Gov. Terry Branstad wants state employees to pay part of their own health insurance. Why do taxpayers have to pay Branstad more than $50,000 a year for a pension when he was governor for 16 years before he ran again? How many state employees get that benefit?
He should have to forego that pension for now. I would say that if he was a Democrat.
Dennis A. Benda
Toledo
Yep, Da Guv sure knows how to game the system! He’s got his salary as Guv, his pension as Guv, his pension from being a placeholder president of Des Moines University, income from his several partnerships and corporations, fees from the numerous boards on which he serves, and who knows what other income from other sources.
Don’t hold your breath for him to pay anything back.
It’s good to be Da Guv.
Thousands of military veterans are receiving retirement benefits from multiple govt postitions they have held. Should they be denied those benifits?
It all depends on the level of the graft.
There is no graft. just govt policy that has been in place for more than 100 years. Again, is anyone willing to change the existing rules that allow veterans (govt employees) to receive multiple govt retirement benifits. Benefits that were earned, by the way.
Is this your real name? That’s the rule.
If a military veteran were receiving a full salary while enlisted in a military organization and, at the same time, receiving a full-pay 20-year service pension from the same military organization, then, yes, I’d have a problem with that.
Mr Anthony,
Branstad was never in the military. Your comment is irrelevant, off topic. and annoying.
People who work for the state ar not allowed to double dip. Once you are retired, you are retired.
Isn’t it astonishing how quickly Mr. Ahart can change his name?
The difference would be what veterans risked and sacrificed in their service to our country. I would say they more than earned their small pensions.
I’ve always hesitated to bring his up for fear of the hysterical backlash, but has anyone ever thought about how many veterans never served in a combat role or even left the United States for that matter? I’m curious about how many people are drawing a pension for signing on to a job for twenty or more years. I’m fully supportive of those who served in a combat role or in a hostile area getting all the benefits we can throw at them. I just wonder about those who served perhaps in a clerical role, stateside, or something similar. Does anyone know anything about how these are classified and the benefits they receive? How much is it costing for the pensions for these people? Not just the pensions, but the VA health care, etc. I’ve never seen this discussed anywhere.
Being retired military, I always find it laughable that people who didn’t serve this country through military service are always the first to complain about the retirement that I and many others earned through our service. Frankly, you should be embarrassed to question that. Whether someone served in peacetime or at war does not matter. I thankfully, was never called to serve in combat. But the time I served, there were places like Lebanon, the Phillipines, Grenada and Panama where the President called on the military to protect US interests abroad. In fact, many good friends died in far off places like Lebanon. Does that mean that my service is not held as highly as our combat veterans? That I didn’t earn my pension? Holding the office of governor and double or triple dipping on his pensions is quite different than my siting on a flight line waiting to be loaded on a C-5 fully combat loaded with live ammunition to fly to the Phillipines or combat exercises so close to the 38th parallel you are a target for North Korean snipers. Kurt for you to insinuate that my peace time service does not warrant the pension I receive is exactly the same as people waiting at the airport in the late ’60′s calling Marine arriving home baby killers. You should be ashamed you even thought about writing your previous post. You should never question the patriotism or the right to a pension we’ve earned. Frankly you should be thankful that my contemporaries and myself served so you could sit back and have a beverage of choice while complaining about the cost of those pensions.
Russ, First I wish to apologize for any misunderstanding my post may have caused. Your reaction is what I was afraid of and I admit I worded it poorly. I was in no way questioning anyone’s patriotism or attempting to imply your or anyone else’s service wasn’t deserving of the benefits you receive. In fact, I was intending to take it further but unintentionally sent the post as I edited it as I headed to the hospital to see my WWII veteran father. Who, by the way, we are grateful has the VA to lean on during his ill health.
What I was trying to get at was those who are not considered active duty but may have been in the employ of the different branches of the service. Perhaps I’m wrong or don’t understand it, but are there not employees of the armed services who are not considered active duty? Maybe they’re all considered civilian employees? In addition, I intended to include other government employees as well as the Post Office employes, etc. For instance, one who worked at say, the Fish and Wildlife Service or something like that. I am asking for information on what government employees receive pensions and how much that costs. I just never see anything about these types of figures. Most other professions require an employee to reach a certain age to retire but government jobs usually don’t, instead a certain number of years.
For the record, and even though I was not of age, I hated the treatment the Vietnam Veterans received upon their return. When my father returned from his Honor Flight they were the first group to greet them and that actually choked me up to see those who were so mistreated themselves honoring others.
Again. I apologize for any unintentional discredit you may have taken. It certainly wasn’t my intent.
I can tell you this. I spent 10 years in the military prior to being medically discharged in 1989. I worked for the postal service from 1992 until 2005. I can assure you that mine another pensions are not adding up to the amount of pensions the governor receives. You know the one he used to write off his taxes so he ended up paying $54 this year in taxes. I will not get rich, nor will I be able to live comfortably on the military pension. Nor will about 60% of the rest of our military members who retired. If you retire after 20 years, you’ll only receive 75% of the maximum salary. I you are enlisted, that makes a nice supplement. But by no means is it the amount the governor, or members of congress get after 1 term. You want to know where the waste is on pensions. Look towards the politicians, they’re the one voting on their own retirement. Do you get to do that? They’re also the ones deciding what benefits members of the military get upon retirement. Seems to me it should be the other way around.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the congress determine not only their own benefits but also those of the POTUS? Is the General Assemby the body determining the Iowa governor and lt governors salary’s and benefits? That should make it clear that the gov or president don’t decide except by signing the legislation passed by congress. If those of you object to the gov. benefits, want to change it. Get yourself elected to either the senate or the house and make it happen. Then the rest who object on the basis that the gov makes more money each year than you or one of your friends does, get your act together and run for the office you envy.