Senator
“Herb” Kohl is the senior senator from the state of Wisconsin. He’s a
democrat. He was first elected to office way back in 1988. Twenty-two
years in the senate comes with some important responsibilities. The good
senator is on the Appropriations, Judiciary, and Banking Committees. He
is the Chairman of both the Special Committee on Aging and the
Agricultural Appropriations Committee.
Bottom line; Herb Kohl has clout in D.C. He is one of
America’s elder statesmen. So when he asks for a favor it’s very hard to
say “no”. I wonder what Tim Geithner is going to do with Herb’s recent
letter asking for a change in the rules for retirement ages for cops and
fireman from the great state of Wisconsin and every other state in the
Union. Here’s what Senator Kohl is asking for:
I ask
that you amend the regulations to make clear that the public safety
employees safe harbor apply to WRS protective occupation participants.
These participants put their lives on the line every day to protect our
citizens and they deserve to retire with full benefits at the ages of 53 and 54.
I’ve got nothing against cops and I’ve always liked fireman. It’s not
that I don’t think this group of people shouldn’t get a leg up. But at
whose expense? What about those nurses, EMT folks, and ER Docs? What
about everyone else?
The country is about to increase the Social Security retirement age and
push back eligibility for Medicare to 67. And Kohl wants to cut the cops
a sweetheart deal where they can retire with full benefits 12 years
before anyone else.
We have two classes of workers in the USA; those that work for
government and those in the private sector. There are two different sets
of rules. The differences are in the number of holidays, benefits (far
superior health care), job security and retirement benefits. Senator
Kohl’s proposal makes the gap even larger.
Senator Kohl needs to understand that America is not the rich country
that it once was. Our states, cities and municipalities simply can no
longer afford the largess proposed by Kohl. The rules that he suggests
are fair and reasonable actually aren’t fair or reasonable at all.
Senator Kohl is not blind. Nor is he uninformed. He must know that a
suggestion like this is going to be received very badly by the folks who
have to pay for it. That said, watch out for this one. Kohl’s clout makes even this proposal a possibility.
It’s an even money bet that this will happen. Special interest politics
is the way of the land these days. But here’s my bet for the Senator: Those cops and fireman who will get this benefit will never see those checks.
The government promises they are relying on will be broken at some
point in the future. America does not have the resources to make these
promises anymore. We will go broke because so many of these special
interest promises have been made.
We can hope and even expect that our political leaders will do the
“right thing” in these difficult times. There is a broad awareness that
everyone is going to have to do a bit more and get a bit less in the New America.
But that does not seem to be the case with this Senator. He is working
against the best interests of the country. In the end, those that he is
trying to curry favor from will be the losers. I suspect the Senator
knows this. He doesn’t care.
The full letter from Senator Kohl to Tim Geithner:
Secretary
United States Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20220
purpose of this letter is to express my concern regarding the impact
of certain Treasury regulations on the normal retirement age (“NRA”) of
protective occupation participants, including police officers and fire
fighters, in the Wisconsin Retirement System (“WRS”). I ask that you
modify your regulations to ensure that these public safety employees
can maintain their current NRA under the WRS.
2007, the Treasury Department issued final regulations on NRA in
pension plans (the “NRA Regulations”)(1.401(a)-1(b)). NRA is a term
referring to the earliest age at which a pension plan participant can
retire with an unreduced benefit from their plan.
general, the NRA Regulations provide that, “normal retirement age
under a plan must be an age that is not earlier than the earliest age
that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the
industry in which the covered workforce is employed.” The regulations
go on to provide that a NRA of 62 or older would meet this requirement.
However, whether an NRA of ages 55 to 62 meets the general rule would
be based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances - and an NRA
that is less than 55 years is presumed to be unreasonable (unless
determined otherwise by the IRS Commissioner).
the WRS, all state employees are in the same plan. General employees
constitute about 90.7 percent of the plan's active participants - and
protective occupation participants make up about 8.7 percent.
Protective occupation participants under the WRS include those
employees whose principal duties involve active law enforcement or
active fire suppression or prevention, frequent exposure to a high
degree of danger or peril and a high degree of physical conditioning.
Protective occupation participants include police officers and fire
fighters.
NRA for general employees under the WRS is age 65. However, the NRA
age for protective occupation participants in the WRS is age 53 with 25
years of service or age 54 with less than 25 years of service.
the NRA for WRS protective occupation participants is less than 55
years, under the NRA Regulations, there would be a negative presumption
that the age is unreasonable. And if the NRA is deemed unreasonable,
the age may need to be raised to comply with the regulations.
public safety employees in other state pension plans avoid this result
through the public safety employees safe harbor in the NRA
Regulations. Under the safe harbor, a NRA under a plan that is age 50 or
later would meet the requirements of the regulations if substantially
all of the participants in the plan are qualified public safety
employees. However, even though WRS protected occupation participants
are qualified public safety employees, this safe harbor may not apply to
them. This is because they participate in the same plan as general
employees and do not constitute a majority of the total active
membership. Therefore, protective occupation participants within WRS may
not meet the “substantially all” requirement of the safe harbor.
ask that you amend the regulations to make clear that the public
safety employees safe harbor apply to WRS protective occupation
participants. These participants put their lives on the line every day
to protect our citizens and they deserve to retire with full benefits at
the ages of 53 and 54. Furthermore, these participants were promised
these benefits and relied on these promises. Therefore, it's unjust to
cut their benefits after the fact.
Chairman
J. Mark Iwry, Senior Adviser to the Secretary, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Retirement and Health Policy, United States Department of
Treasury
The Police ARE the status quo. They are not revolutionaries.
Exactly, see comments below regarding an armed citizen.
People get what they deserve. They elected this piece of crap.
This from one of my favorite political writers:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke163179.html#ixzz1KuxHBrbHH. L. Mencken
67% voted for this asshat. All will suffer.
Is he mad?!
Oh, wait a minute, Bernanke is and Geithner is and...
Yep, he's in with his peers.
DavidC
He's making sure when the time comes he can tell the cops he overly compensated with the tax payers money to fire on the taxpayers that will eventually be rioting outside his office.
Oath Keepers
"Orders we will NOT obey"
The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
"We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty."
And this is where it all starts from. What we do to others we (eventually) do to ourselves.
...unless, of course, you have an "ethnic" sounding name,...like José Padilla.
"We will obey the order to retire at 54", which is somehow different than confiscating the property of the American people, if you squint.
Pops, give an oath keepers card to a Maryland state trooper and you will be reported as a terrorist..and be subject to the laws that Homeland sec has set up..watch out
Excellent question to explore. Other than those paid to monitor this site how many out there are in or have close connections to the "keepers of the peace" i.e. military a police? What is your sense of how many would blindly follow any order and how many would follow the Oath Keepers pledge. Not you personally since gestapo-minded people wouldn't be on this site voluntarily, but those you know?
9 out of 10 police, national guard, and active military will fire on unarmed Amerikan citizens if ordered to.
They are real patriots and real men.
If you cut cops, the cops still keep their firearms. In NYC, only cops both active and retired (as well as criminals of course), have firearms.
The more cops you have with firearms, the more loyal militia you have in the government's pocket. Militia or para military, take your pick. The moment you start cutting, you run the risk of armed unemployed cops siding with the criminals ... or stepping back when the populace appears with pitchforks at City Hall.
Disgruntled cops are dangerous to have around - nearly as dangerous as unemployed veterans.
dupe
dupe
The bigger share of the government nipple you give cops and the like, the harder they will stomp on your neck when you arrive with your pitchforks. They need to feel the pain like the rest of the serfs. As paid mercenaries, their loyalty lies with their fat benefits and paychecks. If they get to feel what it is like to have to pay a $300 jaywalking ticket, what it is like to get laid-off and stand in the unemployment line like 10m or so Americans, it might just shake the Gestapo out of their blue uniforms. Type in police brutality on YouTube and get a clear picture of what their dream benefits and salary packages gets ordinary citizens.
Cops (retired or not) with or without guns are far less dangerous than the inability to attract new recruits over the long-term...soon, only dirty cops will still be on the force.
"We can hope and even expect that our political leaders will do the “right thing” in these difficult times."
STFU
Funny that he wants to lower the retirement age and funnel more taxpayer dollars to the same special interest groups that lobby to cut funding and reduce taxpayer support for VOLUNTEER firefighters, deputies, and EMTs, and often require them to purchase their own liability insurance in order to volunteer.
+100
Of course, can't have those "volunteer" people who want to do our jobs and not get paids gobs and gobs of money to do so. It may say "protect and serve" on the side of the car, but they never seem to answer the question of "whom are they protecting and serving?"
If someone wants to volunteer to do a dangerous job, isn't that the "service" attitude we like to see, instead of the "gimme" attitude that is so prevalent? But hey, gotta protect our jobs from those illegal aliens who are trying to take them from us!
Talk about having a tin ear for the music! But this is classic "I don't care about the Country, I only care about my special interests". Where will the money come from? More debt? More printing? In this wonderful economy how in the world does he expect normal taxpayers to cover this entitlement?
In a normal environment, when jobs are scarce, this preferential treatment wouldn't be necessary. So instead, we have a protected special class. I am pretty sure the classes to become police and firefighters are packed with applicants, at least they are where I live, so why the need to enhance what is already a sweet package?
If this is how the "grownups" behave, no wonder the childeren are out of control.
Absurd. Kohl is just another hack liberal politician, pandering to public employee unions.
Special class particularization is a Liberal Progressive specialty. Its herding those cats that's tough.
No it isn't, but did you learn generalizing from the particular from Rush?
Identity politics has become more the norm across the political spectrum, but the liberals are the founders and masters of the art.
+1