I took a lady to the hospital the other day; she had picked her nose until it bled. A few hours later, and thousands of dollars worth of catscans and whatever else, a private ambulance took her home to her government paid for room in one of the hi-rises. They needed an extra seat for her government paid for bag 'o meds.

She's fifty, and diabetic, and three hundred pounds. Multiply that by hundreds, every day.

I'm not judging, just some perspective for the people who wonder why firefighters get upset when we are told there is no money.

A 3% cola based on 50 % of our three highest earning years, without overtime, holiday or detail pay after a three year wait which begins on the first January after retirement is what we have. (had)

Social Security cola's over the last 20 years have averaged about 3%. Compounded.

Michael - Speak only for yourself. Half of the current pensioners from your department are receiving 5-6% COLAs. And more than half are on disability. Facts are stubborn things, which is why, I assume, you argue exclusively from anecdotes and emotion.

There is no money. If the above abuses were rectified with the assistance of your union, then perhaps there would be more money available for your 3% COLA. They were not rectified, despite the promise that your union made to the city, so now everyone must suffer.

Pointing out other abuses doesn't logically excuse the abuses in your own department. In fact, the abuses compound one another and justify more drastic action.

Micheal, perhaps we do see something in the same light...

"just some perspective for the people who wonder why firefighters get upset when we are told there is no money"

Well, to start I think we can all agree that the money for what you described in your post comes from different 'buckets', and a lot of it is Federal money.

OK, so only some of it is state/local money, fine.

BUT... in the end, it's "US", the people who actually pay taxes, that pay for ALL of it. Federal, state, local, property, payroll, excise, sales, tax, tax, tax. . .

IT'S TOO BIG.

It's all just too big.

If we, as a country were just reasonable with all the entitlements... provide a base, a safety net (because we are, or used to be an affluent society and can afford it), and THAT's it. Then we'd would easily be able to afford providing a FAIR and reasonable compensation package to all of our public employees.

And I'm just mentioning entitlements, but there are literally hundreds or thousands of "programs" that cost so much money...

Small(er) government, along with a motivated, involved and productive populous might be just a dream.... but it sure is a good one if you ask me.

We need more producers and fewer takers... then we could easily afford fair and competitive compensation for our public employees.

Unfortunately the problem is not just a local one, you Michael may be directly effected by it, but it's not just Providence's problem.

Believe it or not, I wish you well. NO cola for 20+ yrs is tough to take. But it's those 6% colas that are part of what got us into this situation.

Pretty much no one is blameless.

"two Providence Councilors, John Igliozzi and Terry Hassett now are seeking to amend the ordinance that the City Council just voted on a few days ago, to now lessen the cuts by $3-4 million"

This is a beautiful thing. Now they can go around telling voters, oh, yes, I voted for pension reform. Twice, you betcha!

And they can look union members and retirees in the eye and say, isn't this awful? I tried like mad to stop it.

Perfect!

Typical Democrat SCUM BAGS.
Just the kind of diabolical garbage 799 has helped elect for decades.

Here is what I find odd. Right after the 2nd council vote on the pension ordinance changes, Tavares announced he had a deal with Brown. I bet Simmons said Brown isn't ponying up any more money to the city unless you have pension reform in place first. Now, the two nitwits who voted twice in favor of the ordinances want to amend the changes. Call me crazy, but this looks like it was planned all along.

Don Botts ---

Seems to me that the timing of the Brown announcement was __right about the same time__ as the State Senate was set to take up the 25% bill that would charge universities like Brown lots of money. Not your thoeory.