Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moderndukes t1_iydwuip wrote

Reply to comment by instantcoffee69 in Baltimore City Board of Ethics says new pension bill presents conflict of interest by contra_account

It really isn’t corrupt, it’s simple logic. Voters passed term limits, the consequence of that is that virtually nobody will then qualify for pensions per the current formula.

They should either (1) get rid of the term limits or (2) amend the pension to kick in after 8 years but be either lower paying or proportional in some manner.

What is corrupt, though, is the Sinclair scheme behind all of these changes to City government and the impact it’ll have.

8

_MyMomDressedMe_ t1_iyedl8v wrote

Term limits do not prevent them from holding a different office. They could still easily serve the city for 20 years and earn a pension.

Edit: grammar

10

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iyf78f5 wrote

But they can’t though. The pension is for elected office and they’re honestly not that many elected offices. Plus with this bill they can only run twice in 12 years. So essentially no one is getting a pension.

Again this is a horrible bill that will not solve the problem of corruption in Baltimore politics. Instead it will just make it worse.

5

pk10534 t1_iyf2snf wrote

Can we please stop with the narrative that Baltimore city voters are too stupid to make autonomous choices and only voted for term limits because Sinclair duped us into it? There is and has been broad support for term limits nationwide for a long time, and even without Sinclair dropping a dime on this I’m sure it would’ve still passed.

You’re also just incorrect - the councilman can still get pensions, they just have to do 4 more years working for the state in another position, and if the pension is that valuable, it shouldn’t be that hard for a council member from the state’s largest city to find a state job. They’re also more than welcome to contribute to a 401k like the rest of us, especially given that they make what is likely a top 1% percentile of income in this city. I cannot think of a single other job outside of the president where 8 years qualifies you to be paid by the taxpayers for the rest of your life

3

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iyf7yt1 wrote

I won’t stop the narrative because I kind of believe it. You kind of admit and every analysis admits alit as well. Every single amendment that has come up to a vote for the past 25 years or so has been “yes”. I still think that term limits (except for the executive branch) is not a good idea and creates new and worse problems.

And the pension is for elected positions only. So it not that easy. The only people running now will be those who are wealthy enough to not worry about saving for a retirement.

4

pk10534 t1_iyfblt5 wrote

Again, have you ever heard of a 401k? That is absolutely absurd to say they have no options for retirement savings. Secondly, 82% of Americans want term limits. Has Sinclair suddenly hypnotized 200+ million Americans, or is it more likely that it’s a pretty bipartisan opinion that politicians in a democracy should not have unlimited durations of political power?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/tomboulides-testimony

−2

instantcoffee69 t1_iyf88qj wrote

Yea it's an odd stance that many people have. Either Baltimore voters are too dumb to make wise choices (Sinclair duped them view), or the people are to dumb to vote for "good" politicians (the white suburban view)

I personally was against term limits, but being pro-self determination can lead to these results.

0

todareistobmore t1_iye2tun wrote

Agree by and large, but re: (2) this bill doesn't change the pension payout, just when people become eligible for it.

2

moderndukes t1_iyeate8 wrote

I would still argue it’s better than giving former officer holders absolutely no pension. It also might not be legal for them to amend the size of their own pensions - I know for Congress, when they change their pay rates, it takes effect for the next Congress not the current.

Plus, what’s being missing in all the analysis here on Reddit is it’s changing it from 12 years to 8 years. It’s a reduction of a single term, and aligns with the new term limits.

Overall, it’s people freaking out over something that’s logical and not super corrupt, and that freak out only plays into the hands of those trying to further fuck up our government.

−3

howsguess t1_iyednb0 wrote

I was one of the ones screaming the nerve of them too.I'm not a fan,but Moseby has a point.

−2