Councilwoman Laura Friedman recently stated Social Security and city pension benefits should not be compared ("Unions agree to share the fiscal pain,” July 6). She further stated Social Security “was never meant to be the pensions or the savings of this nation. It was meant to be something to keep people out of abject poverty.”
Were the city pensions initially given to city employees supposed to make them millionaires when they retired? Should a Glendale city employee be entitled to a pension after 30 years, receiving 90%, 75% or 60% of their last year of spiked earnings? Do Social Security recipients receive spiked earnings?
Many city employees are leaving Glendale with lifetime annual pensions of from $70,000 to more than $200,000.
Council members continue to receive political action committee funds legally from the city unions and then they approve salaries and pensions that are both unfunded and unsustainable.
The first obligation of all government is to find money to pay for those unsustainable pensions. What money is left over goes toward fixing potholes, dirty parks, dirty streets and libraries.
How does Friedman tell the people on fixed incomes, and struggling working families, that she finds it justifiable to keep supporting city employees first because she feels that Social Security and a government pension should not be compared?