tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post5177908534954676875..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: His political future related to odd Tucker tacticsJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-30679505166789203142011-06-22T19:02:18.621-05:002011-06-22T19:02:18.621-05:001. Yes, it did. I'd be glad to pay it if manda...1. Yes, it did. I'd be glad to pay it if mandated.<br /><br />2. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. As the post reveals, since $690 million already is being transferred from the general fund to pay for excess retirement payments now or in the future, it doesn't matter whether the extra goes into LASERS first or takes a detour through the general fund. It all works out the same.<br /><br />3. I call it state employees paying their fair share for generous retirement benefits.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-18153208043333228602011-06-06T08:05:14.349-05:002011-06-06T08:05:14.349-05:00Query: You are a state employee. Did this Bill p...Query: You are a state employee. Did this Bill propose to raise your contributions 3%? If not, why not? Good policy, huh?<br /><br />Second query: Why would you support raising employee retirement contributions that do NOT, because of thinly disguised legislative maneuvers, benefit the retirement system or the system benenficiaries? Why would Jindal even try to do this? <br /><br />Third query: If it is not a revenue raiser for the General Fund, to pay operational expenses of state government, what would you call it?<br /><br />Very sophisticated commentary on your part: "blithering idiot."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com