I am confused, Fred. I thought Kanerva v Weems settled this matter. Surely the governor has been advised. Can you explain what the politicians are thinking, why it's good for them, and how they might prevail?
Yes. It is confusing. What is a settled matter is the issue of diminished pension benefits. And it also seems to guarantee health insurance as a pension benefit that cannot be diminished. In talking to those who are wiser than me, what is not so settled is what the state is responsible for funding. The point of the IRTA lawsuit is to show that the actuarial numbers will force a reduction in what is in the fund and that it will be zero meaning a cost to us and a reduction in the benefit. As to why they want to do this? Beats me.
I am confused, Fred. I thought Kanerva v Weems settled this matter. Surely the governor has been advised. Can you explain what the politicians are thinking, why it's good for them, and how they might prevail?
Yes. It is confusing. What is a settled matter is the issue of diminished pension benefits. And it also seems to guarantee health insurance as a pension benefit that cannot be diminished. In talking to those who are wiser than me, what is not so settled is what the state is responsible for funding. The point of the IRTA lawsuit is to show that the actuarial numbers will force a reduction in what is in the fund and that it will be zero meaning a cost to us and a reduction in the benefit. As to why they want to do this? Beats me.