In November of 2007, I boarded a Cadillac Escalade to attend the annual gala of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not until I arrived at my destination did I realize that the driver had closed the door on my Armani coat. I was able to have it successfully dry-cleaned, but that was a close one.

Why don't they just fire him?  

I'm betting he resigns before the six months is over.  Since he's not getting paid during the suspension not sure what he gets out of hanging around.  Other than the fact that no other network or new thing organization will touch him with a 10 foot pole for the next few months.   Seems impossible that he would just get his chair back after six months since they will be trying out new talent in that spot.

Do you know how many people get shot sand killed each day and you just happen to pick this story because you are concerned.  "War of rhetoric", that did not come from your head.

From your faux 'what is net neutrality' in the AM, to declaring it a 300 page government behemoth overreach by noon.  Same with pensions, "what do we do" and you already made up your mind.  I think you are faking concern so you can plant right wing propaganda.

You drop these slanted stories like 'hate crime or maniac', then never really address the replies.   At some point you will say something like, 'It's hard to tell, but clearly the guy doesn't hate Muslims', never addressing the actual replies.  

Your 'bad pension' bit yesterday is a classic example, you just refuse to acknowledge any argument made and blather on about a special court to screw seniors out of their pensions.

4 trillion, come on, can you break it down per year, and maybe compare it to the past and industry pensions before you imply that the number is outrageous and that their pensions were bad decisions.  And this is for how many jurisdictions ?  Lumping everything into one, then acting like everything in that one is bad is disingenuous at best.

First let's start with your pension before we do anything rash, and those funds you have planned your life and retirement around.  Lets cut them, then get back to you and figure out if they were bad ideas to begin with, or if you think the contracts entered upon employment should be honored.

It's getting so old the way you present something as if you are concerned and open to ideas, but then write in away that that slants your predetermined belief.  It's not a given that these were bad ideas, start proving some of the claims you keep making.

Slado: "The big issue for me is how do you decide between breaking a promise or putting the taxpayers on the hook for the consequences of those bad promises."

Fully funding the state's public employees pension system is a contractual obligation, which is incurred whenever the governor negotiates and signs a negotiated contract with those public employees on behalf of the citizens he or she was elected to represent, and the state legislature further approves that contract by providing for the funding its terms in the state budget.

Therefore, it's clearly not a question of whether or not taxpayers will be on the hook for the pension deficits because legally, they're already on the hook. There is numerous federal case law on the books which underscores that a contractually defined benefit already accrued -- that is, has already been earned -- cannot be retroactively rescinded at the sole discretion of the obligated party. You can only redefine such benefits prospectively.

People need to realize that public employees have already fulfilled their obligations per terms of their present and past contracts with state and local governments, Thus, the actual question is whether or not taxpayers / government can or will default on such previously incurred obligations, which has huge potential consequences regarding not only those public employee contracts, but also other such public obligations as government bond issues, and government contracts with private providers for public services.

The present discussion amongst conservatives per the issue of public employees pension funds has been entirely too glib from my perspective, in large part because it is based upon the entirely false premise -- as you repeated above -- that our obligations are merely some sort of vague promise which can be broken at whim, if only we had a leader with some cojones who would dare to do so.

One actually needs to really and fully consider what it might mean if our government's word can no be regarded in good faith, particularly as it pertains to its debt obligations. That would have potentially catastrophic reverberations not only in our own economy, but throughout the entire world as well.

Because they are guaranteed, taxpayers are on the hook regardless of how well government and the employees contribute or how well the market performs.

Evidently the authors have never heard of just saying "No."

Plus they kinda ignore private defined pensions:

In contrast, private sector workers generally save for retirement with 401-k style retirement accounts based on what they and their employer contribute and market returns. In other words, private sector employees are responsible for their own retirement savings.

There is a funded agency that protects a certain percent of private funds.

And there is also language about troops.
How they're going to have troops in place without putting their "boots on the ground" is the stuff of fantasy.

Add to this that Obama is going to further delay withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We knew, or could have known, all this about Obama going in.

How so many went for his "change" mantra, and could even tout him as a "rock star" (just what we need..) is a subject worthy of deep thought in my opinion.

If we can understand how so many fell for the p.r. blitz surrounding his candidacy, maybe we will have a chance to not make the same mistake again.

Here is a transcript of that speech link

From his speech
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

.....What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war......

.....That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...... "