>
From Iraq To Venezuela: Different Invasions Using The Same Playbook
Henna healing: Ancient dye shows promise in reversing liver damage
Mouse-replacing minimalistic ring offers full desktop control
Chipotle Shares Plunge Most Since 2012 On Alarming "Consumer Slowdown" Materializing
Graphene Dream Becomes a Reality as Miracle Material Enters Production for Better Chips, Batteries
Virtual Fencing May Allow Thousands More Cattle to Be Ranched on Land Rather Than in Barns
Prominent Personalities Sign Letter Seeking Ban On 'Development Of Superintelligence'
Why 'Mirror Life' Is Causing Some Genetic Scientists To Freak Out
Retina e-paper promises screens 'visually indistinguishable from reality'
Scientists baffled as interstellar visitor appears to reverse thrust before vanishing behind the sun
Future of Satellite of Direct to Cellphone
Amazon goes nuclear with new modular reactor plant
China Is Making 800-Mile EV Batteries. Here's Why America Can't Have Them

On the other hand, that 'universal rule' also necessarily stipulates that taxpayers can be absolutely steamrolled by whatever tax hikes are necessary to fulfill the bloated pension benefits that unions promise themselves.
Alas, that one 'universal rule' may finally be at risk as the California Supreme Court is currently considering a case which could determine whether taxpayers have an unlimited obligation to simply fork over whatever pension benefits are demanded of them or whether there is some "reasonableness" test that must be applied. Here's more from VC Star:
At issue is the "California Rule," which dates to court rulings beginning in 1947. It says workers enter a contract with their employer on their first day of work, entitling them to retirement benefits that can never be diminished unless replaced with similar benefits.
It's widely accepted that retirement benefits linked to work already performed cannot be touched. But the California Rule is controversial because it prohibits even prospective changes for work the employee has not yet done.