Mike Bell to set new record?

Tagged:  

I see that good old Mike Bell is running for County Commissioner.. I believe that if elected he will be eligible for another pension payout, his fourth I believe, making him a quadruple
dipper. Does anyone know if this is a new record?

No votes yet

No new record yet. Somebody suggest another Public funded job for this fine man.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

taxpayer, I have no problem with so-called "double dipping" by people who work more than one job and get a pension for that work. If the voters believed that Mike Bell could do a better job as a County Commissioner than has Pete Gherkin, then they should have elected him! Don't let the pension possibility get in the way.
Here's why. Let's say Bell would have been elected. Would Bell have received a higher salary than Gherkin? No! Would the contribution to the pension system to Bell's retirement fund be higher than that for Gherkin? No! What if a totally new person had been elected? Would the taxpayers have had less of their tax money going to the salary of that new person and/or less money going to the pension fund for that new person than for either Bell or Gherkin? No!
But, what do I lose as a taxpayer if I chose to not support anyone who would get a second, or, heaven forbid, a third pension if that person were to be elected to office? I might lose the opportunity to have a really good person in that elected position.
Let me show a real life example. When Dwight Eisenhower ran for POTUS, he was already receiving a substantial government pension as a retired general. If enough people had analyzed the situation and decided to not vote for Ike because he would then qualify for a second government pension, Ike would have never been elected POTUS. By most accounts, Ike's 8 years as POTUS were so good that, if he had been allowed to run for a third term, he would have been re-elected easily. So, he must have done a fairly good to excellent job.
Limiting people we could elect because we just don't want someone to collect more than one pension, saves the taxpayers zero tax dollars, and might cost us all a good to excellent public servant. I see no reason to vote either for or against someone because of the effect their election will have on their pension(s). I just want the best person possible elected. As voters, as taxpayers, as citizens; that is what we deserve.

Dale, that is your opinion, fine, not mine. This whole double dipping or in some cases triple
dipping or more is about opportunity. Example. We had that police chief a few weeks ago who took his retirement (pension) then went right back in the job he held. I believe he is working as a police chief in Florida now. I don't blame him, I blame the stupid people who set up the rules of the game. Some of these dippers are making great coin on the taxppayers wallet. By opportunity, I mean if your going to retire, retire. Let the younger people
with families to raise move up the ladder and better themselves. That is the way its supposed to work. The old argument that individuals taking public jobs at lesser money than in the private sector, should get more fringe benefits or are sacrificing something is bullshit. The real reason they went public was because they couldn't/wouldn't make it in the private sector. Some of these dippers making six figures in pension payouts and still working in their late 60's need to go away and let younger people have some opportunity.
Just my 2 cents.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

should give way for the younger. All I'm saying is that, as a taxpayer and a voter, it does not cost me any more to hire someone (vote for them, or for the person who appoints them) who already has a pension, than it does to hire someone else. And, if that pensioner is uniquely qualified to do a job, not just sitting around collecting a paycheck (s)he is not earning, why should I as a voter not have the choice to vote for that person, or the person who would appoint her/him to the job?
I do not live in Toledo, so, I never voted for Mike Bell, win or lose. I did not vote for him for County Commissioner because I did not like the imperial style of leadership he exhibited when he was Toledo's Mayor. However, I can understand why it is important to judge Mike Bell on his record of public service rather than which number of pension will this election qualify him to receive? Should we not vote for Pete Gerken [I corrected the spelling of his name here...sorry.] either, since he. presumably, already qualifies for a pension from Jeep and/or the UAW? And, precisely which younger person would be denied a job if Mike Bell had been elected? Gerken? Mike Bell was born in 1955. Pete was born in 1952. And, do the voters really want to give this important position to a younger, less experienced person? If so, I guess neither Mike nor Pete should be qualified to run! Is that a rational conclusion? Not to me.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.