• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Cynthia Rutledge of Oak Creek writes:

I’m responding to the Sunday, September 16, 2007 article in SPEAKOUT by Senators Fitz-Gerald, Gordon, McElhany and Penry.
Our state legislators are abusing their authority with repeated attempts at manipulating the investment of Colorado PERA’s defined benefit pension funds for an increasing list of divestment “imperatives.” It is the PERA members and retirees who OWN these funds, not the taxpayers at large and not the General Assembly. Our mandated contributions and those of our employers are made subject to contractual agreements and are in lieu of contributions to social security. Nowhere is it stated that legislators may usurp the purpose for which our retirement funds are invested to promote their own or other’s version of our nation’s foreign policy, their own ideology or to repay their own benefactors.
Two years ago PERA’s defined benefit plan was considered so fragile the then State Treasurer felt it imperative to propose benefit changes. Four months ago the State’s General Assembly forced divestment from companies doing business with Sudan at an estimated cost to the same defined benefit fund of up to $3,000,000. Rep.Victor Mitchell considered it imperative that PERA’s defined benefit members pay all costs of divestment out of their funds, thus bearing the total financial burden for a social statement supposedly made for all Coloradoans.
Now we have yet another “imperative” proposal known to be vigorously promoted by foreign nationals and powerful lobbies to divest from Iran. And yes, it’ll cost us.
Legislative oversight is not a mandate to pillage and plunder pension funds for ANY purpose. Remember, while members of PERA’s defined benefit plans are paying for a proliferation of divestment proposals now, ALL Colorado taxpayers will end up paying for the legislated decimation of PERA’s trust fund in the future.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

I wonder how much money the author has contributed to Social Security? Of those of us that have, we have no control on how this money is "invested". And yes, if PERA goes toes up, we who have contrbuted to Social Security will have to bail PERA out.

Don't get your panties in a twist Stan. After 40 years of "contributing" to SS, I took a job with the state. Because I have to "contribute" to PERA, the feds have seen it appropriate that they cut my SS, at this point about 35%. I would get much more out of SS, (although nowhere near what I would get if I was allowed to invest the money) if I did nothing for the next ten years. I have all the necessary requirement for SS, but will take the hit. SS would get no more if I didn't work or did work, but widh to punish me anyway.

Stan-

You make it sound as if state employees are enemies of Social Security. When you work for the state you HAVE to contribute to PERA, no choice. I will probably lose most of my Social Security because I have worked much longer for the state. Not fair, but that's the way it is.

Are these on Democrats trying to manipulate my money?

c I HAVE to give the government money for SSI and dont have any options. if it runs short its to bad for me, but as with you and pera no big deal as it is a government program and the general tax payer will foot the bill. clinton wanted to make ssi like pera in some aspects so that people like me could have private investment accounts and all of the top dems cheered for hours over it. well it turned out to be just another talking point to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy that they were going to do something to help the common person. they took fast and responsive action and never spoke of it again. Bush comes along and digs this wonderful plan, created by clinton, out of the dems trash can and says lets get this done. whoa said all of the same top dems that is a really bad idea and it would only make some people rich in the investment world. we wont stand for that at all.
so c dont feel so bad about the fact that you have to contribute to pera. working for the state you probably will end up with more money than you would have with ssi.

If the state can't take care of its employees forced donations to the PERA and those who work for the state are payed by taxpayers money, maybe the legislators who cause the loss of the PERA money should be arrested on charges similar to the corporate thieves who fraudulenty stole investors money.

Is not the state employee's money an investment in their future the same as investors in corporations stock is? Well not quite, the state employees are paid by taxpayer money so the legislators are also defrauding the taxpayers as well. All the more reason to kick the bums living on our money out of office and put them where they belong, which rightfully is the responsibility of the Court System.

Throw politicians in prison??? Wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment for the present inmates?

Working for the state of Colorado was the most opressive job I ever held. From the administrators in the division I worked at to the micro managing legistature and Governor's office. I especially found the legislators to be the most ignorant and pompous individuals I had ever met. They magically became "experts" in all fields from medicine to finanace as soon as they were elected to office. The reigning party (mostly republican while I was employed) became self- rightious and vindictive to towards state govt employees., & anyone who didn't "do as they were told."
The legislature chose to participate in PERA as well, so now they muscle in and want to tell PERA how to invest. I really think they just want their hands on the PERA finances. God forbid.

POST A COMMENT

• Editorial abashes, outrages CSU alum
• Post, Rocky deteriorating
• Short shrift to toddler
• Stein tipped the balance
• Comic outrageous
• Magnificent photo
• Get out of Iraq now
• The search for Steve Fossett