read the information at this link and forward it to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html
Real Clear
2:17pm on Saturday, May 28, 2011
You have to love how cut-throat Republican operatives are. Using the same rationalizations used by cooporate raiders for destroying private pensions like Almacs. Now silver spoon fed like Travis wish to do the same to public employees. This way they can avoid paying their share of public services.
Tom R.
3:39pm on Saturday, May 28, 2011
Real Clear, what the hell are you talking about? RIers haven't paid their fair share? Republicans didn't raid the pension system. Dems and unions failed to fund it...and please spare everyone the class warfare crap.
jkl the 2nd
12:24pm on Sunday, May 29, 2011
How come Republicans on the State pension system never sway with you Travis ????
Christine Auxier
2:25pm on Sunday, May 29, 2011
I am a teacher in the Providence system. I pay a little more than $3,000 a year toward the state pension system. I've been in the system for 20 years so that's approximately $60,000 that I have contributed not counting COPE, and union dues. I would love to have invested the money but the state pension fund is mandatory. Do I get my $60,000 back, do all the other teacher get their money back. What about interest? Whose talking to the former Republican governors who borrowed money from out pensions? Do we get that back with interest?
Lastly, what if everyone in the state system asked for their money back? What would happen then?
Will Collette
5:46pm on Sunday, May 29, 2011
A young man of Travis’ education and wisdom should be aware that an unbroken string of Supreme Court decisions stretching over decades and issued by courts of every political stripe have held that contracts do convey enforceable legal and property rights. And they cannot be broken simply because one of the parties wants out. You can’t change or amend a contract without mutual agreement.
Our economy, indeed our society, cannot have it any other way. An arch-conservative like young Travis should understand the chaos it would cause for businesses if they could no longer count on contracts to set binding terms. How would you execute a sales contract? A service contract? An employment contract? A construction contract?
The sanctity of contracts is even enshrined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) which prohibits “any bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
Whether it’s the contract young Travis signs with his contractor to build his first McMansion or the contract guaranteeing specified pension benefits to a public worker, the law considers those contracts to be binding, unbreakable and immutable without the mutual consent of the parties. Shame on you, Travis, for talking such nonsense.
Tom R.
12:19pm on Monday, May 30, 2011
Shame on travis? You people criticizing this column seem pretty uptight (maybe you have public pensions?)...Rowley admitted to being unsure how a court will rule (by the way, there are arguments on both sides). But is asking how people can have a property right to other people's money. This column drew attention to the reality of the matter: the pension fund, that employees and taxpayers paid into, was virtually stolen. Mismanaged.
Contract law? Do the contracts say that taxpayers must pay a certain amount? Because they did. It's just that the money was virtually stolen. Or do the contracts say that the retirees must receive payments from a raided fund no matter what? I don't think rowley is arguing against the importance of contracts. It's just a matter of what the contracts truly say.
I think it would be unfortunate for the court to side with the unions. Because as raimondo says, that will make solving this problem very difficult. And as rowley says, it's a "tyrannical" decision. And we'll probably see more people leave RI because of it.
Tom R.
12:21pm on Monday, May 30, 2011
interesting....
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/feb/27/gina-raimondo/raimondo-says-law-has-not-established-whether-rhod/