LAGUNA HILLS: Ronald Owen Davies: Staff writer Teri Sforza [“Living longer hazardous to pension health,” Local, Jan. 19] takes a nice look at the pending failure of the outrageously generous California public employee pension system. However, I do wish she wouldn't say

MCT Illustrations.

“hikes will force cities et al to pay some 50 percent more for pensions over the next several years.” Cities don't pay. Those of us who don't work for the government pay. And we are getting annoyed at the double dipping (retiring, then taking another government job), the working while receiving disability pay and early retirement on nearly full pay by “civil servants.”

There is such a simple solution to the pension problem that I can't understand why it hasn't been done. All public employees are put on Social Security when they become 66 or older, like the rest of us. And any public employee who wants to retire at the ridiculously young age of 55 can just wait until 66 to collect benefits. If someone “retires” from one government job to take another, that person can choose which benefits to take, not both.

Any “retirement” benefits should stop when these employees take any other job. Retirement means retirement. Police and firefighters who can't physically work in the field after age 50 can take desk jobs until 66.

Problem solved. Bring me the ballot measure to sign.

Disability double dip

IRVINE: Mark Smith: I remember reading that Fullerton Police officer Jay Cicinelli indicated he has had no income since leaving the Fullerton P.D. [“Hiring, not the firing, is the issue,” News, Jan. 19]. However, as we found out, he is receiving disability payments, and rightfully so, for losing his eye in the line of duty. Receiving disability payments and then working in the same profession is unbelievable.

I personally know someone in the same situation, who receives disability and then works in the same capacity somewhere else.

The per capita income in Fullerton, adjusted for inflation, is approximately $30,000 yearly. The average worker receives roughly 30 percent less than Cicinelli's pension. How can CalPERS and the taxpayers of this state allow this?

Crime and punishment

IRVINE: Paul Kroesen: They may have been simpler times – growing up in a small Iowa town years ago. Father interviewed the police chief for his newspaper, who said, “People should be treated like family, if they get out of line the punishment should fit the crime.”

One Halloween, I was nabbed for throwing tomatoes at cars. After being held for a while I was told, “It is Halloween. If Hattie Gerstner's outhouse is tipped over, you will set it back up and paint it!” So I spent the night guarding an outhouse.

A little patience in dealing with an uncooperative, albeit mentally disturbed, homeless man like Kelly Thomas would surely be better than beating him, resulting in his death. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Carbon affects climate

BREA: Peggy Austin: I support letter-writer Jere Lipps' suggestion [“Climate change criticism,” Jan. 12] that it's time to provide readers with another editorial addressing the reality of global warming, one that includes the scientific data provided by scientists who are qualified in climatology or atmospheric physics and who have published research in legitimate peer-reviewed journals.

The Register itself, in the September 2013 “Special Report: Climate change a rising tide,” refers repeatedly to the reality of climate change, including the statement from Peter Goldmark, who, when referring to extreme weather events and droughts [“Climate change a two-fold plan,” Sept. 28], wrote that “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us to expect [extreme weather] if we continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere in growing amounts.”

Having already addressed the reality, it would be so beneficial to the public if the Register would direct the debate away from denial of climate change and toward policy solutions.

Extend unemployment

IRVINE: Bill Schmitendorf: The Register reported recently that the new budget passed by Congress includes $520 billion for defense, other than war expenses [“House backs $1.1 trillion budget bill,” Jan. 16]. The cost of extending unemployment benefits is $6.4 billion, or about 1.2 percent of the defense budget. I believe most Americans would support decreasing defense spending by 1.2 percent to help those who can't find a job.

I should also note that the claim that people are collecting unemployment rather than getting a job seems to be contradicted by the fact that, recently, 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs at a new Walmart in Georgetown. People want to work even at low wages, but there are not enough jobs.


Join the conversation

Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement
