A' 'Yes' To Detroit's Grand Bargain Means Things Will Get Ugly

"From C.P.A. - Tom Barrow:

A number of Detroit pensioners have asked whether they should vote "Yes" or "No" on the so-called "Grand Bargain". While as CFDF president, I explained that I nor several of our members are not city retirees, I explained that my mother and others in my family were and are. For that reason, our organization has agreed to go record telling what I and the membership of CFDF believes would have been in my mom's and my family's best interest.

I begin stating that I have read the voluminous 3" thick document (no average senior citizen will likely ever read it or understand its complex legalese). As CFDF president, I also reviewed the proposed ballot received, as well as its so-called "claw back" amount seeking repayments of some heretofore unannounced debt due from city retiree's .

Having said that, we are convinced that the "Grand Bargain" would not have been a bargain for my mom no my family, further that its so-called "claw back" provision is entirely arbitrary and an overall horrible deal for the city's retirees. Instead, we see the "bargain" as a proposal which shifts responsibility onto the most vulnerable as if somehow retirees are responsible for the city's "phony" malaise.

The first glaring anomaly is that the "bargain" requires retirees to waive essential constitutional rights to sue the State or City forever. Cleverly, this means that even if currently pending federal lawsuits are successful and the EM law struck down as unconsitutional, retirees will have consented not to sue and will have assented to cut their own income and eliminate their own generationally promised benefits.

Why, because the pension obligation is a state constitutionally mandated obligation. This provision alone should cause any rational retiree to question how grand the "Bargain" truly is."

Read more: http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2014/06/a-yes-to-detroits-grand-bargain-means.html#ixzz34uxwh3xE