LTE in OC Register
I had the following letter published in today's OC Register (7th down):
Your editorial, "Retiree health debt can't be ignored" [Feb 26], rightly notes the problem with changing contractual benefits after the fact. But some consideration should be given to how that supposed "contract" was entered into. Government employees made an "agreement" with minors or people not yet born, to the effect that if these employees work until they are 50, the young workers would pay them benefits for the rest of their lives.
The relevant question is: "Doesn't a valid contract need informed consent from both parties?"