You are not logged in. Please login or register.
We welcome your membership, questions and responses on our website and forum
I think Artur Davis said it best in his comments to Save Alabama PACT on Wednesday. The State can pay on the front end (by doing the right thing and honoring all the contracts ) or the State can pay on the back end (through a court suit - and the cost will be even higher - and the lawyers will probably come out the biggest winners). The question is not "should" we honor all the contracts - but rather "when" we honor all the contracts.
I was pleased to see the recognition our group is getting after Wednesday's meeting in Montgomery!! Thanks to our leaders we are getting the word out.
However, after hearing and reading the news reports I think we all need to make a concerted effort use the word "Contract Holders" anytime we're asked about Pact. As grateful as I am for the covereage we have received, it does not help our cause when the reports repeatedly refer to the loss of OUR "investments." We DID NOT invest... we bought a contract. This is something we need to politely and pointedly bring home in any letters to the editor, legislature, etc.!
Guranteed or not they are still contracts!!!!
That's an excellent point BamaPactMom.
There's a small but vocal minority out there that believe we "took our chances like anybody else" with these contracts ("contract" being the state's word choice, by the way). Some posts I've read here would suggest we should be treated as if we bought lottery tickets to fund our kids' college education.
We need to point out that the average contract holders spent tens of thousands of dollars per child, making a significant sacrifice, forgoing vacations, new cars, a boat, maybe a down payment on a lake house - in the spirit of doing the "right thing" for our kids and grandkids. We've been model citizens who did what the State advocated.
Perhaps they will realize we're not asking for something for nothing. We simply want the State to make good on its obligation, as stated in the program marketing materials. These are contracts, not investments.
That's why I also believe we need to reiterate the alternative to inaction by the legislature and governor is litigation - named, class action litigation. We also need to avoid advocating for any particular solution, but insist the legislature and executive do its job in solving the problem they've created.
We should be careful not to get drawn in to the legislature's or treasurer's hand-wringing - they ran for office, they sought these positions, they need to start acting like leaders.
Last edited by Jeff and Alice (08-22-2009 6:47:12 am)
Well stated of Artur Davis' comments, Kitty, and exactly as it is....it is definitely a pay now or really pay later...I still have faith backed by common sense to keep up the fight, that the legislature will do the right thing in the next legislative session.
Posts [ 51 to 54 of 54 ]